MIL-OSI USA: Warner, 28 Senators Call on Administration to Conduct Independent, U.S.-Led Investigation into Death of American Citizen in West Bank

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) joined Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and 27 of their Senate Democratic colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Attorney General Pam Bondi calling on the Administration to conduct an independent investigation into the death of Saifullah Kamel Musallet, an American citizen recently killed near the West Bank town of Sinjil. The Senators point to the repeated lack of accountability in the deaths of other American citizens killed in the West Bank since January 2022, including Shireen Abu Akleh, Omar Assad, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar, Mohammad Ahmed Mohammad Khdour, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, and Amer Mohammad Saada Rabee. Given that, the Senators also ask for an update on the status of any investigations into the killings of these six other Americans.
The Senators wrote, “We write with grave concern regarding the brutal killing of a Palestinian-American, Saifullah Kamel Musallet, near the West Bank town of Sinjil, on July 11, 2025. The U.S. government must conduct a credible and independent investigation into his death and hold all perpetrators accountable. Protecting and supporting U.S. citizens abroad is one of the foremost responsibilities of the U.S. government. The United States Government has failed to secure accountability for the killing of respected Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, or any of the other five American citizens – Omar Assad, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar, Mohammad Ahmed Mohammad Khdour, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, and Amer Mohammad Saada Rabee – killed in the West Bank since January 2022. Following the Trump Administration’s sudden revocation of all U.S. sanctions against extremist settlers in the West Bank, the first five months of 2025 have seen the highest rate of settler attacks in years and the killing of another American. We urge you to pursue a different approach.”
“Saifullah Kamal Musallet is the seventh American citizen killed in the West Bank since January 2022 — and the fifth in just the last nineteen months. The killings of these Americans in the West Bank have been met by a lack of accountability from the Netanyahu government and an inability to secure justice by the U.S. government. These failures have contributed to an unacceptable culture of impunity when it comes to incidents where civilians have been killed in the West Bank, including Americans,” they continued.
The Senators noted, “The Netanyahu government has failed to hold anyone accountable for any of these seven killings of Americans and the United States government has failed in its responsibility to protect American citizens overseas and demand justice for their deaths.”
“It is long past time for the U.S. government to demand accountability in these killings of Americans. To that end, we urge you to immediately launch an independent investigation into the brutal killing of Saifullah Kamel Musallet, including the circumstances that blocked ambulances from reaching him. We also ask that you provide us with an update on the status of any investigations into the killings of the six other Americans who have been killed since January 2022, and provide us with a briefing on actions you are taking to ensure accountability for their deaths and to prevent future killings of Americans in the West Bank,” the Senators closed.
In addition to Sen. Warner, the letter was signed by Senators Van Hollen, Murray, Kaine, Durbin, Reed, Shaheen, Schatz, Merkley, Sanders, Warren, Cantwell, Welch, Smith, Baldwin, Markey, Warnock, Lujan, Ossoff, Kim, Heinrich, Duckworth, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Hirono, Booker, Alsobrooks, Blunt Rochester, and Murphy.
The full text of the letter is available here and below.
Dear Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Bondi,
We write with grave concern regarding the brutal killing of a Palestinian-American, Saifullah Kamel Musallet, near the West Bank town of Sinjil, on July 11, 2025. The U.S. government must conduct a credible and independent investigation into his death and hold all perpetrators accountable. Protecting and supporting U.S. citizens abroad is one of the foremost responsibilities of the U.S. government. The United States Government has failed to secure accountability for the killing of respected Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, or any of the other five American citizens – Omar Assad, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar, Mohammad Ahmed Mohammad Khdour, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, and Amer Mohammad Saada Rabee – killed in the West Bank since January 2022. Following the Trump Administration’s sudden revocation of all U.S. sanctions against extremist settlers in the West Bank, the first five months of 2025 have seen the highest rate of settler attacks in years and the killing of another American. We urge you to pursue a different approach.
Saifullah Kamal Musallet is the seventh American citizen killed in the West Bank since January 2022 — and the fifth in just the last nineteen months. The killings of these Americans in the West Bank have been met by a lack of accountability from the Netanyahu government and an inability to secure justice by the U.S. government. These failures have contributed to an unacceptable culture of impunity when it comes to incidents where civilians have been killed in the West Bank, including Americans.
Saifullah Kamel Musallet, a 20-year-old U.S. citizen from Florida, was visiting family in the West Bank when he was beaten to death by extremist Israeli settlers during a settler attack on the town of Sinjil. Reports indicate that ambulances could not reach the injured for more than two hours, with eyewitness accounts stating that settlers and Israeli forces impeded ambulance access. In April of this year, a 14-year-old boy from New Jersey, Amer Mohammad Saada Rabee, was also killed in the West Bank. Amer was reportedly shot at the entrance to Turmus Ayya by Israeli security forces. Reports suggest that Amer was shot a total of 11 times and two other Americans were also shot in the incident.
Last year, three other U.S. citizens were killed in the West Bank, including two teenagers. Tawfic Abdel Jabbar and Mohammad Ahmed Mohammad Khdour were both 17-year-old U.S. citizens visiting their families in the West Bank when they were shot and killed in separate incidents. In both cases they were shot in the head while they were traveling in vehicles. The third U.S. citizen killed in the West Bank last year was Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, a 26-year-old American citizen raised in Seattle who, according to reports, was shot in the head by an Israeli soldier from a distance of 200 meters.
The Netanyahu government has failed to hold anyone accountable for any of these seven killings of Americans and the United States government has failed in its responsibility to protect American citizens overseas and demand justice for their deaths.
It is long past time for the U.S. government to demand accountability in these killings of Americans. To that end, we urge you to immediately launch an independent investigation into the brutal killing of Saifullah Kamel Musallet, including the circumstances that blocked ambulances from reaching him. We also ask that you provide us with an update on the status of any investigations into the killings of the six other Americans who have been killed since January 2022, and provide us with a briefing on actions you are taking to ensure accountability for their deaths and to prevent future killings of Americans in the West Bank.
We respectfully ask for a response within two weeks.
Sincerely,

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: July 24th, 2025 N.M. Delegation Demands Trump Release Illegally Withheld Funds for New Mexico Students and Teachers

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich

Lawmakers cite direct consequences to New Mexico as a result of Trump illegally withholding education funding

Delegation to Trump: “New Mexico’s educators and students have always done more with less. Diverting funds meant for our children is unconscionable and schools deserve better”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and U.S. Representatives Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), and Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) sent a letter to President Donald Trump demanding the immediate release of nearly $5.6 billion in federal education funding withheld from New Mexico’s students, educators, and schools.

After the N.M. Delegation sent the letter last Thursday, the Administration announced it would release $1.3 billion in funding for the Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. This key investment supports afterschool programs that strengthen literacy, STEM skills, mental health, and violence prevention. In 2021, almost 90 percent of students who participated in a 21^st Century Community Learning program saw better homework completion rates, increased classroom participation, and improved in-class behavior. While releasing this funding is critical to ensuring parents and students have access to after school and summer learning programs, the Administration must follow suit with the rest of the funding.

“We write to demand the immediate release of the nearly $7 billion in federal education funding your Administration is unlawfully withholding. Your actions jeopardize New Mexico’s students, educators, and schools, and directly violate the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, which grants Congress the power to control public funds,” the lawmakers begin.

“You personally signed these funds into law as part of the FY 2025 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act on March 15, 2025. Then, on June 30th, you informed state and local education agencies that you are withholding these critical funds indefinitely. Withholding these funds beyond the end of the fiscal year would violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Further, the law mandates that the president submit a formal message to Congress justifying any deferral of funds,” the lawmakers continue.

For New Mexico, the funding freeze is devastating. It impacts programs that provide after-school care, English language instruction, and adult literacy classes, to name a few. Without these funds, schools cannot pay for teacher training, afterschool programs, adult literacy classes, or support multilingual learners. These dollars are not luxuries; they are essential investments in our children’s futures.

New Mexico will lose $5.8 million in funding for English Language Acquisition programs that support multilingual learners. These programs help English learners attain English proficiency, achieve high levels of academic success, and strengthen family engagement. The funding also improves educator training and provides essential resources to support students both inside and outside the classroom. In a state where so many students come from diverse linguistic backgrounds, this funding is vital to helping students thrive and supporting their families.

Additionally, the funding freeze jeopardizes critical adult education programs in New Mexico, which stand to lose more than $4.7 million in support. These funds are essential for GED programs, English language proficiency classes, literacy and math instruction, and workplace readiness training. By providing adults with opportunities to join the workforce, continue their education, and improve their quality of life, these programs strengthen entire communities. Just last year, Doña Ana Community College enrolled 1,431 students in its adult education program, and last month alone, nearly 100 students graduated with their GED. Cutting these investments threatens to set back thousands of New Mexicans who are working to build a better future for themselves and their families.

Citing these devastating consequences to the education and well-being of New Mexico students, the lawmakers conclude, “Your illegal freeze threatens to force staff layoffs, increase class sizes, and cut student services at schools across New Mexico. Every teacher let go, every tutor lost, and every child left behind is a direct consequence of this reckless decision. New Mexico’s educators and students have always done more with less. Diverting funds meant for our children in unconscionable and schools deserve better. We call on you to do your constitutional duty and release these funds without delay.”

Public officials across the country have raised strong concerns about the freeze in funding. Earlier this month, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez joined 21 states across the country to sue the Trump Administration for withholding the education funds.

Read the full text of the letter here and below:

President Trump:

We write to demand the immediate release of the nearly $7 billion in federal education funding your administration is unlawfully withholding. Your actions jeopardize New Mexico’s students, educators, and schools, and directly violate the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, which grants Congress the power to control public funds.

You personally signed these funds into law as part of the FY 2025 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act on March 15, 2025. Then, on June 30^th, you informed state and local education agencies that you are withholding these critical funds indefinitely. Withholding these funds beyond the end of the fiscal year would violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Further, the law mandates that the president submit a formal message to Congress justifying any deferral of funds.

For New Mexico, the funding freeze is devastating. It impacts programs that provide after-school care, English language instruction, and adult literacy classes, to name a few. Without these funds, schools cannot pay for teacher training, afterschool programs, adult literacy classes, or support multilingual learners. These dollars are not luxuries; they are essential investments in our children’s futures.

The Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers program supports afterschool programs that strengthen literacy, STEM skills, mental health, and violence prevention. New Mexico was set to receive more than $9 million this year and now more than 10,000 children in New Mexico risk losing access entirely. In 2021, almost 90 percent of students who participated in a 21^st Century Community Learning program saw better homework completion rates, increased classroom participation, and improved in-class behavior.

New Mexico will also lose $5.8 million in funding for English Language Acquisition programs that support multilingual learners. These programs help English learners attain English proficiency, achieve high levels of academic success, and strengthen family engagement. The funding also improves educator training and provides essential resources to support students both inside and outside the classroom. In a state where so many students come from diverse linguistic backgrounds, this funding is vital to helping students thrive and supporting their families.

Additionally, the funding freeze jeopardizes critical adult education programs in New Mexico, which stand to lose more than $4.7 million in support. These funds are essential for GED programs, English language proficiency classes, literacy and math instruction, and workplace readiness training. By providing adults with opportunities to join the workforce, continue their education, and improve their quality of life, these programs strengthen entire communities. Just last year, Doña Ana Community College enrolled 1,431 students in its adult education program, and last month alone, nearly 100 students graduated with their GED. Cutting these investments threatens to set back thousands of New Mexicans who are working to build a better future for themselves and their families.

Your illegal freeze threatens to force staff layoffs, increase class sizes, and cut student services at schools across New Mexico. Every teacher let go, every tutor lost, and every child left behind is a direct consequence of this reckless decision. New Mexico’s educators and students have always done more with less. Diverting funds meant for our children in unconscionable and schools deserve better.

We call on you to do your constitutional duty and release these funds without delay.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI United Kingdom: expert reaction to systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term air pollution exposure and dementia

Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

July 24, 2025

A systematic review and meta analysis published in Lancet Planetary Health looks at long-term air pollution exposure and dementia incidence.

Dr Mark Dallas, Associate Professor in Cellular Neuroscience, University of Reading, said:

“While air pollution joined dementia’s 14 modifiable risk factors in 2024, the specific culprits remain unclear. This new research examined existing data and identified three main culprits: tiny particles from car exhaust, nitrogen dioxide from vehicles and power plants, and black carbon from diesel engines. These findings strengthen the evidence that we can protect brain health through cleaner policies targeting diesel pollution and better city planning. However, we still need to understand exactly how these pollutants damage the brain and increase the diversity in dementia research participants. This will help us learn more about how air pollution affects different types of dementia and whether some communities face higher risks than others.”

Dr Tom Russ, Reader in Old Age Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, said:

“This high quality article summarises the evidence in this rapidly-expanding area up to October 2023. This article improves on many previous reviews but is subject to similar limitations because of the way this research is often conducted; this reflects the quality of the studies it summarises rather than any shortcomings of this specific article. The review includes articles which examine the association of exposure to air pollution for at least one year (described as ‘long-term’ exposure) with the emergence of dementia diagnosed by a doctor. It includes more studies than any previous article and because of the large number of studies included, the authors can be more accurate in their estimate of the size of the effect of dementia – for instance, their data suggest that the risk of dementia resulting from exposure to air pollution would be 9% lower in Edinburgh compared to London.

“It is helpful to see the effects of different pollutants examined – though the authors acknowledges that these pollutants may, in fact, interact with each other in having their harmful effects. This speaks to an area this article cannot deal with – if exposure to air pollution does indeed increase the risk of someone developing dementia, what is the mechanism by which this happens? This question has not yet been addressed – in contrast to air pollution and the cardiovascular system where we have a clear mechanistic understanding of the effects of air pollution exposure on the body through experiments where people are exposed to controlled levels of air pollution. We need a similar body of research focused on the brain.

“The authors try to examine air pollution in relation to different subtypes of dementia – an important area – but because this is often poorly recorded in medical records, they were not able to really tackle this. Most of the time, dementia is simply recorded as ‘dementia’ rather than the specific diagnosis (e.g., Alzheimer dementia, vascular dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies). A further complication is that around half of people with dementia never receive a diagnosis and so don’t appear in medical records.

“One limitation of all the studies included in the review is that they estimate the amount of air pollution exposure based on someone’s home address. This is not the most accurate measure of air pollution exposure but I am not aware of any studies which have done this any other way, though a better approach is sorely needed.

“Finally, since we know that many conditions which result in dementia have their origins decades before the emergence of symptoms, studies really need to look at truly long-term air pollution exposure – much longer than one year. Researching this is challenging because few long-term studies have people’s home addresses from their whole lives and measurement or modelling of air pollution levels is rare before the 1990s.

“This article answers the question of whether air pollution exposure is associated with dementia better than previous work, but we still need better research to clarify how and why air pollution might be bad for the brain. Dementia remains a public health priority but air pollution is just one of several important risk factors and stopping smoking, controlling diabetes, controlling blood pressure and cholesterol in mid-life (amongst other things) are crucial for individuals who want to reduce their own risk of dementia, as well as minimising exposure to air pollution.”

Dr Ian Mudway, Associate Professor of Environmental Toxicology and Visiting Professor for Environmental Health, Gresham College, Imperial College London, said:

“This aligns very closely with previous attempts to examine the association between air pollution and dementia. I worked on this back in 2019, and at that time, given the available evidence, we concluded it was too premature to perform a meta-analysis. There were simply too many inconsistencies between studies, particularly concerning exposure assessment.

“While I believe the evidence base has improved since then, inherent challenges remain in linking long-term air pollution changes to dementia incidence due to the decades-long prodromal period of the disease. It raises the crucial question: “How far back must we look to capture the relevant long-term exposures impacting brain health?”

“Additionally, as the authors acknowledge, distinguishing between vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease purely from medical records remains quite difficult, despite their efforts.

“The robust associations observed for NO2, black carbon/PM2.5 absorbance, and PM2.5 itself suggest that the effect is related to both local-scale traffic emissions and more regional particulate matter sources. Overall, this paper strongly supports the contention outlined in the Lancet Commission’s dementia reviews that air pollution is a significant and modifiable risk factor for dementia, and addressing it would substantially improve brain health.”

Prof Roy Harrison FRS, Professor of Environmental Health, University of Birmingham, said:

“This combined analysis of 51 previously conducted independent studies gives a clear signal that the risk of developing dementia is strongly influenced by air pollution exposure. This finding is consistent with other research showing associations between a number of measures of brain function and air pollution, and is particularly important given the devastating impacts of dementia both upon individuals and their families, and society as a whole. It adds to our ever-increasing knowledge of the many diverse harmful effects of air pollution upon health and strengthens the case for firm action to further improve air quality.

Dr Samuel Cai, Lecturer in Environmental Epidemiology, University of Leicester, said:

“The press release is accurate, although it could also be mentioned that studies included in this meta-analysis are quite heterogeneous.

“This is a comprehensive and timely review, including latest primary studies published over the last few years. The conclusion was generally backed by the data presented.

“Air pollution was only recently identified as a new risk factor for dementia in a Lancet-commissioned research. At the time, evidence for the harmful effects of PM2.5 on dementia seems to be more certain, but evidence for other pollutants is less conclusive. This review has significantly strengthened the current knowledge base, reporting that PM2.5, NO2 and soot are all adversely linked to dementia development, based on some of most recent publications.

“This is a systematic review and meta-analysis, and therefore consideration of confounders are usually not applicable in this type of articles. There are two more limitations which may worth further investigation. First, in the studies included in this review, did the effects of air pollution on dementia incidence have been adjusted for other environmental exposures such as greenspace and traffic noise? These two exposures may interact with air pollution in a complex way, and therefore may affect the risk posed by air pollution leading to dementia onset?

“Second, it is not very clear, at which life stage that air pollution exposure is relatively more important in triggering dementia? There is some evidence that late-life air pollution exposures seem to be more relevant to dementia incidence, as compared to mid-life or early-life. I think the current evidence pool is still weak on this question, but certainly a direction warranting more research.

“The implications mentioned by the authors are correct. Air pollution needs to be formally recognised as a risk factor for dementia in clinical practices, and that societal-wide policy actions are needed to tackle air pollution, particularly that from traffic in UK cities and towns, to protect brain health as UK population is ageing.”

Prof Barbara Maher FRS, Professor of Environmental Magnetism, Lancaster University, said:

“This is another meticulous and large study (~30 million people over 4 continents), which reviews and analyses other painstaking studies, attesting to the damage being done to our brains by breathing in air pollution particles. While this study links outdoor PM2.5 (fine particles less than 2.5 micrometres diameter) with increased dementia incidence, this might represent just the tip of the iceberg. Air pollution contains huge numbers of ultrafine particles (

“It’s now 9 years since our discovery of huge numbers of traffic-derived, metal-rich nanoparticles inside the frontal cortex of human brains…anywhere between 900 million and 40 billion particles in a gramme of brain tissue. Similar particles have been found directly associated with the amyloid plaques typical of Alzheimer’s disease. And the likely health impacts of exposure to such small, toxic particles don’t end with the brain. They have now been found in human blood, heart, placenta, kidney, bone joints…the body has no effective defense against the ultrafine particle cocktails we generate outdoors, especially from traffic, and indoors, for example, in heating our homes using stoves.

“What’s more, of course, the nanoparticle ‘mix’ varies from place to place and city to city, so the full scale of the dementia/air pollution pandemic will only become more obvious when epidemiological studies take particle composition, as well as ultrafine size, into account.”

Dr Isolde Radford, Senior Policy Manager at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said:   
 
“Air pollution is not just an environmental issue – it’s a serious and growing threat to our brain health. If no one were exposed to air pollution, there would be three fewer cases of dementia for every 100 people who develop it now. This rigorous review adds to mounting evidence that exposure to air pollution – from traffic fumes to wood burners – increases the risk of developing dementia. 
 
“But poor air quality doesn’t affect all communities equally. As this analysis highlights, marginalised groups are often exposed to higher levels of pollution, yet remain underrepresented in research. Future studies must reflect the full diversity of society – because those most at risk could stand to benefit the most from action. 

“What’s still unclear is exactly how air pollution affects the brain. There are several biological pathways that could explain the link, and to prevent dementia in the future, we need to deepen our understanding of these mechanisms. 

“Air pollution is one of the major modifiable risk factors for dementia – but it’s not something individuals can solve alone. That’s where government leadership is vital. While the 10-Year Health Plan acknowledges the health harms of air pollution, far more needs to be done to tackle this invisible threat. Alzheimer’s Research UK is calling for a bold, cross-government approach to health prevention — one that brings together departments beyond health, including DEFRA, to take coordinated action on the drivers of dementia risk. 

“The UK is still working to meet the World Health Organization’s air pollution limits by 2040 – but that timeline simply isn’t good enough. We have the evidence and the means to reach these targets by 2030. Doing so could help prevent thousands more people from developing dementia. The Government must act now to set stronger, health-based air quality targets – ones that protect our brains as well as our lungs.”

‘Long-term air pollution exposure and incident dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis’ by Clare B Best Rogowski et al. was published in The Lancet Planetary Health at 23:30 UK time on Thursday 24^th July.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(25)00118-4

Declared interests

Dr Mark Dallas: Dr Dallas receives research funding from the Medical Research Council and Carbon Monoxide Research Trust.

Dr Tom Russ: I don’t have any conflicts as such but am active in research in this area.

Prof Roy Harrison: Roy Harrison is a member of the Defra Air Quality Expert Group and the DHSC Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. He has research funding from UKRI, Defra and the European Union Horizon Programme.

Dr Samuel Cai: I do not have any conflict of interest to declare.

Prof Barbara Maher: None to declare

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI Russia: Yuri Trutnev expressed condolences in connection with the plane crash in the Amur region

Translation. Region: Russian Federal

Source: Government of the Russian Federation – 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 expressed his condolences to the families of those killed in the An-24 passenger plane crash in the Amur Region.

The crash of a passenger plane in the Amur Region is a great tragedy. My deepest condolences to the relatives and friends of the victims. Courage and strength to all whose relatives were on board. A thorough investigation into the causes of the incident will be conducted. The families of the victims will receive the necessary assistance.

Y. Trutnev

Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

.

MIL OSI Russia News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI Russia: Marat Khusnullin: The new building for counselors in Artek is 70% ready

Translation. Region: Russian Federal

Source: Government of the Russian Federation – Government of the Russian Federation –

An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

Roofing work has been completed in the camp counselors’ accommodation building, which is being built on the territory of the Solnechny camp of the Artek International Children’s Center in Crimea. This was reported by Deputy Prime Minister Marat Khusnullin.

“The International Children’s Center “Artek” is a place where true friendship is born and strengthened, where children from all over the country and the world learn mutual understanding, trust and joint creativity. The construction of a modern building for the teaching staff of the camp “Solnechny” is another step towards creating high-quality conditions for those who inspire and guide the younger generation. The new building with an area of over 12 thousand square meters is designed for 400 people. It will provide comfortable conditions for the employees to live and relax: living rooms, coworking spaces, universal classrooms, recreation areas and all the necessary utility rooms. The roof has already been installed at the facility, the facade work and the installation of utility networks for the facility are nearing completion. The facility is over 70% complete. More than 130 specialists are working at the construction site,” said Marat Khusnullin.

In addition, work is actively underway to install internal engineering systems, and finish the rooms and corridors. Also, as part of the project, work is being carried out to install a new block-modular boiler house with a capacity of 18 MW.

“The camp counselor’s building is being built using modular technology. The modules were delivered to the construction site with finished living rooms and bathrooms. Currently, work on installing engineering protection against landslide processes is also nearing completion on the site, and landscaping work has begun. The construction of the building is planned to be completed by the end of 2025,” noted Karen Oganesyan, General Director of the Unified Customer Production and Consulting Company.

By the end of 2025, it is also planned to complete the construction of the Center for Innovative Educational Technologies, which is designed for 1.2 thousand students. In addition to classrooms, there will be art and rehearsal halls, an amphitheater, modern workshops, a universal hall for 700 seats and much more.

The construction and reconstruction of capital construction projects of the International Children’s Center “Artek” are carried out within the framework of the comprehensive state program “Construction”, supervised by the Ministry of Construction.

Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

.

MIL OSI Russia News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI Russia: Heads of SCO media discussed ways to further deepen exchanges and cooperation

Translation. Region: Russian Federal

Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

ZHENGZHOU, July 24 (Xinhua) — Fu Hua, director general of China’s Xinhua News Agency, held separate meetings with media executives attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Media and Think Tank Summit in Zhengzhou, capital of central China’s Henan Province, on Thursday.

Fu Hua welcomed media representatives and think tanks from SCO countries to come together to discuss ways to strengthen solidarity and cooperation and build a broad consensus on sustainable development within the SCO.

The Xinhua Director-General expressed the hope that all parties will jointly tell stories of friendship and cooperation for common development, common prosperity and common promotion of peace, bringing wisdom and strength to building a beautiful home for the SCO.

All parties agreed that the SCO Media and Think Tank Summit, held ahead of the organization’s summit in Tianjin, serves as a bridge for deepening cooperation and striving for common development.

Director General of the Union of News Agencies of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Mohammed Al Yami expressed his willingness to share stories about China with Arabic-speaking audiences and expressed hope for more fruitful results in cooperation with Xinhua on news exchange.

Director General of the Belarusian Telegraph Agency (BelTA) Irina Akulovich called China an important defender of the international order. She promised to deepen exchanges with Xinhua and open a new chapter in practical cooperation between the two agencies.

Director of the Kyrgyz National News Agency Kabar Mederbek Shermetaliev expressed hope to further strengthen personnel exchanges and mutual learning with Xinhua, thereby contributing to the establishment of closer cooperation between Kyrgyzstan and China within the SCO framework.

Director General of the Russian news agency TASS Andrei Kondrashov expressed TASS’s readiness to deepen and expand its strategic partnership with Xinhua, contributing to the development of Russian-Chinese relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction, entering a new era.

The SCO Media and Think Tank Summit, jointly organized by Xinhua, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Henan Provincial People’s Government under the leadership of the State Council Information Office, is being held in Zhengzhou from July 23 to 27. –0–

Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

.

MIL OSI Russia News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA News: H.R. 4 and H.R. 517 Signed into Law S. 1582

Source: US Whitehouse

On Thursday, July 24, 2025, the President signed into law:

H.R. 4, the “Rescissions Act of 2025,” which rescinds certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, in accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974;

H.R. 517, the “Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act,” which amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rules for postponing certain deadlines by reason of disaster; and

S. 1596, the “Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge Act,” which renames the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge located in the State of Texas as the “Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge”.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Secretary Chavez-DeRemer praises One Big Beautiful Bill Act during ‘America at Work’ stops in Georgia

Source: US Department of Labor

ATLANTA – U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer continued her America at Work listening tour this week in Atlanta, where she met with linemen at Georgia Power’s Klondike Training Center, spoke at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ 42nd Annual Conference, and toured a Coca-Cola bottling facility.

Throughout these visits, the Secretary emphasized the Trump Administration’s commitment to building a stronger American workforce and delivering results through the newly enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“At every stop on my ‘America at Work’ listening tour, I hear from hardworking men and women like the Coca-Cola bottlers in Atlanta who are grateful to finally have a President who puts American Workers First, including through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” said Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. “From no tax on tips or overtime to expanded Pell Grant access for trade and technical schools, this pro-growth legislation means more take-home pay and more opportunities for families to get ahead. President Trump and I are committed to the same goal: making sure every American worker can build a good life and achieve the American Dream.”

Georgia Power

On Tuesday, Secretary Chavez-DeRemer visited Geogia Power’s Klondike Training Center where she met with linemen who keep the lights on for millions of Americans every day. She observed training demonstrations and learned how Georgia Power’s Lineworker Entry Program equips workers with in-demand skills for good-paying jobs.

NALEO Conference

On Wednesday, the Secretary addressed NALEO’s annual conference, underscoring the Administration’s commitment to expanding economic opportunity for all Americans. She highlighted how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s pro-worker provisions – including expanded access to Pell Grants for two-year educational programs – will help connect more workers with the skills training they need to fill mortgage-paying jobs. She also updated attendees on her America at Work tour, noting how listening directly to workers is shaping policies that will strengthen the workforce and the economy.

Coca-Cola Bottling Facility

Secretary Chavez-DeRemer also toured a Coca-Cola bottling facility in Atlanta, where she saw how advanced technologies like semi-automated picking systems are boosting production and efficiency. The Secretary emphasized the importance of upskilling America’s workforce in the age of artificial intelligence and automation to ensure they are prepared to fill the jobs of the future. She also visited the company’s Commercial Driver’s License training area and fleet mechanic shop, hearing firsthand how investments at the federal, state, and local level help workers secure good-paying jobs that support their families and communities.

The America at Work listening tour will continue in the weeks ahead as Secretary Chavez-DeRemer travels the country to listen to workers, gather feedback, and take their voices back to Washington to inform pro-growth, pro-worker policies.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI: Meridian Corporation Reports Second Quarter 2025 Results and Announces a Quarterly Dividend of $0.125 per Common Share

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

MALVERN, Pa., July 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Meridian Corporation (Nasdaq: MRBK) today reported:

	Three Months Ended
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data) (Unaudited)	June 30, 2025		March 31, 2025		June 30, 2024
Income:
Net income	$	5,592	$	2,399	$	3,326
Diluted earnings per common share		0.49		0.21		0.30
Pre-provision net revenue (PPNR) ⁽¹⁾		11,090		8,357		7,072
(1) See Non-GAAP reconciliation in the Appendix

Net income for the quarter ended June 30, 2025 was $5.6 million, or $0.49 per diluted share, up $3.2 million, or 133%, from prior quarter.
Pre-provision net revenue¹ for the quarter was $11.1 million, an improvement of $4.0 million, or 57%. from Q2’2024.
Net interest margin was 3.54% for the second quarter of 2025, while loan yield improved to 7.24%, from prior quarter.
Return on average assets and return on average equity for the second quarter of 2025 were 0.90% and 12.68%, respectively.
Total assets at June 30, 2025 were $2.5 billion, compared to $2.5 billion at March 31, 2025 and $2.4 billion at June 30, 2024.
Commercial loans, excluding leases, increased $33.2 million, or 2% from prior quarter.
On July 24, 2025, the Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.125 per common share, payable August 18, 2025 to shareholders of record as of August 11, 2025.

Christopher J. Annas, Chairman and CEO commented:

“Meridian’s second quarter 2025 earnings of $5.6 million were substantially above first quarter 2025, benefiting from improving margin, SBA loan sales and mortgage seasonality. PPNR was up 33% over the same period, reflecting overall healthy growth in our business units and good expense control. Loan growth was 2.5% for the quarter but was negatively impacted by a large SBA loan sale and the planned paydowns in our lease group. We continue to forecast loan growth in the 8-10% range for the year. Management is intensely focused on reducing the nonperforming loans, historically high for us, but negotiations and lengthy court schedules will slow the process.

Meridian Wealth Partners continued its solid performance with pre-tax income of $604 thousand for the quarter. We have hired senior managers in this unit to further our growth, and capture a greater percentage of opportunities from our loan groups. The mortgage team is performing nicely but still facing a lack of homes for sale in our Philadelphia metro and Baltimore markets. It had a big turnaround from the first quarter, but volume might have been significantly higher if the inventory was sufficient.

Our principal Philadelphia metro market is healthy and vibrant, and we have not yet seen the impact of economic uncertainties. We are excited about our market penetration in all segments, and believe this will propel us to greater performance.”

Select Condensed Financial Information

	As of or for the three months ended (Unaudited)
	June 30, 2025			March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			September 30, 2024			June 30, 2024
	(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
Income:
Net income	$	5,592		$	2,399		$	5,600		$	4,743		$	3,326
Basic earnings per common share		0.50			0.21			0.50			0.43			0.30
Diluted earnings per common share		0.49			0.21			0.49			0.42			0.30
Net interest income		21,159			19,776			19,299			18,242			16,846

Balance Sheet:
Total assets	$	2,510,938		$	2,528,888		$	2,385,867		$	2,387,721		$	2,351,584
Loans, net of fees and costs		2,108,250			2,071,675			2,030,437			2,008,396			1,988,535
Total deposits		2,110,374			2,128,742			2,005,368			1,978,927			1,915,436
Non-interest bearing deposits		237,042			323,485			240,858			237,207			224,040
Stockholders’ equity		178,020			173,568			171,522			167,450			162,382

Balance Sheet Average Balances:
Total assets	$	2,491,627		$	2,420,571		$	2,434,270		$	2,373,261		$	2,319,295
Total interest earning assets		2,404,952			2,330,224			2,342,651			2,277,523			2,222,177
Loans, net of fees and costs		2,113,411			2,039,676			2,029,739			1,997,574			1,972,740
Total deposits		2,095,028			2,036,208			2,043,505			1,960,145			1,919,954
Non-interest bearing deposits		249,745			244,161			259,118			246,310			229,040
Stockholders’ equity		176,946			174,734			171,214			165,309			162,119

Performance Ratios (Annualized):
Return on average assets		0.90	%		0.40	%		0.92	%		0.80	%		0.58	%
Return on average equity		12.68	%		5.57	%		13.01	%		11.41	%		8.25	%

Income Statement – Second Quarter 2025 Compared to First Quarter 2025

Second quarter net income increased $3.2 million, or 133.1%, to $5.6 million as net interest income increased $1.4 million, the provision for credit losses decreased $1.4 million, and non-interest income increased $4.0 million. These improvements to net income were partially offset by a $2.6 million increase to non-interest expense over the prior quarter. Detailed explanations of the major categories of income and expense follow below.

Net Interest income

The rate/volume analysis table below analyzes dollar changes in the components of interest income and interest expense as they relate to the change in balances (volume) and the change in interest rates (rate) of tax-equivalent net interest income for the periods indicated and allocated by rate and volume. Changes in interest income and/or expense related to changes attributable to both volume and rate have been allocated proportionately based on the relationship of the absolute dollar amount of the change in each category.

	Three Months Ended
(dollars in thousands)	June 30, 2025		March 31, 2025		$ Change			% Change		Change due to rate			Change due to volume
Interest income:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	427	$	613	$	(186	)	(30.3	)%	$	15		$	(201	)
Investment securities – taxable		1,792		1,693		99		5.8	%		(10	)		109
Investment securities – tax exempt (1)		364		387		(23	)	(5.9	)%		(21	)		(2	)
Loans held for sale		495		333		162		48.6	%		(15	)		177
Loans held for investment (1)		38,204		36,218		1,986		5.5	%		320			1,666
Total loans		38,699		36,551		2,148		5.9	%		305			1,843
Total interest income	$	41,282	$	39,244	$	2,038		5.2	%	$	289		$	1,749
Interest expense:
Interest-bearing demand deposits	$	1,354	$	1,229	$	125		10.2	%	$	(51	)	$	176
Money market and savings deposits		8,097		7,808		289		3.7	%		65			224
Time deposits		7,850		7,831		19		0.2	%		(170	)		189
Total interest – bearing deposits		17,301		16,868		433		2.6	%		(156	)		589
Borrowings		1,672		1,469		203		13.8	%		10			193
Subordinated debentures		1,079		1,055		24		2.3	%		22			2
Total interest expense		20,052		19,392		660		3.4	%		(124	)		784
Net interest income differential	$	21,230	$	19,852	$	1,378		6.94	%	$	413		$	965
(1) Reflected on a tax-equivalent basis.

Interest income increased $2.0 million quarter-over-quarter on a tax equivalent basis, driven by increased average balances of interest earning assets and to a lesser degree by higher yields on those assets. Average interest earning assets increased by $74.7 million, and contributed $1.7 million to interest income, while the yield on earnings assets increased 6 basis points and contributed $289 thousand to interest income.

Average total loans, excluding residential loans for sale, increased $73.6 million. The largest drivers of this increase were commercial, commercial real estate, construction, and small business loans which on a combined basis increased $72.4 million on average, partially offset by a decrease in average leases of $9.4 million. Home equity, residential real estate, consumer and other loans held in portfolio increased on a combined basis $10.7 million on average.

Interest expense increased $660 thousand, quarter-over-quarter, due to higher volume of interest-bearing deposits and borrowings. Interest expense on total deposits increased $433 thousand and interest expense on borrowings increased $227 thousand. During the period, interest-bearing checking accounts and money market accounts increased $20.7 million and $18.3 million on average, respectively, while time deposits increased $14.2 million on average. Borrowings increased $14.5 million on average. On a rate basis, interest-bearing checking accounts and time deposits experienced a decrease in the cost, with the overall cost of deposits dropping 5 basis points.

Overall the net interest margin increased 8 basis points to 3.54% as the cost of funds declined and the yield on earning assets increased.

Provision for Credit Losses

The overall provision for credit losses for the second quarter decreased $1.4 million to $3.8 million, from $5.2 million in the first quarter. The lower provisioning reflects the drop in non-performing loans, a decrease in specific reserves required, as well as a lower level of loan growth quarter over quarter. Loan growth was impacted by the sale of SBA loans for the quarter, which exceeded the amount sold in the first quarter by $27.4 million.

Non-interest income

The following table presents the components of non-interest income for the periods indicated:

	Three Months Ended
(Dollars in thousands)	June 30, 2025			March 31, 2025			$ Change			% Change
Mortgage banking income	$	5,762		$	3,393		$	2,369		69.8	%
Wealth management income		1,492			1,535			(43	)	(2.8	)%
SBA loan income		1,988			748			1,240		165.8	%
Earnings on investment in life insurance		240			222			18		8.1	%
Net gain (loss) on sale of MSRs		467			(52	)		519		(998.1	)%
Net change in the fair value of derivative instruments		(102	)		149			(251	)	(168.5	)%
Net change in the fair value of loans held-for-sale		171			102			69		67.6	%
Net change in the fair value of loans held-for-investment		190			170			20		11.8	%
Net gain (loss) on hedging activity		16			21			(5	)	(23.8	)%
Other		1,064			1,036			28		2.7	%
Total non-interest income	$	11,288		$	7,324		$	3,964		54.1	%

Total non-interest income increased $4.0 million, or 54.1%, quarter-over-quarter largely due to a $2.4 million positive improvement in mortgage banking income, combined with a $1.2 million increase in SBA loan income from the sale of SBA loans, and a $467 thousand gain recognized on the sale of MSRs. Mortgage loan sales increased $63.5 million or 42.9% quarter-over-quarter driving higher gain on sale income in addition to an improvement in the overall margin, leading to the higher level of mortgage banking income.

SBA loan income increased $1.2 million as the volume of SBA loans sold was up $27.4 million to $39.5 million, for the quarter-ended June 30, 2025 compared to the quarter-ended March 31, 2025. The gross margin on SBA sales was 6.2% for the quarter, down from 8.7% for the previous quarter. The sale included seasoned loans from 2021 & 2022 for which the market premium was much lower.

Non-interest expense

The following table presents the components of non-interest expense for the periods indicated:

	Three Months Ended
(Dollars in thousands)	June 30, 2025		March 31, 2025		$ Change			% Change
Salaries and employee benefits	$	13,179	$	11,385	$	1,794		15.8	%
Occupancy and equipment		1,037		1,338		(301	)	(22.5	)%
Professional fees		1,164		763		401		52.6	%
Data processing and software		1,706		1,479		227		15.3	%
Advertising and promotion		1,277		779		498		63.9	%
Pennsylvania bank shares tax		269		269		—		—	%
Other		2,725		2,730		(5	)	(0.2	)%
Total non-interest expense	$	21,357	$	18,743	$	2,614		13.9	%

Overall salaries and benefits increased $1.8 million. Bank and wealth segments combined increased $1.4 million, while the mortgage segment increased $407 thousand. Bank and wealth segment salaries and employee benefits increased due to an increase of 12 full-time equivalent employees, as well as an increase in incentives and other benefits. Mortgage segment salaries, commissions, and employee benefits expense are impacted by volume and increased commensurate with the higher level of originations. Occupancy and equipment expense decreased $301 thousand due to a full quarter of savings realized from office lease terminations that occurred in the last few quarters. Professional fees increased $401 thousand over the prior period due to increases in legal, accounting, and other professional fees, while advertising and promotion expenses increased $498 thousand due to the timing of business development activities that typically increase this time of year, including special events.

Balance Sheet – June 30, 2025 Compared to March 31, 2025

Total assets decreased $18.0 million, or 0.7%, to $2.5 billion as of June 30, 2025 from $2.5 billion at March 31, 2025. Interest-earning cash and fed funds decreased $84.7 million, or 74.1%, to $29.6 million as of June 30, 2025 from March 31, 2025, as a temporary deposit at the end of the prior quarter of $103 million from a long standing customer, was eventually withdrawn after being on hand for several weeks.

Portfolio loans grew $36.2 million, or 1.7% quarter-over-quarter. This growth was generated from commercial & industrial loans which increased $32.0 million, or 8.6%, commercial mortgage loans which increased $10.3 million, or 1.2%, and construction loans which increased $7.3 million, or 2.6%. SBA loan balances decreased $16.4 million, or 10.2%, from March 31, 2025, due to the increase in sales of such loans in the second quarter as discussed above in the non-interest income section. Lease financings also decreased $9.0 million, or 13.5% from March 31, 2025, partially offsetting the above noted loan growth, but this decline was expected.

Total deposits decreased $18.4 million, or 0.9% quarter-over-quarter, led by a decline in non-interest bearing deposit of $86.4 million due to the impact of the $103 million temporary deposit discussed above, but this decline was largely offset by an increase of $68.1 million in interest-bearing deposits. Money market accounts and savings accounts increased a combined $8.7 million, while interest bearing demand deposits increased $12.8 million, and time deposits increased $46.6 million from largely wholesale efforts. Overall borrowings decreased $625 thousand, or 0.4% quarter-over-quarter.

Total stockholders’ equity increased by $4.5 million from March 31, 2025, to $178.0 million as of June 30, 2025. Changes to equity for the current quarter included net income of $5.6 million, less dividends paid of $1.4 million, offset by a decrease of $102 thousand in other comprehensive income. The Community Bank Leverage Ratio for the Bank was 9.32% at June 30, 2025.

Asset Quality Summary

There was a positive improvement in the level of non-performing loans in the second quarter as they decreased $1.7 million to $50.5 million at June 30, 2025 compared to $52.2 million at March 31, 2025. This decline in non-performing loans was largely the result of the repossession of a billboard asset from a commercial loan relationship and a commercial real estate property from a separate commercial loan relationship. These assets were reclassified into OREO and other repossessed assets on the balance sheet at June 30, 2025. The decline in non-performing loans was partially offset by additional SBA loans that became non-performing during the quarter. Included in non-performing loans are $19.4 million of SBA loans of which $10.0 million, or 52%, are guaranteed by the SBA. The SBA portfolio was subject to the Fed’s rapid rate increase and $13.8 million, or 71% of these non-performing loans originated in 2020-2021 when rates were lower by over 500 basis points. As a result of these changes in non-performing loans, the ratio of non-performing loans to total loans decreased 14 bps to 2.35% as of June 30, 2025, from 2.49% as of March 31, 2025.

Net charge-offs increased to $3.6 million, or 0.17% of total average loans for the quarter ended June 30, 2025, compared to net charge-offs of $2.8 million, or 0.14%, for the quarter ended March 31, 2025. Second quarter charge-offs consisted of $2.2 million in SBA loans, $972 thousand of small ticket equipment leases, and $583 thousand in commercial loans partly related to the repossession of loan collateral discussed above. Overall there were recoveries of $380 thousand, mainly related to leases.

The ratio of allowance for credit losses to total loans held for investment was 1.00% as of June 30, 2025, relatively flat from 1.01% as of March 31, 2025. The baseline quantitative and qualitative reserve factors increased in the second quarter ACL calculation, offset by the impact of a lower reserve need as specific reserves declined. As of June 30, 2025 there were specific reserves of $3.3 million against individually evaluated loans, a decrease of $1.7 million from $5.0 million in specific reserves as of March 31, 2025.

About Meridian Corporation

Meridian Bank, the wholly owned subsidiary of Meridian Corporation, is an innovative community bank serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. Through its 17 offices, including banking branches and mortgage locations, Meridian offers a full suite of financial products and services. Meridian specializes in business and industrial lending, retail and commercial real estate lending, electronic payments, and wealth management solutions through Meridian Wealth Partners. Meridian also offers a broad menu of high-yield depository products supported by robust online and mobile access. For additional information, visit our website at www.meridianbanker.com. Member FDIC.

“Safe Harbor” Statement

In addition to historical information, this press release may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include statements with respect to Meridian Corporation’s strategies, goals, beliefs, expectations, estimates, intentions, capital raising efforts, financial condition and results of operations, future performance and business. Statements preceded by, followed by, or that include the words “may,” “could,” “should,” “pro forma,” “looking forward,” “would,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” or similar expressions generally indicate a forward-looking statement. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that are subject to change based on various important factors (some of which, in whole or in part, are beyond Meridian Corporation’s control). Numerous competitive, economic, regulatory, legal and technological factors, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially include, without limitation, credit losses and the credit risk of our commercial and consumer loan products; changes in the level of charge-offs and changes in estimates of the adequacy of the allowance for credit losses, or ACL; cyber-security concerns; rapid technological developments and changes; increased competitive pressures; changes in spreads on interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities; changes in general economic conditions and conditions within the securities markets; escalating tariff and other trade policies and the resulting impacts on market volatility and global trade; unanticipated changes in our liquidity position; unanticipated changes in regulatory and governmental policies impacting interest rates and financial markets; legislation affecting the financial services industry as a whole, and Meridian Corporation, in particular; changes in accounting policies, practices or guidance; developments affecting the industry and the soundness of financial institutions and further disruption to the economy and U.S. banking system; among others, could cause Meridian Corporation’s financial performance to differ materially from the goals, plans, objectives, intentions and expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements. Meridian Corporation cautions that the foregoing factors are not exclusive, and neither such factors nor any such forward-looking statement takes into account the impact of any future events. All forward-looking statements and information set forth herein are based on management’s current beliefs and assumptions as of the date hereof and speak only as of the date they are made. For a more complete discussion of the assumptions, risks and uncertainties related to our business, you are encouraged to review Meridian Corporation’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and subsequently filed quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K that update or provide information in addition to the information included in the Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filings, if any. Meridian Corporation does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time by Meridian Corporation or by or on behalf of Meridian Bank.

MERIDIAN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
FINANCIAL RATIOS (Unaudited)
(Dollar amounts and shares in thousands, except per share amounts)

	Three Months Ended
	June 30, 2025			March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			September 30, 2024			June 30, 2024
Earnings and Per Share Data:
Net income	$	5,592		$	2,399		$	5,600		$	4,743		$	3,326
Basic earnings per common share	$	0.50		$	0.21		$	0.50		$	0.43		$	0.30
Diluted earnings per common share	$	0.49		$	0.21		$	0.49		$	0.42		$	0.30
Common shares outstanding		11,297			11,285			11,240			11,229			11,191

Performance Ratios:
Return on average assets ⁽²⁾		0.90	%		0.40	%		0.92	%		0.80	%		0.58	%
Return on average equity ⁽²⁾		12.68			5.57			13.01			11.41			8.25
Net interest margin (tax-equivalent) ⁽²⁾		3.54			3.46			3.29			3.20			3.06
Yield on earning assets (tax-equivalent) ⁽²⁾		6.89			6.83			6.81			7.06			6.98
Cost of funds ⁽²⁾		3.52			3.56			3.71			4.05			4.10
Efficiency ratio		65.82	%		69.16	%		65.72	%		70.67	%		72.89	%

Asset Quality Ratios:
Net charge-offs (recoveries) to average loans		0.17	%		0.14	%		0.34	%		0.11	%		0.20	%
Non-performing loans to total loans		2.35			2.49			2.19			2.20			1.84
Non-performing assets to total assets		2.14			2.07			1.90			1.97			1.68
Allowance for credit losses to:
Total loans and other finance receivables		0.99			1.01			0.91			1.09			1.09
Total loans and other finance receivables (excluding loans at fair value) ⁽¹⁾		1.00			1.01			0.91			1.10			1.10
Non-performing loans		41.26	%		39.90	%		40.86	%		48.66	%		57.66	%

Capital Ratios:
Book value per common share	$	15.76		$	15.38		$	15.26		$	14.91		$	14.51
Tangible book value per common share	$	15.44		$	15.06		$	14.93		$	14.58		$	14.17
Total equity/Total assets		7.09	%		6.86	%		7.19	%		7.01	%		6.91	%
Tangible common equity/Tangible assets – Corporation ⁽¹⁾		6.96			6.73			7.05			6.87			6.76
Tangible common equity/Tangible assets – Bank ⁽¹⁾		8.96			8.61			9.06			8.95			8.85
Tier 1 leverage ratio – Bank		9.32			9.30			9.21			9.32			9.33
Common tier 1 risk-based capital ratio – Bank		10.53			10.15			10.33			10.17			9.84
Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio – Bank		10.53			10.15			10.33			10.17			9.84
Total risk-based capital ratio – Bank		11.54	%		11.14	%		11.20	%		11.22	%		10.84	%
(1) See Non-GAAP reconciliation in the Appendix
(2) Annualized

MERIDIAN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (Unaudited)
(Dollar amounts and shares in thousands, except per share amounts)

	Three Months Ended									Six Months Ended
	June 30, 2025			March 31, 2025			June 30, 2024			June 30, 2025		June 30, 2024
Interest income:
Loans and other finance receivables, including fees	$	38,697		$	36,549		$	36,486		$	75,246	$	71,825
Securities – taxable		1,792			1,693			1,324			3,485		2,575
Securities – tax-exempt		295			313			324			608		649
Cash and cash equivalents		427			613			331			1,040		631
Total interest income		41,211			39,168			38,465			80,379		75,680
Interest expense:
Deposits		17,301			16,868			18,991			34,169		36,383
Borrowings and subordinated debentures		2,751			2,524			2,628			5,275		5,842
Total interest expense		20,052			19,392			21,619			39,444		42,225
Net interest income		21,159			19,776			16,846			40,935		33,455
Provision for credit losses		3,803			5,212			2,680			9,015		5,546
Net interest income after provision for credit losses		17,356			14,564			14,166			31,920		27,909
Non-interest income:
Mortgage banking income		5,762			3,393			5,420			9,155		9,054
Wealth management income		1,492			1,535			1,444			3,027		2,761
SBA loan income		1,988			748			785			2,736		1,771
Earnings on investment in life insurance		240			222			215			462		422
Net gain (loss) on sale of MSRs		467			(52	)		—			415		—
Net change in the fair value of derivative instruments		(102	)		149			203			47		278
Net change in the fair value of loans held-for-sale		171			102			(29	)		273		(31	)
Net change in the fair value of loans held-for-investment		190			170			(24	)		360		(199	)
Net gain (loss) on hedging activity		16			21			(63	)		37		(82	)
Other		1,064			1,036			1,293			2,100		3,254
Total non-interest income		11,288			7,324			9,244			18,612		17,228
Non-interest expense:
Salaries and employee benefits		13,179			11,385			11,437			24,564		22,010
Occupancy and equipment		1,037			1,338			1,230			2,375		2,463
Professional fees		1,164			763			1,029			1,927		2,527
Data processing and software		1,706			1,479			1,506			3,185		3,038
Advertising and promotion		1,277			779			989			2,056		1,737
Pennsylvania bank shares tax		269			269			274			538		548
Other		2,725			2,730			2,553			5,455		4,869
Total non-interest expense		21,357			18,743			19,018			40,100		37,192
Income before income taxes		7,287			3,145			4,392			10,432		7,945
Income tax expense		1,695			746			1,066			2,441		1,943
Net income	$	5,592		$	2,399		$	3,326		$	7,991	$	6,002

Basic earnings per common share	$	0.50		$	0.21		$	0.30		$	0.71	$	0.54
Diluted earnings per common share	$	0.49		$	0.21		$	0.30		$	0.70	$	0.54

Basic weighted average shares outstanding		11,228			11,205			11,096			11,215		11,092
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding		11,392			11,446			11,150			11,415		11,178

MERIDIAN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CONDITION (Unaudited)
(Dollar amounts and shares in thousands, except per share amounts)


	June 30, 2025			March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			September 30, 2024			June 30, 2024
Assets:
Cash and due from banks	$	20,604		$	16,976		$	5,598		$	12,542		$	8,457
Interest-bearing deposits at other banks		29,570			113,620			21,864			19,805			15,601
Federal funds sold		—			629			—			—			—
Cash and cash equivalents		50,174			131,225			27,462			32,347			24,058
Securities available-for-sale, at fair value		187,902			185,221			174,304			171,568			159,141
Securities held-to-maturity, at amortized cost		32,642			32,720			33,771			33,833			35,089
Equity investments		2,130			2,126			2,086			2,166			2,088
Mortgage loans held for sale, at fair value		44,078			28,047			32,413			46,602			54,278
Loans and other finance receivables, net of fees and costs		2,108,250			2,071,675			2,030,437			2,008,396			1,988,535
Allowance for credit losses		(20,851	)		(20,827	)		(18,438	)		(21,965	)		(21,703	)
Loans and other finance receivables, net of the allowance for credit losses		2,087,399			2,050,848			2,011,999			1,986,431			1,966,832
Restricted investment in bank stock		9,162			8,369			7,753			8,542			10,044
Bank premises and equipment, net		12,320			12,028			12,151			12,807			13,114
Bank owned life insurance		30,175			29,935			29,712			29,489			29,267
Accrued interest receivable		10,334			10,345			9,958			10,012			9,973
OREO and other repossessed assets		3,148			249			276			1,967			1,967
Deferred income taxes		5,314			5,136			4,669			3,537			3,950
Servicing assets		3,658			4,284			4,382			4,364			11,341
Servicing assets held for sale		—			—			—			6,609			—
Goodwill		899			899			899			899			899
Intangible assets		2,665			2,716			2,767			2,818			2,869
Other assets		28,938			24,740			31,265			33,730			26,674
Total assets	$	2,510,938		$	2,528,888		$	2,385,867		$	2,387,721		$	2,351,584

Liabilities:
Deposits:
Non-interest bearing	$	237,042		$	323,485		$	240,858		$	237,207		$	224,040
Interest bearing:
Interest checking		173,865			161,055			141,439			133,429			130,062
Money market and savings deposits		956,448			947,795			913,536			822,837			787,479
Time deposits		743,019			696,407			709,535			785,454			773,855
Total interest-bearing deposits		1,873,332			1,805,257			1,764,510			1,741,720			1,691,396
Total deposits		2,110,374			2,128,742			2,005,368			1,978,927			1,915,436
Borrowings		138,965			139,590			124,471			144,880			187,260
Subordinated debentures		49,792			49,761			49,743			49,928			49,897
Accrued interest payable		7,059			7,404			6,860			7,017			7,709
Other liabilities		26,728			29,823			27,903			39,519			28,900
Total liabilities		2,332,918			2,355,320			2,214,345			2,220,271			2,189,202

Stockholders’ equity:
Common stock		13,300			13,288			13,243			13,232			13,194
Surplus		82,184			82,026			81,545			81,002			80,639
Treasury stock		(26,079	)		(26,079	)		(26,079	)		(26,079	)		(26,079	)
Unearned common stock held by ESOP		(1,006	)		(1,006	)		(1,006	)		(1,204	)		(1,204	)
Retained earnings		117,132			112,952			111,961			107,765			104,420
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(7,511	)		(7,613	)		(8,142	)		(7,266	)		(8,588	)
Total stockholders’ equity		178,020			173,568			171,522			167,450			162,382
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	2,510,938		$	2,528,888		$	2,385,867		$	2,387,721		$	2,351,584

MERIDIAN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND SEGMENT INFORMATION (Unaudited)
(Dollar amounts and shares in thousands, except per share amounts)

	Three Months Ended
	June 30, 2025		March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		September 30, 2024		June 30, 2024
Interest income	$	41,211	$	39,168	$	40,028	$	40,319	$	38,465
Interest expense		20,052		19,392		20,729		22,077		21,619
Net interest income		21,159		19,776		19,299		18,242		16,846
Provision for credit losses		3,803		5,212		3,572		2,282		2,680
Non-interest income		11,288		7,324		13,279		10,831		9,244
Non-interest expense		21,357		18,743		21,411		20,546		19,018
Income before income tax expense		7,287		3,145		7,595		6,245		4,392
Income tax expense		1,695		746		1,995		1,502		1,066
Net Income	$	5,592	$	2,399	$	5,600	$	4,743	$	3,326

Basic weighted average shares outstanding		11,228		11,205		11,158		11,110		11,096
Basic earnings per common share	$	0.50	$	0.21	$	0.50	$	0.43	$	0.30

Diluted weighted average shares outstanding		11,392		11,446		11,375		11,234		11,150
Diluted earnings per common share	$	0.49	$	0.21	$	0.49	$	0.42	$	0.30

	Segment Information
	Three Months Ended June 30, 2025												Three Months Ended June 30, 2024
(dollars in thousands)	Bank			Wealth			Mortgage			Total			Bank			Wealth			Mortgage			Total
Net interest income	$	21,025		$	63		$	71		$	21,159		$	16,784		$	36		$	26		$	16,846
Provision for credit losses		3,803			—			—			3,803			2,680			—			—			2,680
Net interest income after provision		17,222			63			71			17,356			14,104			36			26			14,166
Non-interest income		3,029			1,492			6,767			11,288			1,673			1,444			6,127			9,244
Non-interest expense		15,049			951			5,357			21,357			12,606			804			5,608			19,018
Income before income taxes	$	5,202		$	604		$	1,481		$	7,287		$	3,171		$	676		$	545		$	4,392
Efficiency ratio		63	%		61	%		78	%		66	%		68	%		54	%		91	%		73	%

	Six Months Ended June 30, 2025												Six Months Ended June 30, 2024
(dollars in thousands)	Bank			Wealth			Mortgage			Total			Bank			Wealth			Mortgage			Total
Net interest income	$	40,730		$	73		$	132		$	40,935		$	33,376		$	30		$	49		$	33,455
Provision for credit losses		9,015			—			—			9,015			5,546			—			—			5,546
Net interest income after provision		31,715			73			132			31,920			27,830			30			49			27,909
Non-interest income		4,942			3,027			10,643			18,612			3,550			2,760			10,918			17,228
Non-interest expense		27,809			1,768			10,523			40,100			24,669			1,636			10,887			37,192
Income before income taxes	$	8,848		$	1,332		$	252		$	10,432		$	6,711		$	1,154		$	80		$	7,945
Efficiency ratio		61	%		57	%		98	%		67	%		67	%		59	%		99	%		73	%

MERIDIAN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
APPENDIX: NON-GAAP MEASURES (Unaudited)
(Dollar amounts and shares in thousands, except per share amounts)

Meridian believes that non-GAAP measures are meaningful because they reflect adjustments commonly made by management, investors, regulators and analysts. The non-GAAP disclosure have limitations as an analytical tool, should not be viewed as a substitute for performance and financial condition measures determined in accordance with GAAP, and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of Meridian’s results as reported under GAAP, nor is it necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other companies.

	Pre-Provision Net Revenue Reconciliation
	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data, Unaudited)	June 30, 2025		March 31, 2025		June 30, 2024		June 30, 2025		June 30, 2024
Income before income tax expense	$	7,287	$	3,145	$	4,392	$	10,432	$	7,945
Provision for credit losses		3,803		5,212		2,680		9,015		5,546
Pre-provision net revenue	$	11,090	$	8,357	$	7,072	$	19,447	$	13,491

	Pre-Provision Net Revenue Reconciliation
	Three Months Ended							Six Months Ended
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data, Unaudited)	June 30, 2025		March 31, 2025			June 30, 2024		June 30, 2025		June 30, 2024
Bank	$	9,005	$	8,860		$	5,851	$	17,863	$	12,257
Wealth		604		726			676		1,332		1,154
Mortgage		1,481		(1,229	)		545		252		80
Pre-provision net revenue	$	11,090	$	8,357		$	7,072	$	19,447	$	13,491

	Allowance For Credit Losses (ACL) to Loans and Other Finance Receivables, Excluding and Loans at Fair Value
	June 30, 2025			March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			September 30, 2024			June 30, 2024
Allowance for credit losses (GAAP)	$	20,851		$	20,827		$	18,438		$	21,965		$	21,703

Loans and other finance receivables (GAAP)		2,108,250			2,071,675			2,030,437			2,008,396			1,988,535
Less: Loans at fair value		(14,541	)		(14,182	)		(14,501	)		(13,965	)		(12,900	)
Loans and other finance receivables, excluding loans at fair value (non-GAAP)	$	2,093,709		$	2,057,493		$	2,015,936		$	1,994,431		$	1,975,635

ACL to loans and other finance receivables (GAAP)		0.99	%		1.01	%		0.91	%		1.09	%		1.09	%
ACL to loans and other finance receivables, excluding loans at fair value (non-GAAP)		1.00	%		1.01	%		0.91	%		1.10	%		1.10	%

	Tangible Common Equity Ratio Reconciliation – Corporation
	June 30, 2025			March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			September 30, 2024			June 30, 2024
Total stockholders’ equity (GAAP)	$	178,020		$	173,568		$	171,522		$	167,450		$	162,382
Less: Goodwill and intangible assets		(3,564	)		(3,615	)		(3,666	)		(3,717	)		(3,768	)
Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)		174,456			169,953			167,856			163,733			158,614

Total assets (GAAP)		2,510,938			2,528,888			2,385,867			2,387,721			2,351,584
Less: Goodwill and intangible assets		(3,564	)		(3,615	)		(3,666	)		(3,717	)		(3,768	)
Tangible assets (non-GAAP)	$	2,507,374		$	2,525,273		$	2,382,201		$	2,384,004		$	2,347,816
Tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio – Corporation (non-GAAP)		6.96	%		6.73	%		7.05	%		6.87	%		6.76	%

	Tangible Common Equity Ratio Reconciliation – Bank
	June 30, 2025			March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			September 30, 2024			June 30, 2024
Total stockholders’ equity (GAAP)	$	228,127		$	220,768		$	219,119		$	217,028		$	211,308
Less: Goodwill and intangible assets		(3,564	)		(3,615	)		(3,666	)		(3,717	)		(3,768	)
Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)		224,563			217,153			215,453			213,311			207,540

Total assets (GAAP)		2,510,684			2,525,029			2,382,014			2,385,994			2,349,600
Less: Goodwill and intangible assets		(3,564	)		(3,615	)		(3,666	)		(3,717	)		(3,768	)
Tangible assets (non-GAAP)	$	2,507,120		$	2,521,414		$	2,378,348		$	2,382,277		$	2,345,832
Tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio – Bank (non-GAAP)		8.96	%		8.61	%		9.06	%		8.95	%		8.85	%

	Tangible Book Value Reconciliation
	June 30, 2025			March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			September 30, 2024			June 30, 2024
Book value per common share	$	15.76		$	15.38		$	15.26		$	14.91		$	14.51
Less: Impact of goodwill /intangible assets		0.32			0.32			0.33			0.33			0.34
Tangible book value per common share	$	15.44		$	15.06		$	14.93		$	14.58		$	14.17

Contact:
Christopher J. Annas
484.568.5001
CAnnas@meridianbanker.com

The MIL Network –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI Economics: Press Briefing Transcript: Julie Kozack, Director, Communications Department, July 24, 2025

Source: International Monetary Fund

July 24, 2025

SPEAKER:  Ms. Julie Kozack, Director of the Communications Department, IMF

MS. KOZACK: Good morning, and welcome to the IMF Press Briefing. It is wonderful to see all of you, both those of you here in person and colleagues online as well. I’m Julie Kozack, Director of the Communications Department at the IMF. As usual, this briefing is embargoed until 11 A.M. Eastern Time in the United States. I’ll start with a few announcements and then I’ll take your questions in person on Webex and via the Press Center.
First, we will be releasing our flagship publication, the World Economic Outlook Update, next Tuesday, July 29th. The report will offer fresh insights into the current global economic trends and external imbalances.
For your planning purposes, our Executive Board will be in recess from August 4th through the 15th, and we will notify you in due course on the date of our next press briefing.
And with that, I will now open the floor for your questions. For those connecting virtually, please turn on both your camera and microphone when speaking, and the floor is opened.

QUESTIONER: Just wanted to ask you about the tariff situation that’s unfolding at the moment, given the recent trade deals that the U.S. has struck with its key trading partners, including Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, just recently. The European Union is under negotiations that’s coming to fruition soon. It looks like the consensus is kind of around a 15 to 20% tariff rate in that range, that the US is, sort of agreeing with its partners for. And I just wanted to know if the IMF views that as an acceptable rate? Whether this would be detrimental to the global economy. I know we have the WEO coming out in a few days. Just wanted to get your take on what’s unfolding right now.

MS. KOZACK: Let us see if there’s any other questions on this topic before I answer. If anyone online wants to come in on this topic, please let us know.
So let me start with where we are. Since April, when we think about the global economy, we see activity indicators that reflect a complex backdrop shaped by trade tensions. We also saw that in the first quarter of the year, the data showed some front-loading of exports and imports ahead of, at that time, what was expected tariff increases. The more recent data points to trade diversion and to some unwinding of the front-loading. And at the same time, we are seeing some trade deals. Some have lowered tariffs. And at the same time, there’s also been some deals or some, not deals, but we have seen increases in tariffs, for example, on steel, aluminum, and copper. So, our team is assessing all of this information as it is coming in. And they will put together a comprehensive picture, which we will talk about in the WEO next week.

I would also just remind that when we released our WEO in April, we talked about a period of very high uncertainty. And at that time, we had in our WEO a reference forecast, right? And that reflected the fact that we were in an uncertain environment where there were many different paths forward. For example, we had an effective tariff rate of the U.S. of about 25 percent based on April 2nd announcements. That effective tariff rate for the U.S. declined to 14 percent based on the pause of April 9th. And of course, one of the important factors for assessing the impact of the deals on the U.S. economy and the global economy will be what is the new effective tariff rate that will prevail.
So, all of that work is ongoing, and we will have a full assessment next week in the WEO.

QUESTIONER: So, would the 15 to 20 percent rate be higher than what we saw in the April WEO?

MS. KOZACK: I think the way I would answer that is to simply say that we are looking at all the deals in April, and we had an effective rate around 14 percent. There, of course, has been movement since April. There have been deals. There have been some reductions in some tariff rates. There have been increases in other tariff rates. So, the team is going to have to put together that comprehensive assessment to determine what would be the new effective tariff rate that would prevail. And then, we would be in a position to compare it to what we had based on the April 2 announcement, what we had based on the April 9 pause, and then where we are today.
And another very important factor will be what is the overall impact on uncertainty, right? We have talked about being in a very highly uncertain environment. So, of course, we will be looking at that closely as well.

QUESTIONER: The president of Ukraine recently signed a law that regulates the anti-corruption bodies in the country. How does the IMF view this law, and how can this impact IMF Ukraine cooperation moving forward? And secondly, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said Ukraine is facing a significant budget shortfall and is likely seeking a new IMF loan. What is the IMF’s assessment of the possibility of launching a new program?

MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Ukraine?

QUESTIONER: I just wanted to follow up on whether, despite the moves by the Ukrainian government, can the IMF land to Ukraine?

MS. KOZACK: Are there questions online on Ukraine? On Ukraine, let me just step back and remind kind of where we are with Ukraine.
On June 30th, the IMF Board completed the Eighth Review of the EFF program and that enabled a disbursement of half a billion U.S. dollars. And that brought total disbursements under the program to U.S. $10.6 billion. Ukraine’s economy remains resilient. The authorities met, and this was reported as part of the Eighth Review, all of the end-March and continuous quantitative performance criteria; they met the prior action that was required for that review, and they also met two structural benchmarks.
With respect to the specific questions, on the first question that you had, the enacted law, as we see it, neutralizes the effectiveness of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions. And from our perspective, that would be very problematic for macroeconomic stability and growth in Ukraine. Stepping back a bit, you know, the establishment and the development of independent institutions to detect and prosecute corruption cases has been central to the IMF’s engagement with Ukraine over the past 10 years. And these institutions have contributed to an improvement in governance in Ukraine over that period.
Why is this important for Ukraine? From our perspective, Ukraine needs a robust anti-corruption architecture. And that will help level the playing field, improve the business climate, and attract private investment into Ukraine. And it’s a central piece of Ukraine’s reform agenda. So, from our perspective, safeguarding the independence of anti-corruption institutions remains a critical policy priority.
We do take note of the government’s intention to introduce a new bill to restore the independence of the anti-corruption institutions.
So, what I can say now is that in the coming weeks, the IMF Staff and the authorities are expected to intensify discussions about the 2026 budget and s to do an assessment of Ukraine’s financing needs, both for 2026 and over the medium term. They will be intensifying discussions to put together that comprehensive picture. That work is essential for the current program and any future potential engagement that we would have with Ukraine.

QUESTIONER: If it finishes, what was the Staff assessment of the First Review of the agreement with Argentina and when would the Board’s definition be? And following the report on external reserves published this week, I think it was on Monday, does the IMF’s concerns continue?

QUESTIONER: Has the Board already met to evaluate the First Review? And do you know if Argentina has requested a waiver? And how does the IMF assess the recent rate in this area, action rate and interest rates? And what are the causes of this change in monetary and exchange rate policy? Thank you.

QUESTIONER: Yes, to add up to what was asked if there are any concerns regarding the impact of the exchange rates on inflation as well? And also, if the concerns remain regarding the weak external position for Argentina.

QUESTIONER: President Milei has already confirmed that, for fiscal reasons, he will veto the laws recently passed by the Congress to increase pensions, extend the pension moratorium and declare an emergency disability. So, then has this intention being talked with the IMF previously or what is the IMF position on this matter?

MS. KOZACK: On Argentina, here is what I can share today. So first, I want to mention that discussions on the First Review, which many of you have mentioned, are very advanced at this stage. And the next step in these discussions will be to reach a Staff-Level Agreement between the authorities and Staff. And we believe that that can happen very shortly. After the Staff-Level Agreement is reached, then Staff will present the documents to the Executive Board for their approval and consideration.
What I can also add, and we have talked about that before here, is that the program has been off to a strong start. It has been underpinned by the continued implementation of tight macroeconomic policies, including a strong fiscal anchor and a tight monetary policy stance. The transition to a more flexible exchange rate regime has been smooth. Disinflation has resumed. And Argentina has reassessed international capital markets earlier than had been initially anticipated under the program.
Given that our Staff and the authorities are very engaged in these discussions, which again are at an advanced stage, I’m not going to provide any further details now. We will give space for them to bring those discussions to a conclusion, and then we will, of course, communicate once those discussions have come to a conclusion. And again, we do think that a Staff-Level agreement could happen very, very shortly.

QUESTIONER: Will the Board meeting be before, and start the holiday recess, or after? Because we are talking about 15 days, if not.

MS. KOZACK: So right now, I don’t have any further details to share with you, but certainly once a Staff-Level Agreement is reached, we will be communicating, including the potential timing for formal Board discussion.

QUESTIONER: Can you please kindly update us on the current status of the discussion between the IMF and the Republic of Senegal regarding the temporarily suspended disbursements? Especially with the Annual Meetings approaching in October in Washington, is there a realistic prospect of finalizing the matter before then? This is the first question.
The second one, following the recent meeting between His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Senegal, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, and Mrs. Gita Gopinath, First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, could you kindly also share some insight into the key topics discussed? What were the main points of their exchange, particularly in regard to economic and financial cooperation?

MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Senegal Online? Does anyone want to come in on Senegal?

QUESTIONER: I have a follow-up because investors have been expecting the Board to consider the waiver by September. Is that timeline realistic? And the government also said it shared everything in its findings for reconciliation with the IMF. Does the Fund feel it has everything it needs in order to make the decision on the waiver?

QUESTIONER: Have you received the report done by Mazars? And, is it enough to conclude the misreporting, and can we have maybe a time for the Board? And then, when can we expect also a new program?

MS. KOZACK: So, let me turn to these questions.
I’ll start by saying that the IMF remains closely engaged with Senegal. And as part of this process, as was noted, First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath met with President Bassirou Faye during his visit to Washington, D.C. on July 9th. Our First Deputy Managing Director (FDMD), Gopinath, emphasized the IMF’s continued support, as Senegal works to resolve the misreporting matter. And the President reaffirmed his government’s strong commitment to transparency and reform.

What I can also share is that an IMF Staff team will visit Dakar. The mission is tentatively planned for later in August. The purpose of the mission is going to be to discuss the steps needed to bring the misreporting case to our Executive Board. And the team will also use the opportunity to initiate discussions on the contours of a new IMF-supported program for Senegal. We are also working closely with the authorities to design the corrective actions aimed at addressing the root causes of the misreporting and, of course, to strengthen capacity development in Senegal.

With respect to the questions on the report by Mazars, what I can share there is that we have received a preliminary debt inventory that has been prepared by Forvis Mazars. Our IMF Staff are currently reviewing that report and all the information in detail. The preliminary assessment in the report is broadly aligned with expectations, and the final validation is ongoing. And I will leave it at that on Senegal. That is what I can share for now.

QUESTIONER: My question is on Japan. Last week, the upper house election in Japan was over, but still unclear on the composition of a new government. And what is it you are recommending? But almost all parties pledged fiscal — expansionary fiscal policies, from providing cash to reduction of consumption tax. And what is your recommendation to the new government, especially on fiscal policy, given the power of debt in Japan? And my second question is on monetary policy of Federal Reserve next week. And should the Federal Reserve cut interest rates preemptively under the circumstance of huge pressure from President Donald Trump.

MS. KOZACK: Let us start with Japan. So maybe let me just step back a little bit to give an overview of how we assessed the Japanese economy in our April WEO.
So, at that time, we expected growth to strengthen in Japan, and we expected inflation to converge to the Bank of Japan’s 2 percent target by 2027. Growth was projected to accelerate from 0.2 percent in 2024 to 0.6 percent this year. At the same time, and as has been the case for quite some time, Japan continues to have high levels of public debt. And because of that, our advice for Japan is for a clear fiscal consolidation plan to offset pressures from rising interest payments and also from aging-related spending. And because of this advice, we assess that Japan has limited fiscal space, again because of high public debt and these future spending needs.

In the near term, our advice to Japan is that given this limited fiscal space, it is essential that any response to shocks, any fiscal response to shocks, is both temporary and also targeted. And by targeted, I mean targeted toward vulnerable households and firms that may be most affected by shocks. Generalized subsidies and tax cuts, in our view, should be avoided. And that is because they are not targeted to the most vulnerable, and they are not an efficient use of Japan’s limited fiscal space.

And then, on your second question, what I can say about the U.S. economy is that the U.S. economy has proven to be resilient in the past few years. It is something that we have been talking about for quite some time. But we do see high-frequency data that indicate moderating domestic demand and low consumer and business sentiment in the U.S. In addition, and as we mentioned before, there was a strong front-loading of imports into the U.S. in the first quarter. And that, in anticipation of tariffs, and that led to an important drag on growth in the first quarter. At the same time, in the U.S., labor markets remain resilient, and the unemployment rate remains relatively low.

With respect to inflation, we do see inflation on a path towards the Fed’s 2 percent target, but it is subject to upside risks. And that means that the Fed’s task is complex given the very highly uncertain economic environment. So the Fed will need to take into account both policies undertaken by the U.S. administration, as well as incoming data in, and of course, data on potential wage pressures as it comes to thinking about, you know, the extent of rate decisions and the timing of any rate decisions going forward.

QUESTIONER: On Argentina, can the IMF confirm that there was a meeting on Tuesday between the Board and Staff regarding the first program review? And I know you said you wouldn’t be able to divulge much details, but I’m going to ask it anyway. When should you expect Argentina’s $2 billion disbursement?

MS. KOZACK: So, on the first question, all I can say on this is that it’s not unusual for IMF Staff to informally brief the Executive Board on a broad range of issues. And on the timing of the disbursement, as I already indicated, we will provide more information on the timing for a formal Board meeting only once a Staff-Level Agreement has been reached. And that formal Board meeting would indicate the time when any disbursement would be made available to the Argentine authorities.

QUESTIONER: First, let me say on behalf of my colleague from the U.S., around the world, as well as in Africa, to say thank you to Gita for everything that she has done. Our engagements with African journalists, especially. So that’s part of what I wanted to say, thank you to her. I know she’s leaving.
And my question now goes to if you can provide updates on African nations. And I have two specific questions, one on Malawi and one on South Africa. The recent reports on Malawi said the country is facing macroeconomic challenges. I know in 2020 they received the completed HIPC program. Could you provide any updates on whether the country has reached out for any assistance regarding HIPC? Whether they qualify for another Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) program to help them? We know in the past year, they’ve experienced floods, droughts, and natural issues that have affected the economy. I was wondering if the IMF is providing any assistance to them.
The other question is on South Africa. We see growing tension between South Africa and the U.S. So, can you talk about if there’s any economic implication? South Africa is the largest economic in. Africa is also seen as a gateway to the continent. What are the macroeconomic issues, implications for the South African Development Community region (SADC), and also for the continent as a whole?

MS. KOZACK: With respect to Malawi, what I can say is we completed the Article IV Consultation with Malawi just yesterday, July 22nd, 2025, or two days ago. So that was the 2025 Article IV Consultation that has been completed. And of course, there will be a lot of rich discussion of the state of the Malawian economy in that report. With respect to your more specific question on HIPC, what I can say is that Malawi completed the HIPC process in 2006. And at that time, Malawi secured U.S. $3.1 billion of debt relief through the HIPC Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative or otherwise known as MDRI. Since 2006, our assessment is that public debt in Malawi has returned to unsustainable levels. Total public debt is reached 88 percent of GDP at the end of 2024. And the interest bill on public debt is estimated to approach about 7 percent of GDP, which is quite high.

We continue to urge the authorities to take decisive steps to restore public debt sustainability. Completing an external debt Restructuring and addressing the high cost of domestic borrowing are both essential to do this. And of course, strengthening public debt management and securing concessional financing will also be critical. So again, Malawi already completed the HIPC process in 2006.

And then, on South Africa. What I can say about South Africa, I can talk a bit about how we see the outlook for South Africa, the economic outlook. So right now, based on the April WEO, we see the current economic outlook for South Africa as subdued. We projected growth in April at 1 percent for this year and 1.3 percent for next year. Uncertainty, including related to global trade policies, is weighing on activity in South Africa. And that it’s causing firms and households to delay their investment decisions and also consumption decisions.

And I would also refer you to the April REO, Regional Economic Outlook, for Africa, and that includes some estimates on the impact of uncertainty and financial conditions on the Sub-Saharan Africa region.
And finally, we of course continue to assess developments in South Africa, and we’ll be providing an update in the July WEO.

QUESTIONER: I just had two follow-up questions. One was on your comments about the Fed. As you know, the tension between the Trump administration and the Fed, particularly Chair Powell, has been increasing lately. The President is going to go tour the Fed building that’s being renovated. It is a subject of controversy. Given that the IMF has been a stalwart defender of Central Bank independence, should any of this lead to Chair Powell’s replacement or his resignation? Just wondering, what kind of signal that would send to financial markets, to other countries, what kind of precedent would that set? And secondly, regarding First Deputy Managing Director Gopinath’s departure, can you walk us through the process for choosing a replacement for her?
Traditionally, this has been a position that the U.S. has had a very strong hand in choosing. It has typically been an American. Do you expect the U.S. Treasury Department, for example, to basically recommend a candidate to the Managing Director?

MS. KOZACK: On your first question for quite some time, the IMF has consistently advocated for Central Bank independence. And we’ve said it’s critical to ensuring that Central Banks are able to achieve their mandated objectives, such as low and stable inflation. And as we have seen through the disinflation process that has been taking place over the last few years, the credibility of Central Banks around the world has been instrumental in anchoring inflation expectations and in bringing down inflation across, you know, across the world. And across many countries in the world. And it is also important that independence, of course, it must coexist with clear accountability to the public.
And on the question about the process, on Gita Gopinath’s decision to return to Harvard, maybe just to step back to say that on July 21st, you know, the Managing Director announced that Gita Gopinath, our First Deputy Managing Director, would be leaving the Fund at the end of August to return to Harvard University. She will be the inaugural Gregory and Ania Coffey Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics.

And for your background, Ms. Gopinath joined the Fund in January 2019 as the first female Chief Economist of the Fund. And she was promoted to First Deputy Managing Director in January of 2022. I can add that this was a personal decision for Ms. Gopinath. She will return to her roots in academia, where she will continue to push the research frontier in international finance and macroeconomics. And she will also be training the next generation of economists.
With respect to the selection of process and how the process works, the Managing Director selects and appoints the First Managing Director and the three Deputy Managing Directors of the Fund. The appointment is subject to approval by the Fund’s Executive Board. And in making the selection, the Managing Director consults with the Executive Board regarding the type of qualifications that, in the view of the Executive Board, a First Deputy Managing Director or a Deputy Managing Director should possess.

QUESTIONER: My first question is regarding Sri Lanka. When can we expect the next review for the IMF-supported program? And secondly, given the uncertainties and risks that are currently opposing the economy for Sri Lanka, is there any decision or any exploration by the IMF to revisit some of the targets that have been implemented in the program that was given to Sri Lanka?

QUESTIONER: I would like to know that now Sri Lanka has already finished four reviews, and now we are heading for the fifth one. What is the overall view of the IMF? That Sri Lanka’s performance, how we perform during these four reviews? And what are the expectations for the next review in brief? Thank you very much.

MS. KOZACK: I have a question here that came in through the Press center on Sri Lanka. The question is what is the status of the IMF review of Sri Lanka’s program, an assessment of the macroeconomic outlook as well as the status of the review of the current mission that is visiting Sri Lanka. So, let me go ahead and take these. So, stepping back, on July 1st, the IMF’s Executive Board completed the Fourth Review under the EFF arrangement with Sri Lanka. This provided the country with U.S. $350 million to support its economic policies and reforms, and it brought total IMF financial support to U.S. $1.74 billion.

What I can add is that Sri Lanka’s ambitious reform agenda continues to deliver commendable outcomes. Inflation remains low, revenue collection is improving and reserves, international reserves, continue to accumulate for the country. The post-crisis growth rebound to 5 percent in 2024 is quite remarkable. The revenue-to-GDP ratio improved from 8.2 percent in 2022 to 13.5 percent in 2024. The debt restructuring is nearly complete. And program performance has been generally strong overall, and the government remains committed to program objectives.

What I can also add is that although the economic outlook remains positive for Sri Lanka, global trade policy and uncertainties do pose risks. And so, as the team moves forward to the Fifth Review, which we expect will be held in the fall, they will, of course, be looking at the overall and making an overall assessment of Sri Lanka’s economy. You know, including any implications from trade tensions or uncertainty. And of course, that will be — they will take that into account in discussions with the authorities on policies, and all of the program matters as part of the Fifth Review.

QUESTIONER: Hi Julie. Thank you for taking my question. I have two questions, one on Syria and one on Egypt. So today there was the Saudi Syrian Investment Forum in Damascus, and it was said that in addition to the Saudi investments in support that there will be some global support on this. And the IFC was mentioned as well. So, what’s the IMF’s call on this, given that we have one of the G20 countries pledging this huge amount of investments in support? And how will the IMF contribute in this? That’s on Syria.

And on Egypt, a few weeks ago in our press briefing here, it was mentioned that the two reviews, the Fifth and the Sixth, will be done together in the fall. Can we say that this is going to be in fall after the Annual Meeting, after the WEO report is published for the — for the region and for the global? And what, what is the main factor that we’re looking at here that would ultimately change the way it’s viewed, how Egypt’s economy is viewed in light of all the recent developments?

MS. KOZACK: On Syria, what I can say is, and as we discussed here before, an IMF staff team did visit Syria from June 1st through 5th, and that was the first visit since 2009. The team was there to assess economic and financial conditions in Syria and to discuss with the authorities their economic policy and capacity building priorities, ultimately to support the recovery of the Syrian economy. With your specific question, what I can say there is that we have mentioned that Syria will need substantial international assistance to support the authorities’ efforts to rehabilitate the economy, meet urgent humanitarian needs, and rebuild essential institutions and infrastructure. And this not only includes concessional financial support, but it also extends to capacity development. And here, the IMF is committed to supporting Syria in its recovery efforts. The IMF Staff is working in coordination with other partners to develop a detailed roadmap for policy and capacity building priorities for some of the key economic institutions. So that’s kind of within our mandate, and that includes the Finance Ministry, the Central Bank, and the Statistics Agency.

With respect to Egypt, what I can say on Egypt is that the IMF Staff conducted a mission to Cairo in May 2025. The mission noted continued progress under Egypt’s macroeconomic reform program, including improvements in inflation and foreign exchange reserves. However, additional time was needed to finalize key policy measures, particularly those related to reducing the state’s footprint in the economy by advancing the implementation of the state ownership policy and leveling the playing field for businesses. To allow for this continued work, the Fifth and Sixth Reviews under the EFF will be combined, and they are expected to be completed in the fall. Our team remains committed to supporting Egypt in advancing reforms to strengthen resilience and foster inclusive and private sector led growth.

MS. KOZACK: Coming back to the Press Center, I have a question that has come in on Ghana. It says Ghana’s Finance Minister is presenting the mid-year budget today, following a first half marked by notable improvements in key economic indicators. However, concerns are rising about potential new fiscal slippages, and that could undermine gains in inflation control, currency stability, and overall recovery. Does the IMF share these concerns? And second question, what is your view on the role of monetary policy at this point, especially as the Bank of Ghana prepares to review its policy stance?

Again, stepping back, on July 7th, the IMF’s Executive Board completed the Fourth Review of Ghana’s ECF arrangement. And after Board approval, Ghana received about U.S. $367 million, bringing total support to around U.S. $2.3 billion since May 2023.
With respect to the budget here, I can say that the IMF has welcomed the government’s corrective actions, including a strong 2025 budget and an audit of payables to quantify and address the pre-election fiscal slippages. The authorities have recently implemented changes to their public financial management and public procurement acts, and this helps improve the overall fiscal responsibility framework in Ghana. And the authorities have also adopted a strategy to address issues in the energy sector. I can add that the mid-year budget review is fully in line with the parameters and objectives of the IMF-supported program.

And with respect to the question on monetary policy, what I can say is that Ghana has made good progress since the beginning of the program in reducing inflation. Inflation was extremely high at the end of 2022 at 54 percent. It has now come down substantially to 14 percent at end June 2025. Going forward, it will be important for monetary policy to remain sufficiently tight, consistent with bringing inflation down to the Bank of Ghana’s target range, which is 8 percent plus or minus 2 percentage points.

QUESTIONER: I’m going to ask about digital assets. One very specifically. There’s this controversy with El Salvador that is going around and around, but the government says they’re still buying Bitcoin, and it seems that the IMF is saying they are just moving things around between wallets. And I wanted you to address that. Also, with the passage here in the U.S. of the GENIUS Act, I guess, what does the IMF, what do they think the impacts of this sort of increasing legitimization of digital assets in the U.S. is going to be in terms of other economies, in terms of the ability to implement monetary policy? I just wonder if you have any comment on that. Thank you very much for taking the question.

QUESTIONER: I have a question, specifically on El Salvador. How does the IMF assess the country’s continued Bitcoin accumulation in the context of the fiscal and transparency standards embedded in the Extended Fund Facility, the $1.4 billion program that was agreed last December? To what extent could this strategy complicate monitoring or risk management of this program?

MS. KOZACK: So, on El Salvador, I’ll start with El Salvador and then Matthew, I’ll get to your question on the GENIUS Act. So again, stepping back. So, on June 27th, the IMF Executive Board completed El Salvador’s annual Article IV Consultation and concluded the First Review of the EFF that enabled El Salvador to have access to U.S. $118 million. And so far, $231 million has been disbursed under the EFF program that was approved in February.
Program performance has been solid in El Salvador. The economy has continued to expand as macroeconomic imbalances are being addressed. The key fiscal and reserve targets were met at the time of the review with margins. And substantial progress continues with the ambitious reform agenda in the areas of governance, transparency, and financial resilience.
And risks from Bitcoin continue to be mitigated. Regarding the questions on Bitcoin, I don’t have much new to say other than as we have stated in the past, the total amount of Bitcoin held across government-owned wallets remains unchanged, and that is consistent with El Salvador’s program commitments. The accumulation of Bitcoin by the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Fund is consistent with program conditionality. And the increases in the Bitcoin Reserve Fund relate to movements across various government-owned wallets.
And on your second question on the GENIUS Act, let me get to this one. Let me just step back for a moment, and then I’ll kind of come directly to the GENIUS Act.

So, first, the GENIUS Act covers stablecoins, and stablecoins are a key type of privately issued crypto asset that aims to maintain a stable value. They do bring potential benefits, including cheaper and faster cross-border payments, increased financial inclusion, and greater portfolio diversification. So those are some of the potential benefits. There are operational risks, of course, associated with stablecoins if they are not properly regulated under an appropriate policy framework.

Now, turning to the GENIUS Act. The GENIUS Act provides a comprehensive foundation for financial innovation and deepening. And that is balanced with consideration of consumer protection and market integrity goals and a clear identification of the institutional framework for oversight.
Now, with respect to the kind of implications of the GENIUS Act, we, of course, are continuing to very actively monitor developments of stablecoins. We are assessing the potential implications of the GENIUS Act. And for us at the IMF, what is going to be especially important are going to be the implications for the international monetary system and the potential for spillovers to other jurisdictions. So that’s work that is ongoing, and our teams are making those assessments at this time.

QUESTIONER: Any update on UAE economy outlook for GCC region and oil economy in general?

MS. KOZACK: What I can share on UAE and the GCC in general, and I’ll be — and, of course, next week as part of the WEO update, we will, of course, be providing an update for the GCC region.
So, starting with the UAE. Near-term growth in the UAE has been strong, and it is expected to remain healthy at over 4 percent in 2025. That was the assessment at the time of the April WEO. What we are seeing is robust growth in the non-hydrocarbon activity, and it is boosted by tourism, construction, public expenditure, and financial services. So those are the drivers of growth. Oil production is also increasing faster than expected, given the reversal of oil production cuts. And the UAE economy has demonstrated resilience to lower oil prices and increased oil price volatility this year.

Now, turning to the GCC, what I can say for the GCC is that despite oil production cuts, GCC growth is estimated to have rebounded to 1.4 percent in 2024. And our projection at the time of the April WEO was that it will increase further to 3.3 percent in 2025. Non-hydrocarbon output growth is expected to remain strong, supported by rapid investment, construction, and accelerated reforms to diversify the GCC economies.
Inflation remains low in the GCC, and our policy advice is for fiscal policy to remain prudent while strengthening fiscal reform implementation. And of course, we encourage policymakers in the region to continue reforms to support economic diversification. And as I noted, we will be providing an update of this assessment as part of the WEO update.
And with that, I’m going to bring this Press Briefing to a close. Thank you all for your participation today.

As a reminder, this briefing is embargoed until 11:00 A.M. Eastern Time in the United States. A transcript will be made available later on our website, IMF.org. Should you have any clarifications or additional queries, please do reach out to my colleagues via media@imf.org.

This concludes our Press Briefing. I wish everyone a wonderful day, and I look forward to seeing you all next time.

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS

PRESS OFFICER: Meera Louis

Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

MIL OSI Economics –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Magic Valley Times-News: The One Big Beautiful Bill Will Help Idaho’s Rural Hospitals

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Idaho Mike Crapo

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) has been signed into law, providing significant benefits to Idahoans, including cutting taxes for working families, promoting American manufacturing and energy dominance, and strengthening health care programs to support our most vulnerable populations.

Nevertheless, the “politics of fear” have continued and disinformation misleads Idahoans about the law’s impact on Idaho’s health care system. In reality, this law represents the largest investment in rural health care in decades.

The OBBBA ensures a more responsible use of taxpayer dollars by ending loopholes certain states use to get higher Medicaid payments from the federal government. There are two main tools states use to draw down more funds: state-directed payments and provider taxes.

However, it is important to know that Idaho is not one of the states playing games with federal funding. Idaho does not use state-directed payments and does not have non-nursing home provider taxes above 3.5 percent.

A responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, Idaho will not be affected by these reforms. Instead, Idaho’s rural hospitals will benefit from a new Rural Health Transformation Program that allocates money to all states, not just those using gimmicks to draw down more federal money.

This $50 billion rural hospital fund is available to all states and 50 percent will be divided equally among states. This means Idaho stands to gain at least $100 million per year for five years.

This is arguably the single largest investment in rural health care in more than 20 years. While it provides a way for states that do rely disproportionately on federal funding to make a financial plan, states like Idaho can provide immediate relief to rural hospitals and establish the tools necessary to be successful in the future.

To understand how the bill’s reforms will save taxpayer dollars, it is important to understand how state-directed payments and provider taxes work.

State-directed payments are used with Medicaid managed care and allow states to increase rates to providers over the base reimbursement rate. The Biden Administration expanded these payments to reach as high as the average commercial rate, much higher than those routinely paid by federal health programs. The OBBBA prohibits new state-directed payments over Medicare rates immediately and gradually phases down existing payments beginning in 2028. Again, Idaho does not currently use state-directed payments, but there is nothing in the law to prevent it from using these payments in the future.

For provider taxes, states levy these fees on hospitals and other entities, then use that revenue to collect more federal dollars. For every dollar states spend on Medicaid, the federal government matches at a higher rate. The match is nine-to-one for the Obamacare expansion population, which gives states an incentive to spend more on healthy, able-bodied individuals than on vulnerable patients.

The OBBBA stops provider tax gaming immediately and incrementally lowers states’ maximum rate beginning in 2028 until it reaches 3.5 percent. Because Idaho does not currently have a non-nursing home provider tax above 3.5 percent, it is ahead of the curve. Recognizing nursing homes overwhelmingly serve vulnerable patients, Congress exempts those provider taxes from the phase down.

Curbing waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program provides past-due and desperately needed improvement to the program and does not jeopardize rural hospitals. The states that have relied on financing gimmicks have necessary budgetary decisions to make in the years ahead. However, the reality is for states like Idaho, this bill represents a reward for the wise stewardship of taxpayer dollars and a historic investment in rural health care.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Torres FY26 Community Projects $21 Million to California’s 35th Congressional District

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)

July 24, 2025

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Norma J. Torres (CA-35) announced the inclusion of 15 Community Project Funding requests in the House Appropriations Committee funding bills for Fiscal Year 2026. The bills including these projects have all been considered at the subcommittee level, and most have passed through the full Appropriations Committee and now advance to the House floor for consideration. If fully funded, these locally driven proposals would bring more than $21,772,000 in federal resources directly to communities across California’s 35th Congressional District.

“As a senior Member of the House Appropriations Committee, I am proud to advocate for strategic federal investments that reflect the real needs of our region—from clean water and safer streets to affordable housing and economic development,” said Congresswoman Torres. “Every one of these projects was developed in close partnership with our local governments, schools, and nonprofits. They will improve public safety, support small businesses, enhance critical infrastructure, and uplift the people of the Inland Empire.”

Project Include:

Autism Society Inland Empire’s Law Enforcement Training Initiative – $1,031,000

Provides training and resources for law enforcement to foster safer interactions with community members with a condition or disability that may impact communication or require additional accommodations or awareness during an interaction in several cities in the 35th District.

Chino Basin Advanced Water Purification Demonstration Facility – $1,092,000

First-of-its-kind water purification facility to increase water quality and long-term resilience.

Chino Benson Emergency Power Generator Project – $1,092,000

Backup power to ensure continued water delivery in Chino during outages.

Chino Valley Innovation Center – $2,000,000

Establishes a local entrepreneurship hub to support business growth and job creation.

City of Montclair Fire Department Tractor Tiller Truck – $850,000

Funds a high-maneuverability fire truck to enhance emergency response.

City of Upland Campus Avenue Storm Drain Improvement – $1,092,000

Upgrades storm drain system to prevent flooding and protect homes, schools, and businesses.

Cypress Grove Supportive Housing – $2,000,000

Supports the construction of permanent housing to address local homelessness in Fontana.

Eastvale Library and Innovation Center – $3,100,000

Expands access to information, education, and community programming.

Los Serranos Flood Protection Project – $1,092,000

Installs storm drain system to mitigate flood risk in Chino Hills.

Merrill Center Crisis Stabilization Unit Rehabilitation – $1,100,000

Rehabilitates critical behavioral health facilities to support those in crisis in Ontario.

Monte Vista Water District Pipeline Replacement Project –$1,092,000

Replaces aging pipeline infrastructure in Montclair to prevent leaks and improve water flow.

Ontario-Montclair School District’s Safer Schools Initiative – $1,031,000

Improves school safety infrastructure in collaboration with local law enforcement.

Ontario Section 219 Recycled Water Expansion Project – $3,200,000

Constructs 13 miles of new infrastructure to deliver recycled water to public landscapes.

The Hub on Holt: Space for Entrepreneurship, Creation, and Innovation – $1,000,000

Revitalizes a blighted corridor to support small businesses and community engagement in Ontario.

Vista Verde II Affordable Housing Development – $1,000,000

Adds affordable housing and promotes economic growth through construction jobs in Ontario.

###

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Rosen, Moran Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Cut Taxes for Veterans Opening Small Businesses

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced a bipartisan bill to cut taxes for veterans who start a small business in underserved communities. The bipartisan Veterans Jobs Opportunity Act would create new tax credits to provide veterans who are starting a small business with a 15 percent tax credit on the first $50,000 of the startup costs.
“Our veterans deserve to have every resource available as they transition into civilian life,” said Senator Rosen. “I’m proud to work across the aisle to cut taxes for Nevada veterans who start small businesses in our state and create jobs. As long as I’m in the Senate, I’ll continue working to ensure our veterans have all of the resources they need.”
“By offering support to veteran entrepreneurs, we can help bolster local economies and channel the military work ethic into local communities,” said Senator Moran. “Veteran-owned small businesses play an important role in rural communities and underserved areas, and this legislation will empower veterans to start their own businesses while benefiting the communities they invest in.”
Senator Rosen has been leading bipartisan efforts to ensure that Nevada veterans have federal support. Last year, she secured funding to increase access to affordable housing for veterans, continue building Nevada’s first national veterans cemetery in Elko, and increase funding for veterans’ access to telehealth. She also helped pass bipartisan legislation to increase veterans’ awareness of the VA home loan program. Additionally, Senator Rosen pushed to build a new veterans hospital in Reno, which she successfully convinced the white house to include in the 2024 budget.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI United Kingdom: AUKUS treaty deepens UK-Australia defence partnership to generate £20 billion in trade and create 7,000 new jobs

Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

Press release

AUKUS treaty deepens UK-Australia defence partnership to generate £20 billion in trade and create 7,000 new jobs

Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary in Australia alongside UK’s Carrier Strike Group – demonstrating government’s commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Signing of new UK-Australia AUKUS treaty protects our seas, supports over 21,000 UK jobs and underpins up to £20 billion exports potential.
Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary in Australia alongside UK’s Carrier Strike Group – demonstrating government’s commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.
New treaty unlocks greater economic cooperation and delivers on the Government’s Plan for Change.

A new 50 year AUKUS treaty will underpin the UK and Australian submarine programmes, support tens of thousands of jobs in the UK and Australia, enhance both nations’ industrial capacity, and deliver the submarines that keep the UK and our allies safe.

The deal demonstrates the Government’s commitment to deliver both security and prosperity, safeguarding jobs across the UK and boosting our defence industry, with new submarine exports amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

Expected to be worth up to £20 billion to the UK in exports over the next 25 years, this decades-long programme will create over 7,000 new jobs in UK shipyards and across the supply chain, building on the billions of pounds already invested in Barrow, Derby and beyond.

There will be over 21,000 people working on the conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered AUKUS submarine programme (known as SSN-AUKUS) in the UK at its peak, contributing to opportunities and economic growth in local communities across the UK.

Defence Secretary, John Healey, said:

AUKUS is one of Britain’s most important defence partnerships, strengthening global security while driving growth at home.

This historic Treaty confirms our AUKUS commitment for the next half century. Through the Treaty, we are supporting high-skilled, well-paid jobs for tens of thousands of people in both the UK and Australia, delivering on our Plan for Change today and for the generations to come. There are people not yet born who will benefit from the jobs secured through this defence deal.

Our deep defence relationship with Australia – from our work together to support Ukraine, share vital intelligence, and develop innovative technology – makes us secure at home and strong abroad.

Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said:

The UK-Australia relationship is like no other, and in our increasingly volatile and dangerous world, our anchoring friendship has real impact in the protection of global peace and prosperity.

Our new bilateral AUKUS treaty is an embodiment of that – safeguarding a free and open Indo Pacific whilst catalysing growth for both our countries.

This is how our government delivers the Plan for Change – protecting our national security and stability whilst generating jobs for Brits.

This is the latest milestone reached under the AUKUS partnership – our most strategically significant new defence partnership in a generation.

The Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary will travel to Australia as the Carrier Strike Group and more than 3,000 British military personnel take part in the largest military exercise Australia has ever hosted. Their visit follows the exercise’s success where the AUKUS nations worked with Japan on advancing how we use robotics and autonomous systems in our defence systems.

Both ministers will meet their counterparts at the annual “Australia-UK Ministerial”, known as AUKMIN, to drive forward collaboration across the board – generating further trade and investment to our £23 billion per year annual trade relationship with Australia.

Travelling onto Melbourne, the Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary will meet with businesses at the forefront of AUKUS – delivering the defence industrial strength needed to protect British, Australian and American interests.

The Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary will visit Darwin to see our commitment to the Indo-Pacific first hand as the Carrier Strike Group docks in the Northern Territory.

This deployment – one of the UK’s largest this century – sends a clear message that the UK alongside our partners stands ready to protect the Indo-Pacific’s vital trade routes and will deter those who undermine global security.

On HMS Prince of Wales, the flagship of the group, the Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary will meet the service personnel who have participated in Exercise Talisman Sabre, one of the largest military exercises in the world this year. Bringing together over 35,000 military personnel from 19 nations, this exercise strengthens and tests how key partners can work together to safeguard global trade routes and maintain regional stability.

The Carrier Strike Group deployment this year reinforces the Government’s Plan for Change by strengthening the international partnerships that underpin economic growth and national security, keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad. It takes place against the backdrop of the Government’s landmark commitment to increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP by 2027.

This historic investment underpins the Government’s mission-led approach to securing Britain’s future, providing the economic stability necessary for growth whilst ensuring the UK maintains cutting-edge capabilities such as to meet emerging global threats.

Media enquiries

Email newsdesk@fcdo.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7008 3100

Email the FCDO Newsdesk (monitored 24 hours a day) in the first instance, and we will respond as soon as possible.

Published 24 July 2025

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI United Nations: World News in Brief: Thailand-Cambodia border hostilities, humanitarian efforts in Syria and attacks across Ukraine

Source: United Nations 2

The dispute dates to 1953 when France first mapped the border, but tensions resurfaced in May after the death of a Cambodian soldier in a border skirmish.

Secretary-General António Guterres is “following with concern” reports of the clashes, his Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told journalists in New York.

“The Secretary-General urges both sides to exercise maximum restraint and address any issues through dialogue and in a spirit of good neighbourliness, with a view to finding a lasting solution to the dispute,” he said.

Inter-agency humanitarian assistance in Syria

The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) led an inter-agency visit to Rural Damascus governorate in Syria on Thursday to assess needs and provide assistance to more than 500 families displaced by recent violence in nearby Sweida governorate.

The UN agencies visited the Sayyeda Zeinab community and plan to visit the neighbouring Dar’a Governorate in the coming days, where humanitarians are supporting tens of thousands of people displaced by violence.

In Rural Damascus and Dar’a, OCHA and its partners are expanding protection services for displaced people. This includes psychosocial first aid and case management support for children.

Also on Thursday, the World Food Programme (WFP) distributed urgent food assistance to displaced families. The agency additionally continues to provide assistance across the country, including to Syrians returning home after a decade of conflict.

Limited access to Sweida

On Wednesday, a second convoy from the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) arrived in Sweida, with UN agencies providing support.

The convoy included food, wheat flour, fuel, medicines and health supplies. Medical supplies were delivered to the Sweida national hospital, and wheat flour was dispatched to bakeries.

Across Sweida, Rural Damascus and Dar’a governorates, the UN has distributed over 1,600 dignity kits to displaced women and girls. UN partners are also providing recreational activities, awareness sessions on gender-based violence and support for women and children.

But despite efforts in neighbouring governorates and increasing support in Sweida, full and direct access to the conflict-ridden governorate itself is limited due to security constraints.

Nonetheless, the UN is continuing dialogue with Syrian authorities to facilitate direct access to Sweida.

Nationwide attacks in Ukraine

OCHA further reported that at least five civilians were killed, and 46 others injured, in attacks across several regions of Ukraine over the past two days.

Kharkiv in the northeast was one of the more affected regions, where a glide bomb strike injured at least 16 people on Thursday, and fighting killed three and injured five others on Wednesday.

Additionally, overnight attacks in central Ukraine injured seven people in Cherkasy and four in Odesa City, damaging homes, health centres, schools, shopping areas and a market.

Civilians in the southern Kherson region, the eastern Donetsk region and the southeast Zaporizhzhia region were also affected.

Evacuations and humanitarian response

Following the overnight attacks in Cherkasy and Odesa, aid workers assisted first responders by providing first aid, meals, shelter materials, hygiene kits, emotional support and legal assistance to affected families.

Amid the hostilities, nearly 600 people were evacuated from the Donetsk region, and, in the past day, another 24 were evacuated from the northeastern region of Sumy.

MIL OSI United Nations News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI: Landmark Bancorp, Inc. Announces Second Quarter 2025 Earnings per Share of $0.75 Declares Cash Dividend of $0.21 per Share

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

Manhattan, KS, July 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (“Landmark”; Nasdaq: LARK) reported diluted earnings per share of $0.75 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $0.81 per share in the first quarter of 2025 and $0.52 per share in the same quarter of the prior year. Net earnings for the second quarter totaled $4.4 million, compared to $4.7 million in the prior quarter and $3.0 million in the second quarter of 2024. For the three months ended June 30, 2025, the return on average assets was 1.11%, the return on average equity was 12.25% and the efficiency ratio⁽¹⁾ was 62.8%.

For the first six months of 2025, diluted earnings per share totaled $1.56 compared to $1.01 during the same period in 2024. Net earnings for the first six months of 2025 totaled $9.1 million, compared to $5.8 million in the first six months of 2024. For the six months ended June 30, 2025, the return on average assets was 1.16%, the return on average equity was 12.96%, and the efficiency ratio⁽¹⁾ was 63.4%.

Second Quarter 2025 Performance Highlights

	●	Total gross loans increased in the second quarter 2025 by $42.9 million, an annualized increase of 16.0% over the prior quarter.
	●	The net interest margin improved 7 basis points to 3.83% compared to 3.76% in prior quarter and 3.25% in the second quarter of the prior year.
	●	Net interest income increased $564,000, or 4.3%, in the second quarter of 2025, and increased $2.7 million, or 24.7%, from the same quarter of the prior year.
	●	Deposits increased $23.4 million, or 1.9%, from the same quarter of the prior year, and declined $61.9 million from the prior quarter.
	●	Total assets increased $46.7 million, or 11.9% annualized, compared to the prior quarter.
	●	Credit quality remained stable with net charge-offs totaling $40,000 in the second quarter.
	●	Stockholders’ equity increased $5.7 million, and the ratio of equity to assets increased to 9.13% in the second quarter.

In making this announcement, Abby Wendel, President and Chief Executive Officer of Landmark, commented, “I am pleased to report continued strong net earnings this quarter driven by growth in loans and net interest income. Loan demand remained strong in the second quarter of 2025, especially for commercial, commercial real estate and residential mortgage loans as total gross loans increased by $42.9 million or 16.0% annualized. Despite a decrease in total deposits in the second quarter, we have sustained year-over-year growth of $23.4 million, or 1.9%. The strong growth in our loan portfolio led to net interest income growth of 24.7% over the previous year and continued expansion in our net interest margin, which increased to 3.83%. Non-interest income increased by 8.0% this quarter compared to the prior quarter and expenses were well controlled. Credit quality remained solid overall with minimal net charge-offs. A provision for credit losses of $1.0 million was recorded this quarter to reflect the growth in loans and higher reserves against individually evaluated loans on non-accrual. Our strong performance is a direct result of the daily commitment and effort our associates put into making Landmark the top choice for both customers and investors.”

Landmark’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.21 per share, to be paid August 27, 2025, to common stockholders of record as of the close of business on August 13, 2025.

Management will host a conference call to discuss the Company’s financial results at 10:00 a.m. (Central time) on Friday, July 25, 2025. Investors may participate via telephone by dialing (833) 470-1428 and using access code 703723. A replay of the call will be available through August 1, 2025, by dialing (855) 762-8306 and using access code 160217.

(1) Non-GAAP financial measure. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of this press release for a reconciliation.

Net Interest Income

Net interest income in the second quarter of 2025 totaled $13.7 million representing an increase of $564,000, or 4.3%, compared to the previous quarter and an increase of $2.7 million, or 24.7%, in the same quarter of the prior year. The increase in net interest income this quarter was driven by higher interest income on loans and lower interest expense on deposits. The net interest margin increased to 3.83% during the second quarter from 3.76% during the prior quarter and 3.25% in the second quarter of the prior year. Compared to the previous quarter, interest income on loans increased $791,000 to $17.2 million, due to higher average balances combined with higher yields on loans. Average loan balances increased $33.3 million, while the average tax-equivalent yield on the loan portfolio increased 3 basis points to 6.37%. Interest on investment securities declined slightly due to lower balances, partially offset by higher earning rates. Compared to the first quarter of 2025, interest on deposits decreased $92,000, or 1.8%, due to lower rates and balances. Interest on other borrowed funds increased by $284,000, due to higher average balances. The average rate on interest-bearing deposits decreased 3 basis points to 2.14% while the average rate on other borrowed funds decreased 11 basis points to 4.98% in the second quarter of 2025.

Non-Interest Income

Non-interest income totaled $3.6 million for the second quarter of 2025, an increase of $268,000 from the previous quarter. The increase in non-interest income during the second quarter of 2025 was primarily due to increases of $178,000 in gains on sales of loans and $88,000 in fees and service charges.

Non-Interest Expense

During the second quarter of 2025, non-interest expense totaled $11.0 million, an increase of $200,000, or 1.9%, compared to the prior quarter. The increase in non-interest expense was primarily due to increases of $233,000 in data processing expense and $101,000 in other non-interest expense. The increase in data processing expense resulted from the implementation of additional services added and account growth, while the increase in other non-interest expense was primarily due to higher losses at our captive insurance subsidiary. Partially offsetting those increases was a decline in professional fees related to lower consulting and legal expenses during the quarter.

Income Tax Expense

Landmark recorded income tax expense of $944,000 in the second quarter of 2025 compared to $1.0 million in the first quarter of 2025. The effective tax rate was 17.7% in the second quarter of 2025 compared to 17.8% in the first quarter of 2025.

Balance Sheet Highlights

As of June 30, 2025, gross loans totaled $1.1 billion, an increase of $42.9 million, or 16.0% annualized since March 31, 2025. During the quarter, loan growth was primarily comprised of one-to-four family residential real estate (growth of $21.5 million), commercial (growth of $13.4 million) and commercial real estate (growth of $10.9 million). Investment securities available-for-sale decreased $3.6 million during the second quarter of 2025 mainly due to maturities. Pre-tax unrealized net losses on the investment securities portfolio decreased from $17.1 million at March 31, 2025, to $13.9 million at June 30, 2025, mainly due to lower market rates for these securities at June 30, 2025.

Period end deposit balances decreased $61.9 million to $1.3 billion at June 30, 2025. The decline in deposits was driven by decreases in money market and checking accounts (decrease of $50.5 million), non-interest-bearing demand deposits (decrease of $16.5 million) and savings (decrease of $1.1 million), partially offset by an increase in certificates of deposit (increase of $6.2 million). The decrease in deposits was primarily driven by a decline in brokered deposits as well as lower core deposit balances at June 30, 2025. Total borrowings increased $105.9 million during the second quarter 2025 to fund asset growth and to offset lower deposit balances. At June 30, 2025, the loan to deposits ratio was 86.6% compared to 79.5% in the prior quarter.

Stockholders’ equity increased to $148.4 million (book value of $25.66 per share) as of June 30, 2025, from $142.7 million (book value of $24.69 per share) as of March 31, 2025. The increase in stockholders’ equity was due mainly to a decrease in accumulated other comprehensive losses (lower unrealized net losses on investment securities) along with net earnings during the quarter. The ratio of equity to total assets increased to 9.13% on June 30, 2025, from 9.04% on March 31, 2025.

The allowance for credit losses totaled $13.8 million, or 1.23% of total gross loans on June 30, 2025, compared to $12.8 million, or 1.19% of total gross loans on March 31, 2025. Net loan charge-offs totaled $40,000 in the second quarter of 2025, compared to $23,000 during the first quarter of 2025 and net recoveries of $52,000 in the second quarter of the prior year. A provision for credit losses on loans of $1.0 million was recorded in the second quarter of 2025 compared to no provision in the first quarter of 2025.

Non-performing loans totaled $17.0 million, or 1.52% of gross loans, at June 30, 2025, compared to $13.3 million, or 1.24% of gross loans, at March 31, 2025. Loans 30-89 days delinquent totaled $4.3 million, or 0.39% of gross loans, as of June 30, 2025, compared to $10.0 million, or 0.93% of gross loans, as of March 31, 2025.

About Landmark

Landmark Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Landmark National Bank, is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “LARK.” Headquartered in Manhattan, Kansas, Landmark National Bank is a community banking organization dedicated to providing quality financial and banking services. Landmark National Bank has 29 locations in 23 communities across Kansas: Manhattan (2), Auburn, Dodge City (2), Fort Scott (2), Garden City, Great Bend (2), Hoisington, Iola, Junction City, La Crosse, Lawrence (2), Lenexa, Louisburg, Mound City, Osage City, Osawatomie, Overland Park, Paola, Pittsburg, Prairie Village, Topeka (2), Wamego and Wellsville, Kansas. Visit www.banklandmark.com for more information.

Contact:
Mark A. Herpich
Chief Financial Officer
(785) 565-2000

Special Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

This press release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to the financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business of Landmark. Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of our management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should” or other similar expressions. Additionally, all statements in this press release, including forward-looking statements, speak only as of the date they are made, and Landmark undertakes no obligation to update any statement in light of new information or future events. A number of factors, many of which are beyond our ability to control or predict, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in our forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, the following: (i) the strength of the local, state, national and international economies and financial markets, including the effects of inflationary pressures and future monetary policies of the Federal Reserve in response thereto; (ii) effects on the U.S. economy resulting from the threat or implementation of new, or changes to, existing policies, regulations, regulatory and other governmental agencies and executive orders, including tariffs, immigration policy, regulatory and other governmental agencies, DEI and ESG initiatives, consumer protection, foreign policy and tax regulations; ; (iii) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of our assets; (iv) increased competition in the financial services sector and the inability to attract new customers, including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and “fintech” companies; (v) timely development and acceptance of new products and services; (vi) rapid and expensive technological changes implemented by us and other parties in the financial services industry, including third-party vendors, which may be more difficult to implement or more expensive than anticipated or which may have unforeseen consequence to us and our customers, including the development and implementation of tools incorporating artificial intelligence; (vii) our risk management framework; (viii) interruptions in information technology and telecommunications systems and third-party services; (ix) the economic effects of severe weather, natural disasters, widespread disease or pandemics, or other external events; (x) the loss of key executives or employees; (xi) changes in consumer spending; (xii) integration of acquired businesses; (xiii) the commencement, cost and outcome of litigation and other legal proceedings and regulatory actions against us or to which the Company may become subject; (xiv) changes in accounting policies and practices, such as the implementation of the current expected credit losses accounting standard; (xv) the economic impact of past and any future terrorist attacks, acts of war, including ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or threats thereof, and the response of the United States to any such threats and attacks; (xvi) the ability to manage credit risk, forecast loan losses and maintain an adequate allowance for loan losses; (xvii) fluctuations in the value of securities held in our securities portfolio; (xviii) concentrations within our loan portfolio and large loans to certain borrowers (including commercial real estate loans); (xix) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current FDIC insurance limits and may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (xx) the level of non-performing assets on our balance sheets; (xxi) the ability to raise additional capital; (xxii) the occurrence of fraudulent activity, breaches or failures of our or our third-party vendors’ information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents, including as a result of sophisticated attacks using artificial intelligence and similar tools or as a result of insider fraud; (xxiii) declines in real estate values; (xxiv) the effects of fraud on the part of our employees, customers, vendors or counterparties; (xxv) the Company’s success at managing and responding to the risks involved in the foregoing items; and (xxvi) any other risks described in the “Risk Factors” sections of reports filed by Landmark with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Additional information concerning Landmark and its business, including additional risk factors that could materially affect Landmark’s financial results, is included in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited)

	June 30,			March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,
(Dollars in thousands)	2025			2025			2024			2024			2024
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	25,038		$	21,881		$	20,275		$	21,211		$	23,889
Interest-bearing deposits at other banks		3,463			3,973			4,110			4,363			4,881
Investment securities available-for-sale, at fair value:
U.S. treasury securities		51,624			58,424			64,458			83,753			89,325
Municipal obligations, tax exempt		100,802			101,812			107,128			112,126			114,047
Municipal obligations, taxable		75,037			70,614			71,715			75,129			74,588
Agency mortgage-backed securities		124,979			125,142			129,211			140,004			142,499
Total investment securities available-for-sale		352,442			355,992			372,512			411,012			420,459
Investment securities held-to-maturity		3,730			3,701			3,672			3,643			3,613
Bank stocks, at cost		10,946			6,225			6,618			7,894			9,647
Loans:
One-to-four family residential real estate		377,133			355,632			352,209			344,380			332,090
Construction and land		26,373			28,645			25,328			23,454			30,480
Commercial real estate		370,455			359,579			345,159			324,016			318,850
Commercial		204,303			190,881			192,325			181,652			178,876
Agriculture		100,348			101,808			100,562			91,986			84,523
Municipal		6,938			7,082			7,091			7,098			6,556
Consumer		32,234			31,297			29,679			29,263			29,200
Total gross loans		1,117,784			1,074,924			1,052,353			1,001,849			980,575
Net deferred loan (fees) costs and loans in process		(615	)		(426	)		(307	)		(63	)		(583	)
Allowance for credit losses		(13,762	)		(12,802	)		(12,825	)		(11,544	)		(10,903	)
Loans, net		1,103,407			1,061,696			1,039,221			990,242			969,089
Loans held for sale, at fair value		4,773			2,997			3,420			3,250			2,513
Bank owned life insurance		39,607			39,329			39,056			39,176			38,826
Premises and equipment, net		19,654			19,886			20,220			20,976			20,986
Goodwill		32,377			32,377			32,377			32,377			32,377
Other intangible assets, net		2,275			2,426			2,578			2,729			2,900
Mortgage servicing rights		3,082			3,045			3,061			3,041			2,997
Real estate owned, net		167			167			167			428			428
Other assets		23,904			24,894			26,855			23,309			28,149
Total assets	$	1,624,865		$	1,578,589		$	1,574,142		$	1,563,651		$	1,560,754

Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Liabilities:
Deposits:
Non-interest-bearing demand		351,993			368,480			351,595			360,188			360,631
Money market and checking		562,919			613,459			636,963			565,629			546,385
Savings		148,092			149,223			145,514			145,825			150,996
Certificates of deposit		210,897			204,660			194,694			203,860			192,470
Total deposits		1,273,901			1,335,822			1,328,766			1,275,502			1,250,482
FHLB and other borrowings		155,110			48,767			53,046			92,050			131,330
Subordinated debentures		21,651			21,651			21,651			21,651			21,651
Repurchase agreements		5,825			6,256			13,808			9,528			8,745
Accrued interest and other liabilities		20,002			23,442			20,656			25,229			20,292
Total liabilities		1,476,489			1,435,938			1,437,927			1,423,960			1,432,500
Stockholders’ equity:
Common stock		58			58			58			55			55
Additional paid-in capital		95,266			95,148			95,051			89,532			89,469
Retained earnings		63,612			60,422			56,934			60,549			57,774
Treasury stock, at cost		–			–			–			(396	)		(330	)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(10,560	)		(12,977	)		(15,828	)		(10,049	)		(18,714	)
Total stockholders’ equity		148,376			142,651			136,215			139,691			128,254
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	1,624,865		$	1,578,589		$	1,574,142		$	1,563,651		$	1,560,754

LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Earnings (unaudited)

	Three months ended,							Six months ended,
	June 30,		March 31,			June 30,		June 30,			June 30,
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)	2025		2025			2024		2025			2024
Interest income:
Loans	$	17,186	$	16,395		$	15,022	$	33,581		$	29,512
Investment securities:
Taxable		2,163		2,180			2,359		4,343			4,787
Tax-exempt		701		719			759		1,420			1,523
Interest-bearing deposits at banks		48		48			40		96			103
Total interest income		20,098		19,342			18,180		39,440			35,925
Interest expense:
Deposits		5,144		5,236			5,673		10,380			11,130
FHLB and other borrowings		861		565			1,027		1,426			2,049
Subordinated debentures		358		357			418		715			830
Repurchase agreements		52		65			88		117			195
Total interest expense		6,415		6,223			7,206		12,638			14,204
Net interest income		13,683		13,119			10,974		26,802			21,721
Provision for credit losses		1,000		–			–		1,000			300
Net interest income after provision for credit losses		12,683		13,119			10,974		25,802			21,421
Non-interest income:
Fees and service charges		2,476		2,388			2,691		4,864			5,152
Gains on sales of loans, net		740		562			648		1,302			1,160
Bank owned life insurance		278		272			248		550			493
Losses on sales of investment securities, net		–		(2	)		–		(2	)		–
Other		132		138			133		270			315
Total non-interest income		3,626		3,358			3,720		6,984			7,120
Non-interest expense:
Compensation and benefits		6,234		6,154			5,504		12,388			11,036
Occupancy and equipment		1,244		1,252			1,294		2,496			2,684
Data processing		629		396			492		1,025			973
Amortization of mortgage servicing rights and other intangibles		238		239			256		477			668
Professional fees		540		745			649		1,285			1,296
Valuation allowance on real estate held for sale		–		–			979		–			1,108
Other		2,076		1,975			1,921		4,051			3,881
Total non-interest expense		10,961		10,761			11,095		21,722			21,646
Earnings before income taxes		5,348		5,716			3,599		11,064			6,895
Income tax expense		944		1,015			587		1,959			1,105
Net earnings	$	4,404	$	4,701		$	3,012	$	9,105		$	5,790

Net earnings per share (1)
Basic	$	0.76	$	0.81		$	0.52	$	1.58		$	1.01
Diluted		0.75		0.81			0.52		1.56			1.01
Dividends per share (1)		0.21		0.21			0.20		0.42			0.40
Shares outstanding at end of period (1)		5,783,312		5,778,610			5,743,044		5,783,312			5,743,044
Weighted average common shares outstanding – basic (1)		5,782,555		5,777,593			5,745,310		5,780,930			5,744,381
Weighted average common shares outstanding – diluted (1)		5,840,923		5,814,650			5,748,053		5,827,844			5,748,332

Tax equivalent net interest income	$	13,851	$	13,291		$	11,167	$	27,142		$	22,075

(1) Share and per share values at or for the periods ended June 30, 2024 have been adjusted to give effect to the 5% stock dividend paid during December 2024.

LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Select Ratios and Other Data (unaudited)

	As of or for the									As of or for the
	three months ended,									six months ended,
	June 30,			March 31,			June 30,			June 30,			June 30,
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)	2025			2025			2024			2025			2024
Performance ratios:
Return on average assets (1)		1.11	%		1.21	%		0.78	%		1.16	%		0.75	%
Return on average equity (1)		12.25	%		13.71	%		9.72	%		12.96	%		9.30	%
Net interest margin (1)(2)		3.83	%		3.76	%		3.21	%		3.80	%		3.16	%
Effective tax rate		17.7	%		17.8	%		16.3	%		17.7	%		16.0	%
Efficiency ratio (3)		62.8	%		64.1	%		67.9	%		63.4	%		70.0	%
Non-interest income to total income (3)		20.9	%		20.4	%		25.3	%		20.7	%		24.7	%

Average balances:
Investment securities	$	363,878		$	377,845		$	437,136		$	370,823		$	447,034
Loans		1,081,865			1,048,585			955,104			1,065,317			950,420
Assets		1,592,939			1,574,295			1,545,816			1,583,669			1,550,739
Interest-bearing deposits		965,214			979,787			936,237			972,460			935,827
FHLB and other borrowings		74,007			48,428			72,875			61,288			72,747
Subordinated debentures		21,651			21,651			21,651			21,651			21,651
Repurchase agreements		6,683			8,634			11,524			7,653			12,947
Stockholders’ equity	$	144,151		$	139,068		$	124,624		$	141,623		$	125,235

Average tax equivalent yield/cost (1):
Investment securities		3.34	%		3.29	%		3.04	%		3.32	%		2.99	%
Loans		6.37	%		6.34	%		6.33	%		6.36	%		6.25	%
Total interest-bearing assets		5.60	%		5.53	%		5.29	%		5.56	%		5.20	%
Interest-bearing deposits		2.14	%		2.17	%		2.44	%		2.15	%		2.39	%
FHLB and other borrowings		4.67	%		4.73	%		5.67	%		4.69	%		5.66	%
Subordinated debentures		6.63	%		6.69	%		7.76	%		6.66	%		7.71	%
Repurchase agreements		3.12	%		3.05	%		3.07	%		3.08	%		3.03	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities		2.41	%		2.38	%		2.78	%		2.40	%		2.74	%

Capital ratios:
Equity to total assets		9.13	%		9.04	%		8.22	%
Tangible equity to tangible assets (3)		7.15	%		6.99	%		6.09	%
Book value per share	$	25.66		$	24.69		$	22.33
Tangible book value per share (3)	$	19.66		$	18.66		$	16.19

Rollforward of allowance for credit losses (loans):
Beginning balance	$	12,802		$	12,825		$	10,851		$	12,825		$	10,608
Charge-offs		(103	)		(108	)		(119	)		(211	)		(260	)
Recoveries		63			85			171			148			305
Provision for credit losses for loans		1,000			–			–			1,000			250
Ending balance	$	13,762		$	12,802		$	10,903		$	13,762		$	10,903

Allowance for unfunded loan commitments	$	150		$	150		$	300

Non-performing assets:
Non-accrual loans	$	16,984		$	13,280		$	5,007
Accruing loans over 90 days past due		–			–			–
Real estate owned		167			167			428
Total non-performing assets	$	17,151		$	13,447		$	5,435

Loans 30-89 days delinquent	$	4,321		$	9,977		$	1,872

Other ratios:
Loans to deposits		86.62	%		79.48	%		77.50	%
Loans 30-89 days delinquent and still accruing to gross loans outstanding		0.39	%		0.93	%		0.19	%
Total non-performing loans to gross loans outstanding		1.52	%		1.24	%		0.51	%
Total non-performing assets to total assets		1.06	%		0.85	%		0.35	%
Allowance for credit losses to gross loans outstanding		1.23	%		1.19	%		1.11	%
Allowance for credit losses to total non-performing loans		81.03	%		96.40	%		217.76	%
Net loan charge-offs to average loans (1)		0.01	%		0.01	%		-0.02	%		0.01	%		-0.01	%

(1	)	Information is annualized.
(2	)	Net interest margin is presented on a fully tax equivalent basis, using a 21% federal tax rate.
(3	)	Non-GAAP financial measures. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of this press release for a reconciliation to the most comparable GAAP equivalent.

LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Non-GAAP Finacials Measures (unaudited)

	As of or for the									As of or for the
	three months ended,									six months ended,
	June 30,			March 31,			June 30,			June 30,			June 30,
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)	2025			2025			2024			2025			2024

Non-GAAP financial ratio reconciliation:
Total non-interest expense	$	10,961		$	10,761		$	11,095		$	21,722		$	21,646
Less: foreclosure and real estate owned expense		49			(50	)		39			(1	)		(11	)
Less: amortization of other intangibles		(151	)		(152	)		(171	)		(303	)		(341	)
Less: valuation allowance on real estate held for sale		–			–			(979	)		–			(1,108	)
Adjusted non-interest expense (A)		10,859			10,559			9,984			21,418			20,186

Net interest income (B)		13,683			13,119			10,974			26,802			21,721

Non-interest income		3,626			3,358			3,720			6,984			7,120
Less: losses on sales of investment securities, net		–			2			–			2			–
Less: gains on sales of premises and equipment and foreclosed assets		(9	)		–			–			(9	)		9
Adjusted non-interest income (C)	$	3,617		$	3,360		$	3,720		$	6,977		$	7,129

Efficiency ratio (A/(B+C))		62.8	%		64.1	%		67.9	%		63.4	%		70.0	%
Non-interest income to total income (C/(B+C))		20.9	%		20.4	%		25.3	%		20.7	%		24.7	%

Total stockholders’ equity	$	148,376		$	142,651		$	128,254
Less: goodwill and other intangible assets		(34,652	)		(34,803	)		(35,277	)
Tangible equity (D)	$	113,724		$	107,848		$	92,977

Total assets	$	1,624,865		$	1,578,589		$	1,560,754
Less: goodwill and other intangible assets		(34,652	)		(34,803	)		(35,277	)
Tangible assets (E)	$	1,590,213		$	1,543,786		$	1,525,477

Tangible equity to tangible assets (D/E)		7.15	%		6.99	%		6.09	%

Shares outstanding at end of period (F)		5,783,312			5,778,610			5,743,044

Tangible book value per share (D/F)	$	19.66		$	18.66		$	16.19

The MIL Network –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI: Heritage Commerce Corp Reports Second Quarter and First Six Months of 2025 Financial Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

SAN JOSE, Calif., July 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Heritage Commerce Corp (Nasdaq: HTBK), (the “Company”), the holding company for Heritage Bank of Commerce (the “Bank”) today announced its financial results for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2025. All data are unaudited.

REPORTED SECOND QUARTER 2025 HIGHLIGHTS:

Net Income	Earnings Per Share	Pre-Provision Net Revenue (“PPNR”)⁽¹⁾	Fully Tax Equivalent (“FTE”) Net Interest Margin⁽¹⁾		Efficiency Ratio⁽¹⁾		Tangible Book Value Per Share⁽¹⁾

$6.4 million	$0.10	$9.4 million	3.54	%	80.23	%	$8.49

ADJUSTED SECOND QUARTER 2025 HIGHLIGHTS:⁽¹⁾


Net Income	Earnings Per Share	PPNR⁽¹⁾	FTE Net Interest Margin⁽¹⁾		Efficiency Ratio⁽¹⁾		Tangible Book Value Per Share⁽¹⁾


$13.0 million	$0.21	$18.6 million	3.54	%	61.01	%	$8.59

CEO COMMENTARY:
“We executed well in the second quarter, generating a higher level of net income and earnings per share, excluding significant charges primarily related to a legal settlement,” said Clay Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer. “We had positive trends in loan growth, an expansion in our net interest margin, and stable asset quality, while deposits declined due to seasonal outflows that we typically see in the second quarter. Our loan growth was well diversified across our portfolios. We continue to successfully add new clients by offering a superior banking experience and generate loan growth while maintaining our disciplined underwriting and pricing criteria.”

“We have a strong balance sheet with a high level of capital and liquidity and healthy asset quality, which provides a strong foundation to weather periods of economic volatility. We are well positioned to navigate the current environment and expect to see positive trends in loan growth, the net interest margin, and expense management,” said Mr. Jones.


LINKED-QUARTER BASIS	YEAR-OVER-YEAR

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS:

• Total revenue of $47.8 million, an increase of 4%, or $1.7 million
• Noninterest expense of $38.3 million includes an accrual of $9.2 million for pre-tax charges primarily related to a legal settlement
• Reported net income of $6.4 million and earnings per share of $0.10, down 45% and 47%, from $11.6 million and $0.19, respectively
• Adjusted net income⁽¹⁾ of $13.0 million and adjusted earnings per share⁽¹⁾ of $0.21, both metrics up 11% from $11.6 million and $0.19, respectively

• Total revenue of $47.8 million, an increase of 15%, or $6.1 million
• Noninterest expense of $38.3 million includes an accrual of $9.2 million for pre-tax charges primarily related to a legal settlement
• Reported net income of $6.4 million and earnings per share of $0.10, down 31% and 33%, from $9.2 million and $0.15, respectively
• Adjusted net income⁽¹⁾ of $13.0 million and adjusted earnings per share⁽¹⁾ of $0.21, both metrics up 40% from $9.2 million and $0.15, respectively

FINANCIAL CONDITION:

• Loans held-for-investment (“HFI”) of $3.5 billion, up $47.4 million or 1%
• Total deposits of $4.6 billion, down $55.9 million, or 1%
• Loan to deposit ratio of 76.38%, up from 74.45%
• Total shareholders’ equity of $694.7 million, down $1.5 million

• Increase in loans HFI of $154.5 million, or 5%

• Increase in total deposits of $182.7 million, or 4%
• Loan to deposit ratio of 76.38%, up from 76.04%
• Increase in total shareholders’ equity of $15.5 million

CREDIT QUALITY:

• Nonperforming assets (“NPAs”) to total assets of 0.11% for both quarters
• NPAs to total assets of 0.11% for both quarters

• Classified assets to total assets of 0.69%, compared to 0.73%
• Classified assets to total assets of 0.69%, compared to 0.64%

KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS:

• FTE net interest margin⁽¹⁾ of 3.54%, an increase from 3.39%
• Common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 13.3%, compared to 13.6%
• Total capital ratio of 15.5%, compared to 15.9%
• Tangible common equity ratio⁽¹⁾ of 9.85%, an increase of 1% from 9.78%

• FTE net interest margin⁽¹⁾ of 3.54%, an increase from 3.26%
• Common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 13.3%, compared to 13.4%
• Total capital ratio of 15.5%, compared to 15.6%
• Tangible common equity ratio⁽¹⁾ of 9.85%, a decrease of 1% from 9.91%

^{(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release. All references to “adjusted” operating metrics exclude the $9.2 million of charges primarily related to a legal settlement in the second quarter and first six months of 2025 as presented in the reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures at the end of this press release.}

Results of Operations:

Reported net income was $6.4 million, or $0.10 per average diluted common share, for the second quarter of 2025. Adjusted net income⁽²⁾ was $13.0 million, or $0.21 per average diluted common share, for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $11.6 million, or $0.19 per average diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2025, and $9.2 million, or $0.15 per average diluted common share, for the second quarter of 2024. The annualized return on average assets was 0.47% and annualized return on average equity was 3.68% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 0.85% and 6.81%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025, and 0.71% and 5.50%, respectively, for the second quarter of 2024. The adjusted annualized return on average assets⁽²⁾ was 0.95% and adjusted annualized return on average tangible common equity⁽²⁾ was 9.92% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 0.85% and 9.09%, respectively, for the first quarter ended of 2025, and 0.71% and 7.43%, respectively, for the second quarter of 2024.

Reported net income was $18.0 million, or $0.29 per average diluted common share, for the first six months of 2025. Adjusted net income⁽²⁾ was $24.6 million, or $0.40 per average diluted common share, for the first six months of 2025, compared to $19.4 million, or $0.32 per average diluted common share, for the first six months of 2024. The annualized return on average assets was 0.66% and annualized return on average equity was 5.23% for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to 0.75% and 5.79%, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2024. The adjusted annualized return on average assets⁽²⁾ was 0.90% and annualized return on average tangible common equity⁽²⁾ was 9.51% for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to 0.75% and 7.84%, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2024.

Total revenue, which is defined as net interest income before provision for credit losses on loans plus noninterest income, increased $1.7 million, or 4%, to $47.8 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $46.1 million for the first quarter of 2025, and increased $6.1 million, or 15%, from $41.7 million for the second quarter of 2024. Total revenue increased $9.9 million, or 12%, to $93.8 million for the first six months of 2025, compared to $83.9 million for the first six months of 2024.

For the second quarter and first six months of 2025, the Company’s reported PPNR⁽²⁾, which is defined as total revenue less adjusted noninterest expense⁽²⁾ was $9.4 million and $26.0 million, respectively. The adjusted PPNR⁽²⁾ was $18.6 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $16.6 million for the first quarter of 2025, and $13.5 million for the second quarter of 2024. For the six months of 2025, the Company’s adjusted PPNR⁽²⁾ was $35.2 million, compared to $28.1 million for the six months of 2024.

Net interest income totaled $44.8 million for the second quarter of 2025, an increase of $1.4 million, or 3%, compared to $43.4 million for the first quarter of 2025. The FTE net interest margin⁽²⁾ was 3.54% for the second quarter of 2025, an increase over 3.39% for the first quarter of 2025 primarily due to an increase in the average yields and average balances of loans and securities, partially offset by a decrease in the average balances of deposits resulting in a lower average balance of overnight funds.

Net interest income increased $5.9 million, or 15%, to $44.8 million, compared to $38.9 million for the second quarter of 2024. The FTE net interest margin⁽²⁾ increased from 3.23% for the second quarter of 2024 primarily due to lower rates paid on customer deposits, an increase in the average yields and average balances of loans and securities, and an increase in the average balance of deposits resulting in a higher average balance of overnight funds, partially offset by a lower average yield on overnight funds.

For the first six months of 2025, net interest income increased $9.8 million, or 12% to $88.2 million, compared to $78.4 million for the first six months of 2024. The FTE net interest margin⁽²⁾ increased 20 basis points to 3.47% for the first six months of 2025, from 3.27% for the first six months of 2024, primarily due to an increase in the average balances of average interest earning assets, and an increase in the average yields on loans and securities, partially offset by higher rates paid on client deposits and a lower yield on overnight funds.

We recorded a provision for credit losses on loans of $516,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $274,000 for the first quarter of 2025, and $471,000 for the second quarter of 2024. There was a provision for credit losses on loans of $790,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to $655,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2024. The increase in the provision for credit losses on loans for the second quarter and first six months of 2025 was primarily due to loan growth.

Total noninterest income increased to $3.0 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $2.7 million for the first quarter of 2025, and $2.9 million for the second quarter of 2024, primarily due to higher termination and facility fees. The increase in noninterest income in the second quarter of 2025 was partially offset by a $219,000 gain on proceeds from company-owned life insurance in the second quarter of 2024.

Total noninterest income increased 3% to $5.7 million for the first six months of 2025, compared to $5.5 million for the first six months of 2024, primarily due to higher termination and facility fees, partially offset by a $219,000 gain on proceeds from company-owned life insurance in the first six months of 2024.

⁽²⁾This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.

Reported noninterest expense for the second quarter of 2025 and first six months of 2025 totaled $38.3 million and $67.8 million, respectively. During the second quarter of 2025, the Company recorded expenses of $9.2 million, primarily due to pre-tax charges related to the settlement of certain litigation matters, including the anticipated settlement of a previously disclosed class action and California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) lawsuit that alleged the violation of certain California wage-and-hour and related laws and regulations, and charges related to the planned closure of a Bank branch. Adjusted noninterest expense⁽³⁾ was $29.1 million, compared to $29.5 million for the first quarter of 2025, and $28.2 million for the second quarter of 2024. Adjusted noninterest expense⁽³⁾ for the first six months of 2025 was $58.6 million, compared to $55.7 million for the first six months of 2024.

Income tax expense decreased to $2.5 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $4.7 million for the first quarter of 2025, and $3.8 million for the second quarter of 2024, primarily due to lower pre-tax income. The effective tax rate for the second quarter of 2025 was 28.5%, compared to 28.8% for the first quarter of 2025, and 29.4% for the second quarter of 2024.

Income tax expense for the six months ended June 30, 2025 was $7.2 million, compared to $8.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2024. The effective tax rate for six months ended June 30, 2025 was 28.7%, compared to 29.4% for the six months ended June 30, 2024.

The reported efficiency ratio⁽³⁾ for the second quarter and first six month of 2025 was 80.23% and 72.24%, respectively. The adjusted efficiency ratio⁽³⁾ improved to 61.01% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 63.96% for the first quarter of 2025, as a result of higher total revenue. The adjusted efficiency ratio⁽³⁾ improved from 67.55% for the second quarter of 2024, primarily due to higher total revenue, partially offset by higher noninterest expense. The adjusted efficiency ratio⁽³⁾ improved to 62.45% for the first six months of 2025 from 66.44% for the first six months of 2024, primarily due to higher total revenue, partially offset by higher noninterest expense.

Full time equivalent employees were 350 at both June 30, 2025 and March 31, 2025, and 353 at June 30, 2024.

Financial Condition and Capital Management:

Total assets remained relatively flat at $5.5 billion at both June 30, 2025 and March 31, 2025. Total assets increased 4% from $5.3 billion at June 30, 2024, primarily due to an increase in deposits resulting in an increase in overnight funds, and an increase in loans.

Investment securities available-for-sale (at fair value) decreased to $307.0 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $371.0 million at March 31, 2025, primarily due to maturities and paydowns, partially offset by purchases. Investment securities available-for-sale totaled $273.0 million at June 30, 2024. The pre-tax unrealized loss on the securities available-for-sale portfolio was $448,000, or $396,000 net of taxes, which equaled less than 1% of total shareholders’ equity at June 30, 2025.

During the first six months of 2025, the Company purchased $87.2 million of agency mortgage-backed securities, $79.8 million of collateralized mortgage obligations, and $44.8 million of U.S. Treasury securities, for total purchases of $211.8 million in the available-for-sale portfolio. Securities purchased had a book yield of 4.82% and an average life of 4.55 years.

Investment securities held-to-maturity (at amortized cost, net of allowance for credit losses of ($16,000), totaled $561.2 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $576.7 million at March 31, 2025, and $621.2 million at June 30, 2024. The fair value of the securities held-to-maturity portfolio was $486.5 million at June 30, 2025. The pre-tax unrecognized loss on the securities held-to-maturity portfolio was $74.7 million, or $52.7 million net of taxes, which equaled 7.6% of total shareholders’ equity at June 30, 2025.

The unrealized and unrecognized losses in both the available-for-sale and held-to-maturity portfolios were due to higher interest rates at June 30, 2025 compared to when the securities were purchased. The issuers are of high credit quality and all principal amounts are expected to be repaid when the securities mature. The fair value is expected to recover as the securities approach their maturity date and/or market rates decline.

Loans HFI, net of deferred costs and fees, increased $47.4 million, or 1% to $3.5 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $3.5 billion at March 31, 2025, and increased $154.5 million, or 5%, from $3.4 billion at June 30, 2024. Loans HFI, excluding residential mortgages, increased $58.3 million, or 2% to $3.1 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $3.0 billion at March 31, 2025, and increased $184.9 million, or 6%, from $2.9 billion at June 30, 2024.

Commercial and industrial line utilization was 32% at June 30, 2025, compared to 31% at both March 31, 2025, and June 30, 2024. Commercial real estate (“CRE”) loans totaled $2.0 billion at June 30, 2025, of which 31% were owner occupied and 31% were investor CRE loans. Owner occupied CRE loans totaled 31% at March 31, 2025 and 32% at June 30, 2024. Approximately 24% of the Company’s loan portfolio consisted of floating interest rate loans at both June 30, 2025 and March 31, 2025, compared to 27% at June 30, 2024.

At June 30, 2025, paydowns and maturities of investment securities and fixed interest rate loans maturing within one year totaled $311.0 million.

^{(3)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.}

Total deposits decreased $55.9 million, or 1%, to $4.6 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $4.7 billion at March 31, 2025, primarily due to season outflows. Total deposits increased $182.7 million, or 4% from $4.4 billion at June 30, 2024.

The following table shows the Company’s deposit types as a percentage of total deposits at the dates indicated:


	June 30,		March 31,		June 30,
DEPOSITS TYPE % TO TOTAL DEPOSITS	2025		2025		2024
Demand, noninterest-bearing	25	%	24	%	27	%
Demand, interest-bearing	21	%	20	%	21	%
Savings and money market	28	%	29	%	25	%
Time deposits — under $250	1	%	1	%	1	%
Time deposits — $250 and over	4	%	5	%	4	%
Insured Cash Sweep (“ICS”)/Certificate of Deposit Registry
Service (“CDARS”) – interest-bearing demand, money
market and time deposits	21	%	21	%	22	%
Total deposits	100	%	100	%	100	%

The loan to deposit ratio was 76.38% at June 30, 2025, compared to 74.45% at March 31, 2025, and 76.04% at June 30, 2024.

The Company’s total available liquidity and borrowing capacity was $3.1 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $3.2 billion at March 31, 2025, and $3.0 billion at June 30, 2024.

Total shareholders’ equity was $694.7 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $696.2 million at March 31, 2025, and $679.2 million at June 30, 2024. The change in shareholders’ equity at June 30, 2025 is primarily a function of net income and the decrease in the total accumulated other comprehensive loss, partially offset by dividends to stockholders.

Total accumulated other comprehensive loss of $5.0 million at June 30, 2025 was comprised of $2.5 million in actuarial losses associated with split dollar insurance contracts, $2.2 million in actuarial losses associated with the supplemental executive retirement plan, unrealized losses on securities available-for-sale of $396,000, and a $42,000 unrealized gain on interest-only strip from SBA loans.

The Company’s consolidated capital ratios exceeded regulatory guidelines and the Bank’s capital ratios exceeded regulatory guidelines under the prompt corrective action (“PCA”) regulatory guidelines for a well-capitalized financial institution, and the Basel III minimum regulatory requirements at June 30, 2025.

Reported tangible book value per share⁽⁴⁾ was $8.49 at June 30, 2025. Adjusted tangible book value per share⁽⁴⁾ was $8.59 at June 30, 2025, compared to $8.48 at March 31, 2025, and $8.22 at June 30, 2024.

The Company is authorized to repurchase up to $15.0 million of the Company’s shares of its issued and outstanding common stock under its share repurchase program authorized by the Board of Directors in July 2024. During the second quarter of 2025, the Company repurchased 207,989 shares of its common stock with a weighted average price of $9.19 for a total of $1.9 million. The remaining capacity under this share repurchase program was $13.1 million at June 30, 2025. In July 2025, the Company’s Board of Directors extended the program for one year, expiring on July 31, 2026.

Credit Quality:
The provision for credit losses on loans totaled $516,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to a $274,000 provision for credit losses on loans for the first quarter of 2025 and a provision for credit losses on loans of $471,000 for the second quarter of 2024. Net charge-offs totaled $145,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $965,000 for the first quarter of 2025, and $405,000 for the second quarter of 2024.

The provision for credit losses on loans totaled $790,000 for the first six months of 2025, compared to a $655,000 provision for credit losses on loans for the first six months of 2024. Net charge-offs totaled $1.1 million for the first six months of 2025, compared to $659,000 for the first six months of 2024.

The allowance for credit losses on loans (“ACLL”) at June 30, 2025 was $48.6 million, or 1.38% of total loans, representing 787% of total nonperforming loans. The ACLL at March 31, 2025 was $48.3 million, or 1.38% of total loans, representing 765% of total nonperforming loans. The ACLL at June 30, 2024 was $48.0 million, or 1.42% of total loans, representing 795% of total nonperforming loans. The reduction to the allowance for credit on losses on loans reflects our credit assessment and economic factors.

NPAs were $6.2 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $6.3 million at March 31, 2025, and $6.0 million at June 30, 2024. There were no foreclosed assets on the balance sheet at June 30, 2025, March 31, 2025, or June 30, 2024. There were no Shared National Credits (“SNCs”) or material purchased participations included in NPAs or total loans at June 30, 2025, March 31, 2025, or June 30, 2024.

Classified assets totaled $37.5 million, or 0.69% of total assets, at June 30, 2025, compared to $40.0 million, or 0.73% of total assets, at March 31, 2025, and $33.6 million, or 0.64% of total assets, at June 30, 2024.

^{(4)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.}

Heritage Commerce Corp, a bank holding company established in October 1997, is the parent company of Heritage Bank of Commerce, established in 1994 and headquartered in San Jose, CA with full-service branches in Danville, Fremont, Gilroy, Hollister, Livermore, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Oakland, Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Redwood City, San Francisco, San Jose, San Mateo, San Rafael, and Walnut Creek. Heritage Bank of Commerce is an SBA Preferred Lender. Bay View Funding, a subsidiary of Heritage Bank of Commerce, is based in San Jose, CA and provides business-essential working capital factoring financing to various industries throughout the United States. For more information, please visit www.heritagecommercecorp.com. The contents of our website are not incorporated into, and do not form a part of, this release or of our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Reclassifications

During the first quarter of 2025, we reclassified Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) and Federal Reserve Bank (“FRB”) stock dividends from interest income to noninterest income and the related average asset balances were reclassified from interest earning assets to other assets on the “Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin” tables. The amounts for the prior periods were reclassified to conform to the current presentation. These reclassifications did not affect previously reported net income or shareholders’ equity.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Financial results are presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and prevailing practices in the banking industry. However, certain non-GAAP performance measures and ratios are used by management to evaluate and measure the Company’s performance. These measures include “adjusted” operating metrics that have been adjusted to exclude notable expenses incurred in the second quarter as well as other performance measures and ratios adjusted for notable items. Management believes these non-GAAP financial measures enhance comparability between periods and in some instances are common in the banking industry. These non-GAAP financial measures should be supplemental to primary GAAP financial measures and should not be read in isolation or relied upon as a substitute for primary GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures is presented in the tables at the end of this press release under “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

Forward-Looking Statement Disclaimer

Certain matters discussed in this press release constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain in that they reflect plans and expectations for future events. These statements may include, among other things, those relating to the Company’s future financial performance, plans and objectives regarding future events, expectations regarding changes in interest rates and market conditions, projected cash flows of our investment securities portfolio, the performance of our loan portfolio, loan growth, expenses, net interest margin, estimated net interest income resulting from a shift in interest rates, expectation of high credit quality issuers ability to repay, as well as statements relating to the anticipated effects on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations from expected developments or events. Any statements that reflect our belief about, confidence in, or expectations for future events, performance or condition should be considered forward-looking statements. Readers should not construe these statements as assurances of a given level of performance, nor as promises that we will take actions that we currently expect to take. All statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside our control and some of which may fall outside our ability to predict or anticipate. Accordingly, our actual results may differ materially from our projected results, and we may take actions or experience events that we do not currently expect. Risks and uncertainties that could cause our financial performance to differ materially from our goals, plans, expectations and projections expressed in forward-looking statements include those set forth in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Item 1A of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, and include: (i) cybersecurity risks that may affect us directly or may impact us indirectly by virtue of their effects on our clients, markets or vendors, including our ability to identify and address cybersecurity risks, including those posed by the increasing use of artificial intelligence (such as, but not limited to, ransomware, data security breaches, “denial of service” attacks, “hacking” and identity theft) affecting us, our clients, and our third-party vendors and service providers; (ii) events that affect our ability to attract, recruit, and retain qualified officers and other personnel to implement our strategic plan, and that enable current and future personnel to protect and develop our relationships with clients, and to promote our business, results of operations and growth prospects; (iii) media items and consumer confidence as those factors affect our clients’ confidence in the banking system generally and in our bank specifically; (iv) adequacy of our risk management framework, disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (v) the effects of recent wildfires affecting Southern California, which have affected certain clients and certain loans secured by mortgages in Los Angeles County, and which are affecting or may, in the future, affect other clients in those and other markets throughout California; (vi) market, geographic and sociopolitical factors that arise by virtue of the fact that we operate primarily in the general San Francisco Bay Area of Northern California; (vii) risks of geographic concentration of our client base, our loans, and the collateral securing our loans, as those clients and assets may be particularly subject to natural disasters and to events and conditions that directly or indirectly affect those regions, including the particular risks of natural disasters (including earthquakes, fires, and flooding) and other events that disproportionately affect that region; (viii) political events that have accompanied or that may in the future accompany or result from recent political changes, particularly including sociopolitical events and conditions that result from political conflicts and law enforcement activities that may adversely affect our markets or our clients; (ix) our ability to estimate accurately, and to establish adequate reserves against, the risk of loss associated with our loan and lease portfolios and our factoring business; (x) inflationary pressures and changes in the interest rate environment that reduce our margins and yields, the fair value of financial instruments or our level of loan originations, or increase the level of defaults, losses and prepayments on loans to clients, whether held in the portfolio or in the secondary market; (xi) factors that affect the value and liquidity of our investment portfolios, particularly the values of securities available-for-sale; (xii) factors that affect our liquidity and our ability to meet client demands for withdrawals from deposit accounts and undrawn lines of credit, including our cash on hand and the availability of funds from our own lines of credit; (xiii) increased capital requirements for our continual growth or as imposed by banking regulators, which may require us to raise capital at a time when capital is not available on favorable terms or at all; (xiv) the expense and uncertain resolution of litigation matters whether occurring in the ordinary course of business or otherwise, particularly including but not limited to the effects of recent and ongoing developments in California labor and employment laws, regulations and court decisions; (xv) operational issues stemming from, and/or capital spending necessitated by, the potential need to adapt to industry changes in information technology systems, on which we are highly dependent; and (xvi) our success in managing the risks involved in the foregoing factors.

Member FDIC

For additional information, email:
InvestorRelations@herbank.com


	For the Quarter Ended:									Percent Change From:						For the Six Months Ended:
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS	June 30,			March 31,			June 30,			March 31,			June 30,			June 30,			June 30,			Percent
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2025			2024			2025			2024			2025			2024			Change
Interest income	$	63,025		$	61,832		$	58,489		2		%	8		%	$	124,857		$	115,450		8		%
Interest expense		18,220			18,472			19,622		(1	)	%	(7	)	%		36,692			37,080		(1	)	%
Net interest income before provision
for credit losses on loans		44,805			43,360			38,867		3		%	15		%		88,165			78,370		12		%
Provision for credit losses on loans		516			274			471		88		%	10		%		790			655		21		%
Net interest income after provision
for credit losses on loans		44,289			43,086			38,396		3		%	15		%		87,375			77,715		12		%
Noninterest income:
Service charges and fees on deposit
accounts		929			892			891		4		%	4		%		1,821			1,768		3		%
FHLB and FRB stock dividends		584			590			588		(1	)	%	(1	)	%		1,174			1,178
Increase in cash surrender value of
life insurance		548			538			521		2		%	5		%		1,086			1,039		5		%
Termination fees		227			87			100		161		%	127		%		314			113		178		%
Gain on sales of SBA loans		87			98			76		(11	)	%	14		%		185			254		(27	)	%
Servicing income		61			82			90		(26	)	%	(32	)	%		143			180		(21	)	%
Gain on proceeds from company-owned
life insurance		—			—			219		N/A			(100	)	%		—			219		(100	)	%
Other		541			409			379		32		%	43		%		950			750		27		%
Total noninterest income		2,977			2,696			2,864		10		%	4		%		5,673			5,501		3		%
Noninterest expense:
Salaries and employee benefits		16,227			16,575			15,794		(2	)	%	3		%		32,802			31,303		5		%
Occupancy and equipment		2,525			2,534			2,689		0		%	(6	)	%		5,059			5,132		(1	)	%
Professional fees		1,819			1,580			1,072		15		%	70		%		3,399			2,399		42		%
Other		17,764			8,767			8,633		103		%	106		%		26,531			16,890		57		%
Total noninterest expense		38,335			29,456			28,188		30		%	36		%		67,791			55,724		22		%
Income before income taxes		8,931			16,326			13,072		(45	)	%	(32	)	%		25,257			27,492		(8	)	%
Income tax expense		2,542			4,700			3,838		(46	)	%	(34	)	%		7,242			8,092		(11	)	%
Net income	$	6,389		$	11,626		$	9,234		(45	)	%	(31	)	%	$	18,015		$	19,400		(7	)	%

PER COMMON SHARE DATA
(unaudited)
Basic earnings per share	$	0.10		$	0.19		$	0.15		(47	)	%	(33	)	%	$	0.29		$	0.32		(9	)	%
Diluted earnings per share	$	0.10		$	0.19		$	0.15		(47	)	%	(33	)	%	$	0.29		$	0.32		(9	)	%
Weighted average shares outstanding – basic		61,508,180			61,479,579			61,279,914		0		%	0		%		61,493,880			61,233,269		0		%
Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted		61,624,600			61,708,361			61,438,088		0		%	0		%		61,664,942			61,446,484		0		%
Common shares outstanding at period-end		61,446,763			61,611,121			61,292,094		0		%	0		%		61,446,763			61,292,094		0		%
Dividend per share	$	0.13		$	0.13		$	0.13		0		%	0		%	$	0.26		$	0.26		0		%
Book value per share	$	11.31		$	11.30		$	11.08		0		%	2		%	$	11.31		$	11.08		2		%
Tangible book value per share⁽¹⁾	$	8.49		$	8.48		$	8.22		0		%	3		%	$	8.49		$	8.22		3		%

KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS
(in $000’s, unaudited)
Annualized return on average equity		3.68	%		6.81	%		5.50	%	(46	)	%	(33	)	%		5.23	%		5.79	%	(10	)	%
Annualized return on average tangible
common equity⁽¹⁾		4.89	%		9.09	%		7.43	%	(46	)	%	(34	)	%		6.97	%		7.84	%	(11	)	%
Annualized return on average assets		0.47	%		0.85	%		0.71	%	(45	)	%	(34	)	%		0.66	%		0.75	%	(12	)	%
Annualized return on average tangible assets⁽¹⁾		0.48	%		0.88	%		0.74	%	(45	)	%	(35	)	%		0.68	%		0.78	%	(13	)	%
Net interest margin (FTE)⁽¹⁾		3.54	%		3.39	%		3.23	%	4		%	10		%		3.47	%		3.27	%	6		%
Total revenue	$	47,782		$	46,056		$	41,731		4		%	15		%		93,838			83,871		12		%
Pre-provision net revenue⁽¹⁾	$	9,447		$	16,600		$	13,543		(43	)	%	(30	)	%		26,047			28,147		(7	)	%
Efficiency ratio⁽¹⁾		80.23	%		63.96	%		67.55	%	25		%	19		%		72.24	%		66.44	%	9		%

AVERAGE BALANCES
(in $000’s, unaudited)
Average assets	$	5,458,420		$	5,559,896		$	5,213,171		(2	)	%	5		%	$	5,508,878		$	5,195,903		6		%
Average tangible assets⁽¹⁾	$	5,284,972		$	5,386,001		$	5,037,673		(2	)	%	5		%	$	5,335,207		$	5,020,134		6		%
Average earning assets	$	5,087,089		$	5,188,317		$	4,840,670		(2	)	%	5		%	$	5,137,424		$	4,825,587		6		%
Average loans held-for-sale	$	2,250		$	2,290		$	1,503		(2	)	%	50		%	$	2,270		$	2,126		7		%
Average loans held-for-investment	$	3,504,518		$	3,429,014		$	3,328,358		2		%	5		%	$	3,466,975		$	3,312,799		5		%
Average deposits	$	4,618,007		$	4,717,517		$	4,394,545		(2	)	%	5		%	$	4,667,487		$	4,377,347		7		%
Average demand deposits – noninterest-bearing	$	1,146,494		$	1,167,330		$	1,127,145		(2	)	%	2		%	$	1,156,854		$	1,152,111		0		%
Average interest-bearing deposits	$	3,471,513		$	3,550,187		$	3,267,400		(2	)	%	6		%	$	3,510,633		$	3,225,236		9		%
Average interest-bearing liabilities	$	3,511,237		$	3,589,872		$	3,306,972		(2	)	%	6		%	$	3,550,338		$	3,264,788		9		%
Average equity	$	697,016		$	692,733		$	675,108		1		%	3		%	$	694,886		$	673,700		3		%
Average tangible common equity⁽¹⁾	$	523,568		$	518,838		$	499,610		1		%	5		%	$	521,215		$	497,931		5		%

^{(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.}


	For the Quarter Ended:
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS	June 30,			March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2025			2024			2024			2024
Interest income	$	63,025		$	61,832		$	64,043		$	60,852		$	58,489
Interest expense		18,220			18,472			20,448			21,523			19,622
Net interest income before provision
for credit losses on loans		44,805			43,360			43,595			39,329			38,867
Provision for credit losses on loans		516			274			1,331			153			471
Net interest income after provision
for credit losses on loans		44,289			43,086			42,264			39,176			38,396
Noninterest income:
Service charges and fees on deposit
accounts		929			892			885			908			891
FHLB and FRB stock dividends		584			590			590			586			588
Increase in cash surrender value of
life insurance		548			538			528			530			521
Termination fees		227			87			18			46			100
Gain on sales of SBA loans		87			98			125			94			76
Servicing income		61			82			77			108			90
Gain on proceeds from company-owned
life insurance		—			—			—			—			219
Other		541			409			552			554			379
Total noninterest income		2,977			2,696			2,775			2,826			2,864
Noninterest expense:
Salaries and employee benefits		16,227			16,575			16,976			15,673			15,794
Occupancy and equipment		2,525			2,534			2,495			2,599			2,689
Professional fees		1,819			1,580			1,711			1,306			1,072
Other		17,764			8,767			9,122			7,977			8,633
Total noninterest expense		38,335			29,456			30,304			27,555			28,188
Income before income taxes		8,931			16,326			14,735			14,447			13,072
Income tax expense		2,542			4,700			4,114			3,940			3,838
Net income	$	6,389		$	11,626		$	10,621		$	10,507		$	9,234

PER COMMON SHARE DATA
(unaudited)
Basic earnings per share	$	0.10		$	0.19		$	0.17		$	0.17		$	0.15
Diluted earnings per share	$	0.10		$	0.19		$	0.17		$	0.17		$	0.15
Weighted average shares outstanding – basic		61,508,180			61,479,579			61,320,505			61,295,877			61,279,914
Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted		61,624,600			61,708,361			61,679,735			61,546,157			61,438,088
Common shares outstanding at period-end		61,446,763			61,611,121			61,348,095			61,297,344			61,292,094
Dividend per share	$	0.13		$	0.13		$	0.13		$	0.13		$	0.13
Book value per share	$	11.31		$	11.30		$	11.24		$	11.18		$	11.08
Tangible book value per share⁽¹⁾	$	8.49		$	8.48		$	8.41		$	8.33		$	8.22

KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS
(in $000’s, unaudited)
Annualized return on average equity		3.68	%		6.81	%		6.16	%		6.14	%		5.50	%
Annualized return on average tangible
common equity⁽¹⁾		4.89	%		9.09	%		8.25	%		8.27	%		7.43	%
Annualized return on average assets		0.47	%		0.85	%		0.75	%		0.78	%		0.71	%
Annualized return on average tangible assets⁽¹⁾		0.48	%		0.88	%		0.78	%		0.81	%		0.74	%
Net interest margin (FTE)⁽¹⁾		3.54	%		3.39	%		3.32	%		3.15	%		3.23	%
Total revenue	$	47,782		$	46,056		$	46,370		$	42,155		$	41,731
Pre-provision net revenue⁽¹⁾	$	9,447		$	16,600		$	16,066		$	14,600		$	13,543
Efficiency ratio⁽¹⁾		80.23	%		63.96	%		65.35	%		65.37	%		67.55	%

AVERAGE BALANCES
(in $000’s, unaudited)
Average assets	$	5,458,420		$	5,559,896		$	5,607,840		$	5,352,067		$	5,213,171
Average tangible assets⁽¹⁾	$	5,284,972		$	5,386,001		$	5,433,439		$	5,177,114		$	5,037,673
Average earning assets	$	5,087,089		$	5,188,317		$	5,235,986		$	4,980,082		$	4,840,670
Average loans held-for-sale	$	2,250		$	2,290		$	2,260		$	1,493		$	1,503
Average loans held-for-investment	$	3,504,518		$	3,429,014		$	3,388,729		$	3,359,647		$	3,328,358
Average deposits	$	4,618,007		$	4,717,517		$	4,771,491		$	4,525,946		$	4,394,545
Average demand deposits – noninterest-bearing	$	1,146,494		$	1,167,330		$	1,222,393		$	1,172,304		$	1,127,145
Average interest-bearing deposits	$	3,471,513		$	3,550,187		$	3,549,098		$	3,353,642		$	3,267,400
Average interest-bearing liabilities	$	3,511,237		$	3,589,872		$	3,588,755		$	3,393,264		$	3,306,972
Average equity	$	697,016		$	692,733		$	686,263		$	680,404		$	675,108
Average tangible common equity⁽¹⁾	$	523,568		$	518,838		$	511,862		$	505,451		$	499,610

^{(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.}


	End of Period:									Percent Change From:
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS	June 30,			March 31,			June 30,			March 31,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2025			2024			2025			2024
ASSETS
Cash and due from banks	$	55,360		$	44,281		$	37,497		25		%	48		%
Other investments and interest-bearing deposits
in other financial institutions		666,432			700,769			610,763		(5	)	%	9		%
Securities available-for-sale, at fair value		307,035			370,976			273,043		(17	)	%	12		%
Securities held-to-maturity, at amortized cost		561,205			576,718			621,178		(3	)	%	(10	)	%
Loans – held-for-sale – SBA, including deferred costs		1,156			1,884			1,899		(39	)	%	(39	)	%
Loans – held-for-investment:
Commercial		492,231			489,241			477,929		1		%	3		%
Real estate:
CRE – owner occupied		627,810			616,825			594,504		2		%	6		%
CRE – non-owner occupied		1,390,419			1,363,275			1,283,323		2		%	8		%
Land and construction		149,460			136,106			125,374		10		%	19		%
Home equity		120,763			119,138			126,562		1		%	(5	)	%
Multifamily		285,016			284,510			268,968		0		%	6		%
Residential mortgages		454,419			465,330			484,809		(2	)	%	(6	)	%
Consumer and other		14,661			12,741			18,758		15		%	(22	)	%
Loans		3,534,779			3,487,166			3,380,227		1		%	5		%
Deferred loan fees, net		(446	)		(268	)		(434	)	66		%	3		%
Total loans – held-for-investment, net of deferred fees		3,534,333			3,486,898			3,379,793		1		%	5		%
Allowance for credit losses on loans		(48,633	)		(48,262	)		(47,954	)	1		%	1		%
Loans, net		3,485,700			3,438,636			3,331,839		1		%	5		%
Company-owned life insurance		82,296			81,749			80,153		1		%	3		%
Premises and equipment, net		9,765			9,772			10,310		0		%	(5	)	%
Goodwill		167,631			167,631			167,631		0		%	0		%
Other intangible assets		5,532			5,986			7,521		(8	)	%	(26	)	%
Accrued interest receivable and other assets		125,125			115,853			121,190		8		%	3		%
Total assets	$	5,467,237		$	5,514,255		$	5,263,024		(1	)	%	4		%

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Liabilities:
Deposits:
Demand, noninterest-bearing	$	1,151,242		$	1,128,593		$	1,187,320		2		%	(3	)	%
Demand, interest-bearing		955,504			949,068			928,246		1		%	3		%
Savings and money market		1,320,142			1,353,293			1,126,520		(2	)	%	17		%
Time deposits – under $250		35,356			37,592			39,046		(6	)	%	(9	)	%
Time deposits – $250 and over		210,818			213,357			203,886		(1	)	%	3		%
ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market
and time deposits		954,272			1,001,365			959,592		(5	)	%	(1	)	%
Total deposits		4,627,334			4,683,268			4,444,610		(1	)	%	4		%
Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs		39,728			39,691			39,577		0		%	0		%
Accrued interest payable and other liabilities		105,471			95,106			99,638		11		%	6		%
Total liabilities		4,772,533			4,818,065			4,583,825		(1	)	%	4		%

Shareholders’ Equity:
Common stock		509,888			511,596			508,343		0		%	0		%
Retained earnings		189,794			191,401			182,571		(1	)	%	4		%
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(4,978	)		(6,807	)		(11,715	)	(27	)	%	(58	)	%
Total shareholders’ equity		694,704			696,190			679,199		0		%	2		%
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	5,467,237		$	5,514,255		$	5,263,024		(1	)	%	4		%


	End of Period:
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS	June 30,			March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2025			2024			2024			2024
ASSETS
Cash and due from banks	$	55,360		$	44,281		$	29,864		$	49,722		$	37,497
Other investments and interest-bearing deposits
in other financial institutions		666,432			700,769			938,259			906,588			610,763
Securities available-for-sale, at fair value		307,035			370,976			256,274			237,612			273,043
Securities held-to-maturity, at amortized cost		561,205			576,718			590,016			604,193			621,178
Loans – held-for-sale – SBA, including deferred costs		1,156			1,884			2,375			1,649			1,899
Loans – held-for-investment:
Commercial		492,231			489,241			531,350			481,266			477,929
Real estate:
CRE – owner occupied		627,810			616,825			601,636			602,062			594,504
CRE – non-owner occupied		1,390,419			1,363,275			1,341,266			1,310,578			1,283,323
Land and construction		149,460			136,106			127,848			125,761			125,374
Home equity		120,763			119,138			127,963			124,090			126,562
Multifamily		285,016			284,510			275,490			273,103			268,968
Residential mortgages		454,419			465,330			471,730			479,524			484,809
Consumer and other		14,661			12,741			14,837			14,179			18,758
Loans		3,534,779			3,487,166			3,492,120			3,410,563			3,380,227
Deferred loan fees, net		(446	)		(268	)		(183	)		(327	)		(434	)
Total loans – held-for-investment, net of deferred fees		3,534,333			3,486,898			3,491,937			3,410,236			3,379,793
Allowance for credit losses on loans		(48,633	)		(48,262	)		(48,953	)		(47,819	)		(47,954	)
Loans, net		3,485,700			3,438,636			3,442,984			3,362,417			3,331,839
Company-owned life insurance		82,296			81,749			81,211			80,682			80,153
Premises and equipment, net		9,765			9,772			10,140			10,398			10,310
Goodwill		167,631			167,631			167,631			167,631			167,631
Other intangible assets		5,532			5,986			6,439			6,966			7,521
Accrued interest receivable and other assets		125,125			115,853			119,813			123,738			121,190
Total assets	$	5,467,237		$	5,514,255		$	5,645,006		$	5,551,596		$	5,263,024

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Liabilities:
Deposits:
Demand, noninterest-bearing	$	1,151,242		$	1,128,593		$	1,214,192		$	1,272,139		$	1,187,320
Demand, interest-bearing		955,504			949,068			936,587			913,910			928,246
Savings and money market		1,320,142			1,353,293			1,325,923			1,309,676			1,126,520
Time deposits – under $250		35,356			37,592			38,988			39,060			39,046
Time deposits – $250 and over		210,818			213,357			206,755			196,945			203,886
ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market
and time deposits		954,272			1,001,365			1,097,586			997,803			959,592
Total deposits		4,627,334			4,683,268			4,820,031			4,729,533			4,444,610
Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs		39,728			39,691			39,653			39,615			39,577
Accrued interest payable and other liabilities		105,471			95,106			95,595			97,096			99,638
Total liabilities		4,772,533			4,818,065			4,955,279			4,866,244			4,583,825

Shareholders’ Equity:
Common stock		509,888			511,596			510,070			509,134			508,343
Retained earnings		189,794			191,401			187,762			185,110			182,571
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(4,978	)		(6,807	)		(8,105	)		(8,892	)		(11,715	)
Total shareholders’ equity		694,704			696,190			689,727			685,352			679,199
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	5,467,237		$	5,514,255		$	5,645,006		$	5,551,596		$	5,263,024


	At or For the Quarter Ended:									Percent Change From:
CREDIT QUALITY DATA	June 30,			March 31,			June 30,			March 31,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2025			2024			2025			2024
Nonaccrual loans – held-for-investment:
Land and construction loans	$	4,198		$	4,793		$	4,774		(12	)	%	(12	)	%
Home equity and other loans		728			927			108		(21	)	%	574		%
Residential mortgages		607			—			—		N/A			N/A
Commercial loans		491			324			900		52		%	(45	)	%
CRE loans		31			—			—		N/A			N/A
Total nonaccrual loans – held-for-investment:		6,055			6,044			5,782		0		%	5		%
Loans over 90 days past due
and still accruing		123			268			248		(54	)	%	(50	)	%
Total nonperforming loans		6,178			6,312			6,030		(2	)	%	2		%
Foreclosed assets		—			—			—		N/A			N/A
Total nonperforming assets	$	6,178		$	6,312		$	6,030		(2	)	%	2		%
Net charge-offs during the quarter	$	145		$	965		$	405		(85	)	%	(64	)	%
Provision for credit losses on loans during the quarter	$	516		$	274		$	471		88		%	10		%
Allowance for credit losses on loans	$	48,633		$	48,262		$	47,954		1		%	1		%
Classified assets	$	37,525		$	40,034		$	33,605		(6	)	%	12		%
Allowance for credit losses on loans to total loans		1.38	%		1.38	%		1.42	%	0		%	(3	)	%
Allowance for credit losses on loans to total nonperforming loans		787.20	%		764.61	%		795.26	%	3		%	(1	)	%
Nonperforming assets to total assets		0.11	%		0.11	%		0.11	%	0		%	0		%
Nonperforming loans to total loans		0.17	%		0.18	%		0.18	%	(6	)	%	(6	)	%
Classified assets to Heritage Commerce Corp
Tier 1 capital plus allowance for credit losses on loans		7	%		7	%		6	%	0		%	17		%
Classified assets to Heritage Bank of Commerce
Tier 1 capital plus allowance for credit losses on loans		6	%		7	%		6	%	(14	)	%	0		%

OTHER PERIOD-END STATISTICS
(in $000’s, unaudited)
Heritage Commerce Corp:
Tangible common equity ⁽¹⁾	$	521,541		$	522,573		$	504,047		0		%	3		%
Shareholders’ equity / total assets		12.71	%		12.63	%		12.91	%	1		%	(2	)	%
Tangible common equity / tangible assets ⁽¹⁾		9.85	%		9.78	%		9.91	%	1		%	(1	)	%
Loan to deposit ratio		76.38	%		74.45	%		76.04	%	3		%	0		%
Noninterest-bearing deposits / total deposits		24.88	%		24.10	%		26.71	%	3		%	(7	)	%
Total capital ratio		15.5	%		15.9	%		15.6	%	(3	)	%	(1	)	%
Tier 1 capital ratio		13.3	%		13.6	%		13.4	%	(2	)	%	(1	)	%
Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio		13.3	%		13.6	%		13.4	%	(2	)	%	(1	)	%
Tier 1 leverage ratio		9.9	%		9.8	%		10.2	%	1		%	(3	)	%
Heritage Bank of Commerce:
Tangible common equity / tangible assets ⁽¹⁾		10.28	%		10.15	%		10.28	%	1		%	0		%
Total capital ratio		15.1	%		15.4	%		15.1	%	(2	)	%	0		%
Tier 1 capital ratio		13.8	%		14.1	%		13.9	%	(2	)	%	(1	)	%
Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio		13.8	%		14.1	%		13.9	%	(2	)	%	(1	)	%
Tier 1 leverage ratio		10.4	%		10.2	%		10.6	%	2		%	(2	)	%

^{(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.}


	At or For the Quarter Ended:
CREDIT QUALITY DATA	June 30,			March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2025			2024			2024			2024
Nonaccrual loans – held-for-investment:
Land and construction loans	$	4,198		$	4,793		$	5,874		$	5,862		$	4,774
Home equity and other loans		728			927			290			84			108
Residential mortgages		607			—			—			—			—
Commercial loans		491			324			1,014			752			900
CRE loans		31			—			—			—			—
Total nonaccrual loans – held-for-investment:		6,055			6,044			7,178			6,698			5,782
Loans over 90 days past due
and still accruing		123			268			489			460			248
Total nonperforming loans		6,178			6,312			7,667			7,158			6,030
Foreclosed assets		—			—			—			—			—
Total nonperforming assets	$	6,178		$	6,312		$	7,667		$	7,158		$	6,030
Net charge-offs during the quarter	$	145		$	965		$	197		$	288		$	405
Provision for credit losses on loans during the quarter	$	516		$	274		$	1,331		$	153		$	471
Allowance for credit losses on loans	$	48,633		$	48,262		$	48,953		$	47,819		$	47,954
Classified assets	$	37,525		$	40,034		$	41,661		$	32,609		$	33,605
Allowance for credit losses on loans to total loans		1.38	%		1.38	%		1.40	%		1.40	%		1.42	%
Allowance for credit losses on loans to total nonperforming loans		787.20	%		764.61	%		638.49	%		668.05	%		795.26	%
Nonperforming assets to total assets		0.11	%		0.11	%		0.14	%		0.13	%		0.11	%
Nonperforming loans to total loans		0.17	%		0.18	%		0.22	%		0.21	%		0.18	%
Classified assets to Heritage Commerce Corp
Tier 1 capital plus allowance for credit losses on loans		7	%		7	%		7	%		6	%		6	%
Classified assets to Heritage Bank of Commerce
Tier 1 capital plus allowance for credit losses on loans		6	%		7	%		7	%		6	%		6	%

OTHER PERIOD-END STATISTICS
(in $000’s, unaudited)
Heritage Commerce Corp:
Tangible common equity ⁽¹⁾	$	521,541		$	522,573		$	515,657		$	510,755		$	504,047
Shareholders’ equity / total assets		12.71	%		12.63	%		12.22	%		12.35	%		12.91	%
Tangible common equity / tangible assets ⁽¹⁾		9.85	%		9.78	%		9.43	%		9.50	%		9.91	%
Loan to deposit ratio		76.38	%		74.45	%		72.45	%		72.11	%		76.04	%
Noninterest-bearing deposits / total deposits		24.88	%		24.10	%		25.19	%		26.90	%		26.71	%
Total capital ratio		15.5	%		15.9	%		15.6	%		15.6	%		15.6	%
Tier 1 capital ratio		13.3	%		13.6	%		13.4	%		13.4	%		13.4	%
Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio		13.3	%		13.6	%		13.4	%		13.4	%		13.4	%
Tier 1 leverage ratio		9.9	%		9.8	%		9.6	%		10.0	%		10.2	%
Heritage Bank of Commerce:
Tangible common equity / tangible assets ⁽¹⁾		10.28	%		10.15	%		9.79	%		9.86	%		10.28	%
Total capital ratio		15.1	%		15.4	%		15.1	%		15.1	%		15.1	%
Tier 1 capital ratio		13.8	%		14.1	%		13.9	%		13.9	%		13.9	%
Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio		13.8	%		14.1	%		13.9	%		13.9	%		13.9	%
Tier 1 leverage ratio		10.4	%		10.2	%		10.0	%		10.4	%		10.6	%

^{(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.}


	For the Quarter Ended								For the Quarter Ended
	June 30, 2025								March 31, 2025
				Interest			Average					Interest			Average
NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN	Average			Income/			Yield/		Average			Income/			Yield/
(in $000’s, unaudited)	Balance			Expense			Rate		Balance			Expense			Rate
Assets:
Loans, core bank	$	3,020,534			41,738		5.54	%	$	2,945,072		$	39,758		5.47	%
Prepayment fees		—			473		0.06	%		—			224		0.03	%
Bay View Funding factored receivables		67,756			3,347		19.81	%		60,250			2,942		19.80	%
Purchased residential mortgages		420,280			3,548		3.39	%		427,963			3,597		3.41	%
Loan fair value mark / accretion		(1,802	)		172		0.02	%		(1,981	)		181		0.02	%
Loans, gross ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾		3,506,768			49,278		5.64	%		3,431,304			46,702		5.52	%
Securities – taxable		902,642			6,346		2.82	%		876,092			5,559		2.57	%
Securities – exempt from Federal tax ⁽³⁾		30,259			272		3.61	%		30,480			275		3.66	%
Other investments and interest-bearing deposits
in other financial institutions		647,420			7,186		4.45	%		850,441			9,354		4.46	%
Total interest earning assets ⁽³⁾		5,087,089			63,082		4.97	%		5,188,317			61,890		4.84	%
Cash and due from banks		31,044								31,869
Premises and equipment, net		9,958								10,007
Goodwill and other intangible assets		173,448								173,895
Other assets		156,881								155,808
Total assets	$	5,458,420							$	5,559,896

Liabilities and shareholders’ equity:
Deposits:
Demand, noninterest-bearing	$	1,146,494							$	1,167,330

Demand, interest-bearing		949,867			1,484		0.63	%		944,375			1,438		0.62	%
Savings and money market		1,313,054			8,205		2.51	%		1,323,038			8,073		2.47	%
Time deposits – under $100		11,456			49		1.72	%		11,383			47		1.67	%
Time deposits – $100 and over		231,644			1,995		3.45	%		234,421			2,129		3.68	%
ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market
and time deposits		965,492			5,949		2.47	%		1,036,970			6,248		2.44	%
Total interest-bearing deposits		3,471,513			17,682		2.04	%		3,550,187			17,935		2.05	%
Total deposits		4,618,007			17,682		1.54	%		4,717,517			17,935		1.54	%

Short-term borrowings		19			—		0.00	%		18			—		0.00	%
Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs		39,705			538		5.43	%		39,667			537		5.49	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities		3,511,237			18,220		2.08	%		3,589,872			18,472		2.09	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities and demand,
noninterest-bearing / cost of funds		4,657,731			18,220		1.57	%		4,757,202			18,472		1.57	%
Other liabilities		103,673								109,961
Total liabilities		4,761,404								4,867,163
Shareholders’ equity		697,016								692,733
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	5,458,420							$	5,559,896

Net interest income / margin ⁽³⁾					44,862		3.54	%					43,418		3.39	%
Less tax equivalent adjustment ⁽³⁾					(57	)							(58	)
Net interest income				$	44,805		3.53	%				$	43,360		3.39	%

^{(1)Includes loans held-for-sale. Nonaccrual loans are included in average balances.}
^{(2)Yield amounts earned on loans include fees and costs. The accretion of net deferred loan fees into loan interest income was $253,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $214,000 for the first quarter of 2025. Prepayment fees totaled $473,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $224,000 for the first quarter of 2025.}
^{(3)Reflects the FTE adjustment for Federal tax-exempt income based on a 21% tax rate. This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial
Measures” in this press release.}


	For the Quarter Ended								For the Quarter Ended
	June 30, 2025								June 30, 2024
				Interest			Average					Interest			Average
NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN	Average			Income/			Yield/		Average			Income/			Yield/
(in $000’s, unaudited)	Balance			Expense			Rate		Balance			Expense			Rate
Assets:
Loans, core bank	$	3,020,534		$	41,738		5.54	%	$	2,830,260		$	38,496		5.47	%
Prepayment fees		—			473		0.06	%		—			54		0.01	%
Bay View Funding factored receivables		67,756			3,347		19.81	%		54,777			2,914		21.40	%
Purchased residential mortgages		420,280			3,548		3.39	%		447,687			3,739		3.36	%
Loan fair value mark / accretion		(1,802	)		172		0.02	%		(2,863	)		267		0.04	%
Loans, gross ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾		3,506,768			49,278		5.64	%		3,329,861			45,470		5.49	%
Securities – taxable		902,642			6,346		2.82	%		942,532			5,483		2.34	%
Securities – exempt from Federal tax ⁽³⁾		30,259			272		3.61	%		31,803			285		3.60	%
Other investments and interest-bearing deposits
in other financial institutions		647,420			7,186		4.45	%		536,474			7,311		5.48	%
Total interest earning assets ⁽³⁾		5,087,089			63,082		4.97	%		4,840,670			58,549		4.86	%
Cash and due from banks		31,044								33,419
Premises and equipment, net		9,958								10,216
Goodwill and other intangible assets		173,448								175,498
Other assets		156,881								153,368
Total assets	$	5,458,420							$	5,213,171

Liabilities and shareholders’ equity:
Deposits:
Demand, noninterest-bearing	$	1,146,494							$	1,127,145

Demand, interest-bearing		949,867			1,484		0.63	%		932,100			1,719		0.74	%
Savings and money market		1,313,054			8,205		2.51	%		1,104,589			7,867		2.86	%
Time deposits – under $100		11,456			49		1.72	%		10,980			46		1.68	%
Time deposits – $100 and over		231,644			1,995		3.45	%		228,248			2,245		3.96	%
ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market
and time deposits		965,492			5,949		2.47	%		991,483			7,207		2.92	%
Total interest-bearing deposits		3,471,513			17,682		2.04	%		3,267,400			19,084		2.35	%
Total deposits		4,618,007			17,682		1.54	%		4,394,545			19,084		1.75	%

Short-term borrowings		19			—		0.00	%		19			—		0.00	%
Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs		39,705			538		5.43	%		39,553			538		5.47	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities		3,511,237			18,220		2.08	%		3,306,972			19,622		2.39	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities and demand,
noninterest-bearing / cost of funds		4,657,731			18,220		1.57	%		4,434,117			19,622		1.78	%
Other liabilities		103,673								103,946
Total liabilities		4,761,404								4,538,063
Shareholders’ equity		697,016								675,108
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	5,458,420							$	5,213,171

Net interest income / margin ⁽³⁾					44,862		3.54	%					38,927		3.23	%
Less tax equivalent adjustment ⁽³⁾					(57	)							(60	)
Net interest income				$	44,805		3.53	%				$	38,867		3.23	%

^{(1)Includes loans held-for-sale. Nonaccrual loans are included in average balances.}
^{(2)Yield amounts earned on loans include fees and costs. The accretion of net deferred loan fees into loan interest income was $253,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $117,000 for the second quarter of 2024. Prepayment fees totaled $473,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $54,000 for the second quarter of 2024.}
^{(3)Reflects the FTE adjustment for Federal tax-exempt income based on a 21% tax rate. This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial}^{Measures” in this press release.}


	For the Six Months Ended								For the Six Months Ended
	June 30, 2025								June 30, 2024
				Interest			Average					Interest			Average
NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN	Average			Income/			Yield/		Average			Income/			Yield/
(in $000’s, unaudited)	Balance			Expense			Rate		Balance			Expense			Rate
Assets:
Loans, core bank	$	2,983,011		$	81,496		5.51	%	$	2,812,805		$	76,217		5.45	%
Prepayment fees		—			697		0.05	%		—			78		0.01	%
Bay View Funding factored receivables		64,024			6,289		19.81	%		54,144			5,752		21.36	%
Purchased residential mortgages		424,101			7,145		3.40	%		450,964			7,527		3.36	%
Loan fair value mark / accretion		(1,891	)		353		0.02	%		(2,988	)		496		0.04	%
Loans, gross ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾		3,469,245			95,980		5.58	%		3,314,925			90,070		5.46	%
Securities – taxable		889,440			11,905		2.70	%		992,508			11,666		2.36	%
Securities – exempt from Federal tax ⁽³⁾		30,369			547		3.63	%		31,871			571		3.60	%
Other investments, interest-bearing deposits in other
financial institutions and Federal funds sold		748,370			16,540		4.46	%		486,283			13,263		5.48	%
Total interest earning assets ⁽³⁾		5,137,424			124,972		4.91	%		4,825,587			115,570		4.82	%
Cash and due from banks		31,454								33,316
Premises and equipment, net		9,982								10,115
Goodwill and other intangible assets		173,671								175,769
Other assets		156,347								151,116
Total assets	$	5,508,878							$	5,195,903

Liabilities and shareholders’ equity:
Deposits:
Demand, noninterest-bearing	$	1,156,854							$	1,152,111

Demand, interest-bearing		947,137			2,922		0.62	%		926,074			3,273		0.71	%
Savings and money market		1,318,018			16,278		2.49	%		1,086,085			14,516		2.69	%
Time deposits – under $100		11,420			96		1.70	%		10,962			88		1.61	%
Time deposits – $100 and over		233,025			4,124		3.57	%		224,730			4,309		3.86	%
ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market
and time deposits		1,001,033			12,197		2.46	%		977,385			13,818		2.84	%
Total interest-bearing deposits		3,510,633			35,617		2.05	%		3,225,236			36,004		2.24	%
Total deposits		4,667,487			35,617		1.54	%		4,377,347			36,004		1.65	%

Short-term borrowings		19			—		0.00	%		17			—		0.00	%
Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs		39,686			1,075		5.46	%		39,535			1,076		5.47	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities		3,550,338			36,692		2.08	%		3,264,788			37,080		2.28	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities and demand,
noninterest-bearing / cost of funds		4,707,192			36,692		1.57	%		4,416,899			37,080		1.69	%
Other liabilities		106,800								105,304
Total liabilities		4,813,992								4,522,203
Shareholders’ equity		694,886								673,700
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	5,508,878							$	5,195,903

Net interest income / margin ⁽³⁾					88,280		3.47	%					78,490		3.27	%
Less tax equivalent adjustment ⁽³⁾					(115	)							(120	)
Net interest income				$	88,165		3.46	%				$	78,370		3.27	%

^{(1)Includes loans held-for-sale. Nonaccrual loans are included in average balances.}
^{(2)Yield amounts earned on loans include fees and costs. The accretion of net deferred loan fees into loan interest income was $467,000 for the first six months of 2025, compared to $277,000}^{for the six months of 2024. Prepayment fees totaled $697,000 for the first six months of 2025, compared to $78,000 for the first six months of 2024.}
^{(3)Reflects the FTE adjustment for Federal tax-exempt income based on a 21% tax rate. This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial}
^{Measures” in this press release.}

RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

Management considers net income and earnings per share adjusted to exclude the $9.2 million of charges primarily related to a legal settlement in the second quarter and first six months of 2025 as a useful measurement of the Company’s profitability compared to prior periods.

The following table summarizes components of net income and diluted earnings per share for the periods indicated:


NET INCOME AND	For the Quarter Ended:
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE	June 30,			March 31,		December 31,		September 30,		June 30,
(in $000’s, except per share amounts, unaudited)	2025			2025			2024	2024		2024
Reported net income (GAAP)	$	6,389		$	11,626	$	10,621	$	10,507	$	9,234
Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges		9,184			—		—		—		—
Less: related income taxes		(2,618	)		—		—		—		—
Adjusted net income (non-GAAP)	$	12,955		$	11,626	$	10,621	$	10,507	$	9,234

Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted		61,624,600			61,708,361		61,679,735		61,546,157		61,438,088

Reported diluted earnings per share	$	0.10		$	0.19	$	0.17	$	0.17	$	0.15

Adjusted diluted earnings per share	$	0.21		$	0.19	$	0.17	$	0.17	$	0.15


NET INCOME AND	For the Six Months Ended:
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE	June 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, except per share amounts, unaudited)	2025			2024
Reported net income (GAAP)	$	18,015		$	19,400
Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges		9,184			—
Less: related income taxes		(2,618	)		—
Adjusted net income (non-GAAP)	$	24,581		$	19,400

Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted		61,664,942			61,446,484

Reported diluted earnings per share	$	0.29		$	0.32

Adjusted diluted earnings per share	$	0.40		$	0.32

Management considers tangible book value per share as a useful measurement of the Company’s equity. The Company references the return on average tangible common equity and the return on average tangible assets as measurements of profitability.

The following table summarizes components of the tangible book value per share at the dates indicated:


TANGIBLE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE	June 30,			March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2025			2025			2024			2024
Capital components:
Total equity (GAAP)	$	694,704		$	696,190		$	689,727		$	685,352		$	679,199
Less: preferred stock		—			—			—			—			—
Total common equity		694,704			696,190			689,727			685,352			679,199
Less: goodwill		(167,631	)		(167,631	)		(167,631	)		(167,631	)		(167,631	)
Less: other intangible assets		(5,532	)		(5,986	)		(6,439	)		(6,966	)		(7,521	)
Reported tangible common equity (non-GAAP)		521,541			522,573			515,657			510,755			504,047
Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges		9,184			—			—			—			—
Less: related income taxes		(2,618	)		—			—			—			—
Adjusted tangible common equity (non-GAAP)	$	528,107		$	522,573		$	515,657		$	510,755		$	504,047

Common shares outstanding at period-end		61,446,763			61,611,121			61,348,095			61,297,344			61,292,094

Reported tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)	$	8.49		$	8.48		$	8.41		$	8.33		$	8.22

Adjusted tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)	$	8.59		$	8.48		$	8.41		$	8.33		$	8.22

The following tables summarize components of the annualized return on average equity, annualized return on average tangible common equity and the annualized return on average assets for the periods indicated:


RETURN ON AVERAGE TANGIBLE COMMON	For the Quarter Ended:
EQUITY AND AVERAGE ASSETS	June 30,				March 31,				December 31,				September 30,				June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025				2025					2024			2024				2024
Reported net income (GAAP)	$	6,389			$	11,626			$	10,621			$	10,507			$	9,234
Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges		9,184				—				—				—				—
Less: related income taxes		(2,618	)			—				—				—				—
Adjusted net income (non-GAAP)	$	12,955			$	11,626			$	10,621			$	10,507			$	9,234

Average tangible common equity components:
Average equity (GAAP)	$	697,016			$	692,733			$	686,263			$	680,404			$	675,108
Less: goodwill		(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)
Less: other intangible assets		(5,817	)			(6,264	)			(6,770	)			(7,322	)			(7,867	)
Total average tangible common equity (non-GAAP)	$	523,568			$	518,838			$	511,862			$	505,451			$	499,610

Annualized return on average equity (GAAP)		3.68		%		6.81		%		6.16		%		6.14		%		5.50		%

Reported annualized return on average
tangible common equity (non-GAAP)		4.89		%		9.09		%		8.25		%		8.27		%		7.43		%

Adjusted annualized return on average
tangible common equity (non-GAAP)		9.92		%		9.09		%		8.25		%		8.27		%		7.43		%

Average assets (GAAP)	$	5,458,420			$	5,559,896			$	5,607,840			$	5,352,067			$	5,213,171

Reported annualized return on average assets (GAAP)		0.47		%		0.85		%		0.75		%		0.78		%		0.71		%

Adjusted annualized return on average assets (non-GAAP)		0.95		%		0.85		%		0.75		%		0.78		%		0.71		%


RETURN ON AVERAGE TANGIBLE COMMON	For the Six Months Ended:
EQUITY AND AVERAGE ASSETS	June 30,				June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025				2024
Reported net income (GAAP)	$	18,015			$	19,400
Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges		9,184				—
Less: related income taxes		(2,618	)			—
Adjusted net income (non-GAAP)	$	24,581			$	19,400

Average tangible common equity components:
Average equity (GAAP)	$	694,886			$	673,700
Less: goodwill		(167,631	)			(167,631	)
Less: other intangible assets		(6,040	)			(8,138	)
Total average tangible common equity (non-GAAP)	$	521,215			$	497,931

Annualized return on average equity (GAAP)		5.23		%		5.79		%

Reported annualized return on average
tangible common equity (non-GAAP)		6.97		%		7.84		%

Adjusted annualized return on average
tangible common equity (non-GAAP)		9.51		%		7.84		%

Average assets (GAAP)	$	5,508,878			$	5,195,903

Reported annualized return on average assets (GAAP)		0.66		%		0.75		%

Adjusted annualized return on average assets (non-GAAP)		0.90		%		0.75		%

Management reviews yields on certain asset categories and the net interest margin of the Company on an FTE basis. In this non-GAAP presentation, net interest income is adjusted to reflect tax-exempt interest income on an equivalent before-tax basis using tax rates effective as of the end of the period. This measure ensures comparability of net interest income arising from both taxable and tax-exempt sources. The following tables summarize components of FTE net interest income of the Company for the periods indicated:


	For the Quarter Ended:
NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN	June 30,			March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2025			2024			2024			2024
Net interest income before
credit losses on loans (GAAP)	$	44,805		$	43,360		$	43,595		$	39,329		$	38,867
Tax-equivalent adjustment on securities –
exempt from Federal tax		57			58			58			59			60
Net interest income, FTE (non-GAAP)	$	44,862		$	43,418		$	43,653		$	39,388		$	38,927

Average balance of total interest earning assets	$	5,087,089		$	5,188,317		$	5,235,986		$	4,980,082		$	4,840,670

Net interest margin (annualized net interest income divided by the
average balance of total interest earnings assets) (GAAP)		3.53	%		3.39	%		3.31	%		3.14	%		3.23	%

Net interest margin, FTE (annualized net interest income, FTE,
divided by the average balance of total
earnings assets) (non-GAAP)		3.54	%		3.39	%		3.32	%		3.15	%		3.23	%


	For the Six Months Ended:
NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN	June 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2024
Net interest income before
credit losses on loans (GAAP)	$	88,165		$	78,370
Tax-equivalent adjustment on securities – exempt from Federal tax		115			120
Net interest income, FTE (non-GAAP)	$	88,280		$	78,490

Average balance of total interest earning assets	$	5,137,424		$	4,825,587

Net interest margin (annualized net interest income divided by the
average balance of total interest earnings assets) (GAAP)		3.46	%		3.27	%

Net interest margin, FTE (annualized net interest income, FTE, divided by the
average balance of total interest earnings assets) (non-GAAP)		3.47	%		3.27	%

Management views its non-GAAP PPNR as a key metric for assessing the Company’s earnings power. The following table summarizes the components of PPNR for the periods indicated:


	For the Quarter Ended:
PRE-PROVISION NET REVENUE	June 30,			March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2025			2024			2025			2024
Net interest income before credit losses on loans	$	44,805		$	43,360		$	43,595		$	39,329		$	38,867
Noninterest income		2,977			2,696			2,775			2,826			2,864
Total revenue		47,782			46,056			46,370		$	42,155		$	41,731
Less: Noninterest expense		(38,335	)		(29,456	)		(30,304	)		(27,555	)		(28,188	)
Reported PPNR (non-GAAP)		9,447			16,600			16,066		$	14,600		$	13,543
Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges		9,184			—			—			—			—
Adjusted PPNR (non-GAAP)	$	18,631		$	16,600		$	16,066		$	14,600		$	13,543


	For the Six Months Ended:
PRE-PROVISION NET REVENUE	June 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025			2024
Net interest income before credit losses on loans	$	88,165		$	78,370
Noninterest income		5,673			5,501
Total revenue		93,838			83,871
Less: Noninterest expense		(67,791	)		(55,724	)
Reported PPNR (non-GAAP)		26,047			28,147
Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges		9,184			—
Adjusted PPNR (non-GAAP)	$	35,231		$	28,147

The efficiency ratio is a non-GAAP financial measure, which is calculated by dividing noninterest expense by total revenue (net interest income plus noninterest income), and measures how much it costs to produce one dollar of revenue. The following tables summarize components of noninterest expense and the efficiency ratio of the Company for the periods indicated:


	For the Quarter Ended:
NONINTEREST EXPENSE AND EFFICIENCY RATIO	June 30,				March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025				2025			2024			2024			2024
Reported noninterest expense (GAAP)	$	38,335			$	29,456		$	30,304		$	27,555		$	28,188
Less: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges		(9,184	)			—			—			—			—
Adjusted noninterest expense (non-GAAP)	$	29,151			$	29,456		$	30,304		$	27,555		$	28,188

Net interest income before credit losses on loans	$	44,805			$	43,360		$	43,595		$	39,329		$	38,867
Noninterest income		2,977				2,696			2,775			2,826			2,864
Total revenue	$	47,782			$	46,056		$	46,370		$	42,155		$	41,731

Reported efficiency ratio (noninterest expense divided
by total revenue) (non-GAAP)		80.23		%		63.96	%		65.35	%		65.37	%		67.55	%

Adjusted efficiency ratio (adjusted noninterest expense
divided by total revenue) (non-GAAP)		61.01		%		63.96	%		65.35	%		65.37	%		67.55	%


	For the Six Months Ended:
NONINTEREST EXPENSE AND EFFICIENCY RATIO	June 30,				June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025				2024
Reported noninterest expense (GAAP)	$	67,791			$	55,724
Less: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges		(9,184	)			—
Adjusted noninterest expense (non-GAAP)	$	58,607			$	55,724

Net interest income before credit losses on loans	$	88,165			$	79,548
Noninterest income		5,673				4,323
Total revenue	$	93,838			$	83,871

Reported efficiency ratio (noninterest expense divided
by total revenue) (non-GAAP)		72.24		%		66.44	%

Adjusted efficiency ratio (adjusted noninterest expense
divided by total revenue) (non-GAAP)		62.46		%		66.44	%

Management considers the tangible common equity ratio as a useful measurement of the Company’s and the Bank’s equity. The following table summarizes components of the tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio of the Company at the dates indicated:


TANGIBLE COMMON EQUITY TO TANGIBLE ASSETS	June 30,				March 31,				December 31,				September 30,				June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025				2025				2024				2024				2024
Capital components:
Total equity (GAAP)	$	694,704			$	696,190			$	689,727			$	685,352			$	679,199
Less: preferred stock		—				—				—				—				—
Total common equity		694,704				696,190				689,727				685,352				679,199
Less: goodwill		(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)
Less: other intangible assets		(5,532	)			(5,986	)			(6,439	)			(6,966	)			(7,521	)
Total tangible common equity (non-GAAP)	$	521,541			$	522,573			$	515,657			$	510,755			$	504,047

Asset components:
Total assets (GAAP)	$	5,467,237			$	5,514,255			$	5,645,006			$	5,551,596			$	5,263,024
Less: goodwill		(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)
Less: other intangible assets		(5,532	)			(5,986	)			(6,439	)			(6,966	)			(7,521	)
Total tangible assets (non-GAAP)	$	5,294,074			$	5,340,638			$	5,470,936			$	5,376,999			$	5,087,872

Tangible common equity / tangible assets (non-GAAP)		9.85		%		9.78		%		9.43		%		9.50		%		9.91		%

The following table summarizes components of the tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio of the Bank at the dates indicated:


TANGIBLE COMMON EQUITY TO TANGIBLE ASSETS	June 30,				March 31,				December 31,				September 30,				June 30,
(in $000’s, unaudited)	2025				2025				2024				2024				2024
Capital components:
Total equity (GAAP)	$	717,103			$	715,605			$	709,379			$	704,585			$	697,964
Less: preferred stock		—				—				—				—				—
Total common equity		717,103				715,605				709,379				704,585				697,964
Less: goodwill		(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)
Less: other intangible assets		(5,532	)			(5,986	)			(6,439	)			(6,966	)			(7,521	)
Total tangible common equity (non-GAAP)	$	543,940			$	541,988			$	535,309			$	529,988			$	522,812

Asset components:
Total assets (GAAP)	$	5,464,618			$	5,512,160			$	5,641,646			$	5,548,576			$	5,260,500
Less: goodwill		(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)			(167,631	)
Less: other intangible assets		(5,532	)			(5,986	)			(6,439	)			(6,966	)			(7,521	)
Total tangible assets (non-GAAP)	$	5,291,455			$	5,338,543			$	5,467,576			$	5,373,979			$	5,085,348

Tangible common equity / tangible assets (non-GAAP)		10.28		%		10.15		%		9.79		%		9.86		%		10.28		%

The MIL Network –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Ricketts Introduces the Streamlining Rural Housing Act

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE), along with Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), introduced the Streamlining Rural Housing Act. The bill directs the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a memorandum of understanding to evaluate the feasibility of joint environmental review and inspection processes. By streamlining the review and inspection processes between HUD and USDA, this bill would make rural housing development more efficient for home builders, affordable housing non-profits, and state housing finance agencies.

“Duplicative red tape and burdensome regulations create additional costs and deter much-needed investments in rural affordable housing,” said Ricketts. “The Streamlining Rural Housing Act is the first step to enhance efficiency and eliminate conflicting requirements that delay approvals so that we can build more housing in rural Nebraska. When I was Governor of Nebraska, our state created a rural workforce housing fund to help administer support to communities for rural housing needs, like construction costs, down payment assistance, and technical assistance.”

“Across Kansas, the demand for rural housing has been on the rise, and it’s important that we find innovative solutions to address this issue,” said Moran. “Streamlining rural housing regulations between HUD and USDA will simplify the regulatory process for developers, allowing them to more efficiently address the growing housing needs in Kansas and across the country.”

“To address the shortage of quality, affordable housing in rural areas, federal regulations need to work for communities rather than against them,” said Senator Shaheen. “I’m glad to join my colleagues in introducing bipartisan legislation that would improve and streamline environmental reviews and housing unit inspections so that we can build more homes and lower costs where it’s needed most.”

“Americans are facing an affordable housing crisis. We need to build more housing and build it fast to bring down costs and get more people into homes,” said Gallego. “Government should be part of the solution, but right now it’s part of the problem. By reducing red tape and streamlining redundant processes, this bipartisan bill will accelerate construction, lower costs, and get more desperately needed homes on the market.”

The Streamlining Rural Housing Act would direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to:

Create a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to evaluate categorical exclusion under the environmental review process for housing projects that use combined funding;
Create an MOU to develop a process for designating a lead agency.
- This process will streamline adoption of Environmental Impact Statements and Environment Assessments approved by the other Department to construct housing projects funded by both agencies;
Create an MOU to evaluate the feasibility of a joint inspection process for housing projects that use combined funding;
Establish an advisory working group to consult on the MOUs consisting of:
- Affordable housing non-profits;
- State housing and housing finance agencies;
- Non-profit and for-profit home builders and housing developers;
- Property management companies;
- Owners of multifamily properties;
- Public housing agencies;
- Residents in housing assisted by HUD and USDA;
- Housing contract administrators.

“The Council for Affordable and Rural Housing (CARH) applauds the efforts of Senators Moran, Ricketts, Shaheen, and Gallego in introducing this important legislation which will help streamline program requirements at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development (RD) programs,” said Colleen Fisher, Executive Director of the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing (CARH). “Many times when housing developers and owners are operating a property here is a need to have multiple sources of funding so that the property can cash flow and rents are at levels that low-income residents can afford. When this occurs, the agencies require separate if not identical inspections, somewhat negating the purpose of having the multiple layers of funding, thus increasing regulatory costs. By requiring one inspection, operating costs will be reduced or redirected toward services on properties. The approach envisioned in the bill has been supported by several different Administrations, with the goal of reducing regulatory burdens and improving the delivery of affordable housing programs.”

BACKGROUND

Often, when a housing project draws federal funding from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development, one has to follow separate processes for environmental review and housing inspections for both agencies. This can incur more costs, lead to delays in project completion, and present challenges in getting over excessive bureaucratic procedures. This is burdensome especially at a time when housing needs in rural America are growing and existing housing supply is aging. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) are an effective way to address duplicative compliance requirements and regulatory misalignment across different federal, state, and local agencies.

Full text of the legislation can be found here.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI Security: Defense News in Brief: US-Philippine Airmen strengthen ties during Cope Thunder 25-2

Source: United States Airforce

PACAF participated in Cope Thunder 25-2, a unique platform that integrates U.S. and Philippine Air Forces and enhances interoperability through bilateral fighter training, subject matter expert exchanges and key leadership

engagements.CLARK AIR BASE, Philippines (AFNS) —

U.S. Pacific Air Forces and Philippine Air Force members participated in Cope Thunder 25-2, a bilateral training conducted across multiple locations in the Philippines. The exercise aimed to strengthen partnerships and support the Philippine Air Force’s modernization efforts, promoting regional and global stability.

Established in the Philippines in 1976, Cope Thunder provides a unique platform to integrate U.S. and Philippine Air Forces and enhance interoperability through bilateral fighter training, subject matter expert exchanges and key leadership engagements. Cope Thunder 25-2 also marked the first time a U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II squadron has deployed to the Philippines.

“It’s obvious that this isn’t a relationship that’s simply on paper,” said Lt. Col. Bryan Mussler, 421st Mission Generation Force Element commander. “We’ve been integrating with them for a long time, and their mentality and approach to operations is very similar to ours.”

Subject matter expert exchanges during the exercise enabled U.S. and Philippine Airmen in similar career fields to share best practices and effective techniques aimed at improving day-to-day operations for both forces. These exchanges included maintenance, firefighting, airfield operations, electromagnetic warfare and basic fighter maneuvers, with U.S. and Philippine pilots flying side by side.

U.S. Air Force maintainers, assigned to the 421st Mission Generation Force Element, depart the flightline after conducting preflight operations on an F-35A Lightning II during Cope Thunder 25-2 at Clark Air Base, Philippines, July 7, 2025. The exercise enhances interoperability between the U.S. Air Force and the Philippine Air Force and supported the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ modernization efforts. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Aden Brown)

U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Arnaldo Puente Mendez, 421st Mission Generation Force Element aerospace ground equipment maintainer, briefs Philippine Air Force airmen on a self-generating nitrogen servicing cart during Cope Thunder 25-2 at Clark Air Base, Philippines, July 9, 2025. During the subject matter expert exchange, U.S. Airmen provided valuable insight into equipment used for aircraft maintenance, supporting Armed Forces of the Philippines’ modernization efforts. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Aden Brown)

U.S. Air Force Capt. Tyler Rico, second to the left, and Capt. Toney Fisher, right, 421st Mission Generation Force Element F-35A pilots, coordinate flight plans with Philippine Air Force pilots during the Cope Thunder 25-2 exercise at Clark Air Base, Philippines, July 7, 2025. The training conducted between the U.S. and Philippine Air Force strengthens both the ability to respond together for potential future crises, contingencies and natural disasters. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Aden Brown) (Image blurred for operational security)

“We worked closely with the PAF pilots, and it was clear they are professional and highly capable aviators that employ their weapon systems with skill and precision,” said Capt. Tobey Fisher, 421st Mission Generation Force Element F-35A instructor pilot. “Additionally, this exercise afforded the 421st MGFE the opportunity to operate at a remote airfield with minimal support.”

The F-35A maintenance team supported Cope Thunder 25-2 with a lean, agile team, operating with roughly one-third of the personnel they typically have at their home station.

“It’s really cool to see such a small team come here and execute the mission,” said Maj. Clinton Bialcak, 421st Fighter Generation Squadron commander, referring to executing the F-35 maintenance mission. “I think everyone in the region, in the world and in the Department of Defense sees that we can do it and they can rely on us.”

The U.S. Air Force’s participation reflects ongoing efforts to strengthen coordination with regional allies and partners.

MIL Security OSI –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Cline Introduces Bipartisan Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ben Cline (VA-06)

Washington, D.C. – With the national debt topping $36 trillion and interest payments now exceeding spending on Medicare and national defense, Congressman Ben Cline (VA-06) has introduced the Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act with Reps. Jared Golden (ME-02), Jack Bergman (MI-01) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03). This bipartisan bill would require the federal government to assess and report its ability to respond to major national emergencies like economic downturns, energy crises, and national security threats.

The legislation directs the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to produce an annual report measuring the government’s fiscal strength and readiness. After this report is released, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would conduct its own independent review and publish its findings to ensure accuracy and transparency.

“With our debt piling up and interest payments skyrocketing, we cannot afford to be caught flat-footed when the next emergency hits,” said Rep Ben Cline. Just like households plan ahead for tough times, the federal government must do the same. Americans deserve a clear picture of how much room we actually have to respond to future crises. Congress must face the facts and make responsible decisions now, before an emergency strikes.”

“One of the many lessons the Marine Corps taught me was to have a plan for the worst-case scenario,” Congressman Jared Golden (ME-02) said. “This bipartisan bill would force Washington to be clear-eyed about our fiscal outlook in potential national emergencies, which is the necessary first step for responsible planning to keep America stable and secure.”

“We know that when a crisis hits, preparation makes all the difference. The Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act is a commonsense step to ensure we’re ready to respond to whatever comes our way – whether it’s an economic downturn, a natural disaster, or a national security threat. If we’re serious about keeping our Nation strong and secure, we need to start planning ahead and making our decisions based on reality – not scrambling to prepare after the fact.” Rep. Jack Bergman added.

“As a small business owner, I know how important it is to plan for a rainy day – and hardworking families in Southwest Washington know it too,” said Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez. “Our federal government should hold itself to the same standard and be ready to weather any crisis that comes its way. Our bipartisan legislation would require annual assessments of our national fiscal strength when faced with different crises – so we can better prepare our economy to work for the American people under any circumstances.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, interest payments on the national debt will permanently exceed defense spending. By 2050, interest costs are expected to double the size of the defense budget. Gross federal debt is projected to hit 123% of GDP by September 2025, surpassing the previous World War II-era high of 119%.

“Our national debt is not just a number. It is a real and rising threat to our way of life. It impacts our economy, our national security, and our ability to respond in times of crisis. I am proud to see Representatives Cline and Golden take up the Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act. This is a commonsense measure. Just like American families must prepare for emergencies, so should our government.” said Former Senator Joe Manchin.

“Policymakers and the public need access to the best available analysis on how a severe economic shock may impact the federal government’s finances. While our nation’s largest banks are required to undergo regular stress tests to prepare for an unexpected shock, the federal government lacks an equivalent playbook. It is essential that the federal government be prepared for a possible fiscal emergency, and we commend Representatives Cline and Golden for introducing this bipartisan, commonsense proposal to strengthen our fiscal resilience.” said President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Maya MacGuineas.

Rep Ben Cline concluded “The best way to protect the American people is to be prepared. This legislation gives Congress the tools it needs to manage taxpayer dollars responsibly, respond to national emergencies, and chart a stable financial future for generations to come.”

Congressman Ben Cline represents the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. He previously was an attorney in private practice and served both as an assistant prosecutor and a Member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Cline and his wife, Elizabeth, live in Botetourt County with their two children.

###

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI New Zealand: Alchemy Bathroom Renovations Auckland Expands Services Across South and East Auckland

Source: Press Release Service

Headline: Alchemy Bathroom Renovations Auckland Expands Services Across South and East Auckland

Alchemy Bathroom Renovations Auckland, a long-established specialist in bathroom upgrades, has announced it is now extending its services into South and East Auckland. The expansion comes as the company responds to steady enquiry growth from homeowners in suburbs such as Papakura, Takanini, Pakuranga, Howick, Botany, and Beachlands.

The post Alchemy Bathroom Renovations Auckland Expands Services Across South and East Auckland first appeared on PR.co.nz.

MIL OSI New Zealand News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-Evening Report: Butter wars: ‘nothing cures high prices like high prices’ – but will market forces be enough?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Renwick, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Lincoln University, New Zealand

RobynRoper/Getty Images

The alarming rise of butter prices has become a real source of frustration for New Zealand consumers, as well as a topic of political recrimination. The issue has become so serious that Miles Hurrell, chief executive of dairy co-operative Fonterra, was summoned to meetings with the government and opposition parties this week.

After meeting Hurrell, Finance Minister Nicola Willis appeared to place some of the blame for the high price of butter on supermarkets rather than on the dairy giant.

According to Stats NZ, butter prices rose by 46.5% in the year to June and are now 120% higher than a decade ago. The average price for a 500g block is NZ$8.60, with some local brands costing over $10.

But solving the problem is not a matter of waving a magic economic wand. Several factors influence butter prices, few of which can be altered directly by government policy.

And the question remains – would we want to? Proposals such as reducing exports to boost domestic supply, or cutting goods and services tax (GST) on dairy products, all carry consequences.

A key factor driving butter prices in New Zealand is that 95% of the country’s dairy production is exported.

Limited domestic supply and strong global demand have pushed up prices for a range of commodities – not just milk, but beef as well. These increases are reflected in local retail prices.

Another contributing factor is rising costs along the supply chain. At the farm level, producers are receiving record prices for dairy. But this comes at a time when input costs have also increased significantly. It is not all profit.

Weighing the options

Before changing rules around dairy exports, the government must weigh the broader consequences.

On the one hand, high milk prices benefit “NZ Inc”. The dairy sector accounts for 25% of exports and employs 55,000 New Zealanders. When farmers do well, the wider rural economy benefits – with flow-on effects for the country as a whole.

On the other hand, there is the ongoing challenge of domestic food security. Many people cannot afford basic groceries and foodbank use is rising.

So how can New Zealand maintain a food system that benefits from exports while also supporting struggling domestic consumers?

One option is to remove GST from food. Other countries exempt dairy products from such taxes in an effort to make staples more affordable.

This idea has been repeatedly reviewed and rejected – including by the 2018 Tax Working Group. In 2024, it was estimated that removing GST could cost the government between $3.3bn and $3.9bn, with only modest benefits for the average household.

Fonterra or supermarkets?

Another route would be to examine Fonterra’s dominance in the supply chain. There are advantages to having a strong global player. And it is not in the national interest for the company to incur losses on domestic sales.

Still, the structure of the market may warrant scrutiny. For a long time there were just two main suppliers of processed dairy products – Fonterra and Goodman Fielder – and two main retailers – Foodstuffs and Woolworths. This set up reduced the need to compete on prices.

While there is arguably more competition in manufacturing sector now, supermarkets are still under scrutiny and have long faced criticism for a lack of competition.

The opaque nature of the profit margins across the supply chain also fuels suspicion. Consumers know what they pay at the checkout and what farmers receive. But the rest is less clear. This lack of transparency invites speculation about who benefits from soaring prices.

In the end, though, the government may not need to act at all.

As economists like to say: “Nothing cures high prices like high prices.” While demand for butter is relatively inelastic, there comes a point at which consumers reduce their purchases or seek alternatives. International buyers will also push back – and falling global demand may redirect more supply to domestic markets.

High prices also act as a signal to producers across the globe to increase production, which could happen relatively quickly if there are favourable climatic and other conditions.

We only need to look back to 2014, when the price of dairy dropped by 48% over the course of 12 months due to reduced demand and increased supply, to see how quickly the situation can change.

Alan Renwick 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. Butter wars: ‘nothing cures high prices like high prices’ – but will market forces be enough? – https://theconversation.com/butter-wars-nothing-cures-high-prices-like-high-prices-but-will-market-forces-be-enough-261750

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

July 25, 2025

MIL-Evening Report: 3 reasons young people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories – and how we can help them discover the truth

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau, Research Fellow, Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University

Conspiracy theories are a widespread occurrence in today’s hyper connected and polarised world.

Events such as Brexit, the 2016 and 2020 United States presidential elections, and the COVID pandemic serve as potent reminders of how easily these narratives can infiltrate public discourse.

The consequences for society are significant, given a devotion to conspiracy theories can undermine key democratic norms and weaken citizens’ trust in critical institutions. As we know from the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, it can also motivate political violence.

But who is most likely to believe these conspiracies?

My new study with Daniel Stockemer of the University of Ottawa provides a clear and perhaps surprising answer. Published in Political Psychology, our research shows age is one of the most significant predictors of conspiracy beliefs, but not in the way many might assume.

People under 35 are consistently more likely to endorse conspiratorial ideas.

This conclusion is built on a solid foundation of evidence. First, we conducted a meta analysis, a “study of studies”, which synthesised the results of 191 peer-reviewed articles published between 2014 and 2024.

This massive dataset, which included over 374,000 participants, revealed a robust association between young age and belief in conspiracies.

To confirm this, we ran our own original multinational survey of more than 6,000 people across six diverse countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, the US and South Africa.

The results were the same. In fact, age proved to be a more powerful predictor of conspiracy beliefs than any other demographic factor we measured, including a person’s gender, income, or level of education.

Why are young people more conspiratorial?

Having established conspiracy beliefs are more prevalent among younger people, we set out to understand why.

Our project tested several potential factors and found three key reasons why younger generations are more susceptible to conspiracy theories.

1. Political alienation

One of the most powerful drivers we identified is a deep sense of political disaffection among young people.

A majority of young people feel alienated from political systems run by politicians who are two or three generations older than them.

This under representation can lead to frustration and the feeling democracy isn’t working for them. In this context, conspiracy theories provide a simple, compelling explanation for this disconnect: the system isn’t just failing, it’s being secretly controlled and manipulated by nefarious actors.

2. Activist style of participation

The way young people choose to take part in politics also plays a significant role.

While they may be less likely to engage in traditional practices such as voting, they are often highly engaged in unconventional forms of participation, such as protests, boycotts and online campaigns.

These activist environments, particularly online, can become fertile ground for conspiracy theories to germinate and spread. They often rely on similar “us versus them” narratives that pit a “righteous” in-group against a “corrupt” establishment.

3. Low self-esteem

Finally, our research confirmed a crucial psychological link to self-esteem.

For individuals with lower perceptions of self worth, believing in a conspiracy theory – blaming external, hidden forces for their problems – can be a way of coping with feelings of powerlessness.

This is particularly relevant for young people. Research has long shown self esteem tends to be lower in youth, before steadily increasing with age.

What can be done?

Understanding these root causes is essential because it shows simply debunking false claims is not a sufficient solution.

To truly address the rise of conspiracy theories and limit their consequences, we must tackle the underlying issues that make these narratives so appealing in the first place.

Given the role played by political alienation, a critical step forward is to make our democracies more representative. This is best illustrated by the recent election of Labor Senator Charlotte Walker, who is barely 21.

By actively working to increase the presence of young people in our political institutions, we can help give them faith that the system can work for them, reducing the appeal of theories which claim it is hopelessly corrupt.

More inclusive democracy

This does not mean discouraging the passion of youth activism. Rather, it is about empowering young people with the tools to navigate today’s complex information landscape.

Promoting robust media and digital literacy education could help individuals critically evaluate the information they encounter in all circles, including online activist spaces.

The link to self-esteem also points to a broader societal responsibility.

By investing in the mental health and wellbeing of young people, we can help boost the psychological resilience and sense of agency that makes them less vulnerable to the simplistic blame games offered by conspiracy theories.

Ultimately, building a society that is resistant to misinformation is not about finding fault with a particular generation.

It is about creating a stronger, more inclusive democracy where all citizens, especially the young, feel represented, empowered, and secure.

Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. 3 reasons young people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories – and how we can help them discover the truth – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-young-people-are-more-likely-to-believe-conspiracy-theories-and-how-we-can-help-them-discover-the-truth-261074

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets

US Senate News:

Source: US Whitehouse
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe. The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded. The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both. Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions. The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.
Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order. Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens. My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.
Sec. 2. Restoring Civil Commitment. (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall take appropriate action to:
(i)   seek, in appropriate cases, the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time; and
(ii) provide assistance to State and local governments, through technical guidance, grants, or other legally available means, for the identification, adoption, and implementation of maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and “step-down” treatment standards that allow for the appropriate commitment and treatment of individuals with mental illness who pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.
Sec. 3. Fighting Vagrancy on America’s Streets. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation shall take immediate steps to assess their discretionary grant programs and determine whether priority for those grants may be given to grantees in States and municipalities that actively meet the below criteria, to the maximum extent permitted by law:
(i)    enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use;
(ii)   enforce prohibitions on urban camping and loitering;
(iii) enforce prohibitions on urban squatting;
(iv)   enforce, and where necessary, adopt, standards that address individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and suffer from serious mental illness or substance use disorder, or who are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves, through assisted outpatient treatment or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities via civil commitment or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law; or
(v)   substantially implement and comply with, to the extent required, the registration and notification obligations of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, particularly in the case of registered sex offenders with no fixed address, including by adequately mapping and checking the location of homeless sex offenders.
(b) The Attorney General shall:
(i)    ensure that homeless individuals arrested for Federal crimes are evaluated, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 4248, to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons and certified accordingly for civil commitment;
(ii) take all necessary steps to ensure the availability of funds under the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program to support, as consistent with 34 U.S.C. 50101 et seq., encampment removal efforts in areas for which public safety is at risk and State and local resources are inadequate;
(iii) assess Federal resources to determine whether they may be directed toward ensuring, to the extent permitted by law, that detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public because of a lack of forensic bed capacity at appropriate local, State, and Federal jails or hospitals; and
(iv)   enhance requirements that prisons and residential reentry centers that are under the authority of the Attorney General or receive funding from the Attorney General require in-custody housing release plans and, to the maximum extent practicable, require individuals to comply.
Sec. 4. Redirecting Federal Resources Toward Effective Methods of Addressing Homelessness. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate action to:
(i)   ensure that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm;
(ii)   provide technical assistance to assisted outpatient treatment programs for individuals with serious mental illness or addiction during and after the civil commitment process focused on shifting such individuals off of the streets and public programs and into private housing and support networks; and
(iii) ensure that Federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.
(b) The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety.
Sec. 5. Increasing Accountability and Safety in America’s Homelessness Programs. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate actions to increase accountability in their provision of, and grants awarded for, homelessness assistance and transitional living programs. These actions shall include, to the extent permitted by law, ending support for “housing first” policies that deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency; increasing competition among grantees through broadening the applicant pool; and holding grantees to higher standards of effectiveness in reducing homelessness and increasing public safety.
(b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, as appropriate, take steps to require recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance to increase requirements that persons participating in the recipients’ programs who suffer from substance use disorder or serious mental illness use substance abuse treatment or mental health services as a condition of participation.
(c) With respect to recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance that operate drug injection sites or “safe consumption sites,” knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia, or permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control:
(i)   the Attorney General shall review whether such recipients are in violation of Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 856, and bring civil or criminal actions in appropriate cases; and
(ii) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall review whether such recipients are in violation of the terms of the programs pursuant to which they receive Federal housing and homelessness assistance and freeze their assistance as appropriate.
(d) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate measures and revise regulations as necessary to allow, where permissible under applicable law, federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children and to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance through such programs from being housed with unrelated children.
(e) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law:
(i)   allow or require the recipients of Federal funding for homelessness assistance to collect health-related information that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development identifies as necessary to the effective and efficient operation of the funding program from all persons to whom such assistance is provided; and
(ii) require those funding recipients to share such data with law enforcement authorities in circumstances permitted by law and to use the collected health data to provide appropriate medical care to individuals with mental health diagnoses or to connect individuals to public health resources.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
                              DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
    July 24, 2025.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets

US Senate News:

Source: US Whitehouse
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe. The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded. The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both. Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions. The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.
Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order. Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens. My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.
Sec. 2. Restoring Civil Commitment. (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall take appropriate action to:
(i)   seek, in appropriate cases, the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time; and
(ii) provide assistance to State and local governments, through technical guidance, grants, or other legally available means, for the identification, adoption, and implementation of maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and “step-down” treatment standards that allow for the appropriate commitment and treatment of individuals with mental illness who pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.
Sec. 3. Fighting Vagrancy on America’s Streets. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation shall take immediate steps to assess their discretionary grant programs and determine whether priority for those grants may be given to grantees in States and municipalities that actively meet the below criteria, to the maximum extent permitted by law:
(i)    enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use;
(ii)   enforce prohibitions on urban camping and loitering;
(iii) enforce prohibitions on urban squatting;
(iv)   enforce, and where necessary, adopt, standards that address individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and suffer from serious mental illness or substance use disorder, or who are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves, through assisted outpatient treatment or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities via civil commitment or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law; or
(v)   substantially implement and comply with, to the extent required, the registration and notification obligations of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, particularly in the case of registered sex offenders with no fixed address, including by adequately mapping and checking the location of homeless sex offenders.
(b) The Attorney General shall:
(i)    ensure that homeless individuals arrested for Federal crimes are evaluated, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 4248, to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons and certified accordingly for civil commitment;
(ii) take all necessary steps to ensure the availability of funds under the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program to support, as consistent with 34 U.S.C. 50101 et seq., encampment removal efforts in areas for which public safety is at risk and State and local resources are inadequate;
(iii) assess Federal resources to determine whether they may be directed toward ensuring, to the extent permitted by law, that detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public because of a lack of forensic bed capacity at appropriate local, State, and Federal jails or hospitals; and
(iv)   enhance requirements that prisons and residential reentry centers that are under the authority of the Attorney General or receive funding from the Attorney General require in-custody housing release plans and, to the maximum extent practicable, require individuals to comply.
Sec. 4. Redirecting Federal Resources Toward Effective Methods of Addressing Homelessness. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate action to:
(i)   ensure that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm;
(ii)   provide technical assistance to assisted outpatient treatment programs for individuals with serious mental illness or addiction during and after the civil commitment process focused on shifting such individuals off of the streets and public programs and into private housing and support networks; and
(iii) ensure that Federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.
(b) The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety.
Sec. 5. Increasing Accountability and Safety in America’s Homelessness Programs. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate actions to increase accountability in their provision of, and grants awarded for, homelessness assistance and transitional living programs. These actions shall include, to the extent permitted by law, ending support for “housing first” policies that deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency; increasing competition among grantees through broadening the applicant pool; and holding grantees to higher standards of effectiveness in reducing homelessness and increasing public safety.
(b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, as appropriate, take steps to require recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance to increase requirements that persons participating in the recipients’ programs who suffer from substance use disorder or serious mental illness use substance abuse treatment or mental health services as a condition of participation.
(c) With respect to recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance that operate drug injection sites or “safe consumption sites,” knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia, or permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control:
(i)   the Attorney General shall review whether such recipients are in violation of Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 856, and bring civil or criminal actions in appropriate cases; and
(ii) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall review whether such recipients are in violation of the terms of the programs pursuant to which they receive Federal housing and homelessness assistance and freeze their assistance as appropriate.
(d) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate measures and revise regulations as necessary to allow, where permissible under applicable law, federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children and to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance through such programs from being housed with unrelated children.
(e) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law:
(i)   allow or require the recipients of Federal funding for homelessness assistance to collect health-related information that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development identifies as necessary to the effective and efficient operation of the funding program from all persons to whom such assistance is provided; and
(ii) require those funding recipients to share such data with law enforcement authorities in circumstances permitted by law and to use the collected health data to provide appropriate medical care to individuals with mental health diagnoses or to connect individuals to public health resources.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
                              DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
    July 24, 2025.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Saving College Sports

US Senate News:

Source: US Whitehouse
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose and Policy. College sports are a uniquely American institution that provide life-changing educational and leadership-development opportunities to more than 500,000 student-athletes through almost $4 billion in scholarships each year. College athletics also provide substantial support to local economies and form an indelible part of family activities, pastimes, and culture in many communities.
While major college football games can draw tens of millions of television viewers and attendees, they feature only a very small sample of the many athletes who benefit from the transformational opportunities that college athletics provide. Sixty-five percent of the 2024 United States Olympic Team members were current or former National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) varsity athletes, and approximately seventy-five percent were collegiate athletes. The 2024 United States Olympic Team earned 126 total medals, leading the overall medal count for the eighth consecutive Summer Olympic Games.
Beyond driving our unrivaled success in international competition, college athletes are more likely to report better outcomes in important respects during college and after graduation. A substantial majority of female executives at the largest American companies participated in sports during adolescence, many at the high school or collegiate level, and examples of business leaders and former Presidents who played college sports are legion. It is no exaggeration to say that America’s system of collegiate athletics plays an integral role in forging the leaders that drive our Nation’s success.
Yet the future of college sports is under unprecedented threat. Waves of recent litigation against collegiate athletics governing rules have eliminated limits on athlete compensation, pay-for-play recruiting inducements, and transfers between universities, unleashing a sea change that threatens the viability of college sports. While changes providing some increased benefits and flexibility to student-athletes were overdue and should be maintained, the inability to maintain reasonable rules and guardrails is a mortal threat to most college sports.
To illustrate, following a 2021 antitrust ruling from the United States Supreme Court striking down NCAA restrictions, the NCAA changed its rules to permit players to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness (NIL) from third parties. But guardrails designed to ensure that these were legitimate, market-value NIL payments for endorsements or similar services, rather than simply pay-for-play inducements, were eliminated through litigation. Other limits on player transfers among schools were also taken down through litigation.
This has created an out-of-control, rudderless system in which competing university donors engage in bidding wars for the best players, who can change teams each season. Meanwhile, more than 30 States have passed their own NIL laws in a chaotic race to the bottom, sometimes to gain temporary competitive advantages for their major collegiate teams. As a result, players at some universities will receive more than $50 million per year, mostly for the revenue-generating sports like football. Entering the 2024 season, players on the eventual college football national champion team were being paid around $20 million annually. By the 2025 season, football players at one university will reportedly be paid $35-40 million, with revenue-sharing included.
This not only reduces competition and parity by creating an oligarchy of teams that can simply buy the best players — including the best players from less-wealthy programs at the end of each season — but the imperative that university donors must devote ever-escalating resources to compete in the revenue-generating sports like football and basketball siphons away the resources necessary to support the panoply of non-revenue sports. Absent guardrails to stop the madness and ensure a reasonable, balanced use of resources across collegiate athletic programs that preserves their educational and developmental benefits, many college sports will soon cease to exist.
A national solution is urgently needed to prevent this situation from deteriorating beyond repair and to protect non-revenue sports, including many women’s sports, that comprise the backbone of intercollegiate athletics, drive American superiority at the Olympics and other international competitions, and catalyze hundreds of thousands of student-athletes to fuel American success in myriad ways.
Attempting to create some guardrails and shelter from litigation, colleges have adopted a new regime, deciding to pay athletes directly and simultaneously limit the total number of athletes on their campuses. Given that the new roster limits, by exceeding the scholarship limits they replace, will increase the potential number of scholarships available in many sports, this opportunity must be utilized to strengthen and expand non-revenue sports. Simultaneously, the third-party market of pay-for-play inducements must be eliminated before its insatiable demand for resources dries up support for non-revenue sports. Otherwise, a crucial American asset will be lost.
It is the policy of my Administration that all college sports should be preserved and, where possible, expanded. My Administration will therefore provide the stability, fairness, and balance necessary to protect student-athletes, collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities, and the special American institution of college sports. It is common sense that college sports are not, and should not be, professional sports, and my Administration will take action accordingly.
Sec. 2. Protecting and Expanding Women’s and Non-Revenue Sports and Prohibiting Third-Party Pay-for-Play Payments. (a) It is the policy of the executive branch that opportunities for scholarships and collegiate athletic competition in women’s and non-revenue sports must be preserved and, where possible, expanded, including specifically as follows with respect to the 2025-2026 athletic season and future athletic seasons:
(i)    collegiate athletic departments with greater than $125,000,000 in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season should provide more scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports than during the 2024-2025 athletic season and should provide the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules;
(ii)   college athletic departments with greater than $50,000,000 in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season should provide at least as many scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports as provided during the 2024-2025 athletic season and should provide the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules; and
(iii) college athletic departments with $50,000,000 or less in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season or that do not have any revenue-generating sports should not disproportionately reduce scholarship opportunities or roster spots for sports based on the revenue that the sport generates.
     (b) It is the policy of the executive branch that any revenue-sharing permitted between universities and collegiate athletes should be designed and implemented in a manner that preserves or expands scholarships and collegiate athletic opportunities in women’s and non-revenue sports.
(c) To preserve the critical educational and developmental benefits of collegiate athletics for our Nation, it is the policy of the executive branch that third-party, pay-for-play payments to collegiate athletes are improper and should not be permitted by universities. This policy does not apply to compensation provided to an athlete for the fair market value that the athlete provides to a third party, such as for a brand endorsement.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall develop a plan to advance the policies set forth in subsections (a)-(c) of this section through all available and appropriate regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms, including Federal funding decisions, enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, prohibiting unconstitutional actions by States to regulate interstate commerce, and enforcement of other constitutional and statutory protections, and by working with the Congress and State governments, as appropriate.
Sec. 3. Student-Athlete Status. The Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board shall determine and implement the appropriate measures with respect to clarifying the status of collegiate athletes, including through guidance, rules, or other appropriate actions, that will maximize the educational benefits and opportunities provided by higher education institutions through athletics.
Sec. 4. Legal Protections for College Athletics from Lawsuits. (a) The Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall work to stabilize and preserve college athletics through litigation, guidelines, policies, or other actions, as appropriate, by protecting the rights and interests of student-athletes and the long-term availability of collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities when such elements are unreasonably challenged under antitrust or other legal theories.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, to advance the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall:
(i)   review, and as necessary revise, litigation positions, guidelines, policies, or other actions; and
(ii) develop a plan to implement appropriate future litigation positions, guidelines, policies, or other actions.
Sec. 5. Protecting Development of the United States Olympic Team. The Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison shall consult the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and other appropriate organizations of American athletes about safeguarding the integral role and competitive advantage that American collegiate athletics provide in developing athletes to represent our Nation in international athletic competitions.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
     (d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Education.
                              DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
    July 24, 2025.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Let’s Honor the 1980 ‘Miracle on Ice’ US Olympic Team with Congressional Gold Medals

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Forty-five years ago, at the Lake Placid Olympic Games, a team of young American hockey players took the ice and achieved the impossible, winning against the seemingly unbeatable Soviet Union National Team. The Soviets were four-time defending Olympic gold medalists, stacked with seasoned professionals. Team USA, both the youngest-ever U.S. national team and the youngest in the tournament, stunned the world with a 4-3 victory in what became known as the “Miracle on Ice.”

Now, a congressional effort is underway to recognize these players with a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress. U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) introduced and U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) cosponsored legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal earlier this year. In April, the House of Representatives unanimously passed the legislation, with over 300 cosponsors.

Together, Senators Cramer and Klobuchar penned an op-ed in The Hill urging their Senate colleagues to pass the legislation to honor this historic team.

Let’s Honor the 1980 ‘Miracle on Ice’ US Olympic Team with Congressional Gold Medals

The Hill – July 24, 2025

In 1980, the world was fraught with political division, economic shifts, and global conflict. The Cold War loomed large, American hostages were being held in Iran, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had stoked international anxiety, and the United States was in the midst of a painful recession at home.

Yet at this time of uncertainty, a single hockey game brought us together as Americans. On February 22, 1980, a team of young athletes, mostly college students, took the ice in Lake Placid and achieved the impossible against the seemingly unbeatable Soviet Union National Team.

The Soviets were four-time defending Olympic gold medalists, stacked with seasoned professionals. Team USA, both the youngest-ever U.S. national team and the youngest in the tournament, stunned the world with a 4-3 victory in what became known as the “Miracle on Ice.”

Two days later, the team secured the gold medal with a third period comeback win against Finland. Their improbable run gave Americans a renewed sense of pride and unity during a time of deep division and uncertainty.

To commemorate the 45th anniversary of this iconic moment, we introduced the Miracle on Ice Congressional Gold Medal Act to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the members of the 1980 U.S. Olympic Men’s Hockey Team.

It is only fitting that we honor this team’s achievement. It had a lasting impact on American history and the game of hockey in the United States. Once enacted, three medals will be displayed at the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Museum in Colorado, the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in Eveleth, Minnesota, and the Lake Placid Olympic Center in New York, commemorating this greatest sports moment of the 20th century.

As National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman once said, “The most special moments in sports actually transcend the playing surface.” In 1980, the Miracle on Ice was one such moment—when, for one night, there were no partisan divides or regional differences, only a shared celebration of what Americans can achieve together. That night, the Lake Placid Olympic hockey games transcended the sheet of ice where the 20 amateur hockey players battled for victory.

The House of Representatives has already passed this bipartisan legislation unanimously, with the support of nearly 300 cosponsors. We now ask our colleagues in the Senate to join us in honoring this historic team and the spirit of unity that the 1980 U.S. Men’s Hockey Team inspired at the Olympics in Lake Placid. We urge swift, bipartisan passage of the Miracle on Ice Congressional Gold Medal Act.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Cantwell Intros Bipartisan Bill to Help Tribes Combat MMIWP Crisis and Fentanyl Trafficking

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell

07.24.25

Cantwell Intros Bipartisan Bill to Help Tribes Combat MMIWP Crisis and Fentanyl Trafficking

Bipartisan legislation would boost federal benefits to help recruit and retain tribal law enforcement officers; This week – local, federal, and tribal law enforcement indict 12 individuals in major drug trafficking operation on Yakama Nation lands

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), a senior member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Representative Dan Newhouse (R, WA-04) and Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D, WA-03) introduced the Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act of 2025. The legislation would help tribal police departments hire and retain tribal law enforcement officers by providing access to federal retirement, pension, death, and injury benefits on par with law enforcement officers from non-tribal jurisdictions.

“Tribes need more law enforcement officers to fight both the fentanyl and murdered and missing indigenous people epidemics and to respond to emergencies in their communities,” said Sen. Cantwell. “The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act will help tribal communities get the law enforcement resources they need to keep their communities safe.”

“Tribal police departments work tirelessly to protect and serve our communities in Oklahoma and around the nation,” said Sen. Mullin. “Tribal police should receive equal treatment and resources needed for the safety of their communities without going through excessive red tape. I’m proud to join with my colleagues on this and support our Tribal law enforcement.”

“As the missing and murdered indigenous women crisis continues to plague tribal communities across the country, tribal law enforcement agencies are facing serious challenges with recruiting and retaining officers and resources,” said Rep. Newhouse. “This bipartisan legislation empowers tribal law enforcement to build and maintain strong, well-trained forces who will be far better equipped to address the MMIW crisis, counter illicit drug flow, and protect tribal communities in Central Washington. I thank members of the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle who understand the scale of these challenges and are helping to lead towards a solution.”

According to the Department of Interior, public safety and justice at the Bureau of Indian Affairs is funded at just 13% of need and over 25,600 personnel are needed to adequately serve Indian Country. This includes at least 13,000 more tribal law enforcement officers to meet FBI Community Safety Standards.

“The Colville Tribes strongly supports the ‘Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act.’ The bill would implement long overdue reforms and remove administrative barriers to tribal law officers enforcing federal laws on their reservation lands. It will also assist the Colville Tribes and other tribes in recruiting and retaining officers, which is critical for rural tribes that have large land bases and not enough officers to adequately patrol.” – Jarred-Michael Erickson, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

“Bolstering support for Tribal law enforcement recruitment and retention is crucial to addressing the many serious and systemic public safety issues in Indian Country. The issue is particularly pressing for the Yakama Nation and other tribes with large-land bases and a severe lack of resources to adequately patrol such a vast area. At Yakama we are facing an overwhelming confluence of public safety crises. We have experienced a surge in violent and property crimes, the highest rate of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women/People in the region, and a terrifying rise in outside gang and cartel-related drug activity coming onto our lands, including the pervasive and deadly fentanyl epidemic. The recent coordinated, multi-agency drug trafficking interdiction “Operation Overdrive” that dismantled a large drug distribution network operating on the Yakama Reservation shows what is possible when all levels of government work together to make our communities safer. The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act will help give the Yakama Nation and other tribes the tools and funding necessary to protect our communities and people who live, work, and raise their families on our lands. The Yakama Nation appreciates Senator Cantwell and Congressman Newhouse’s partnership with us and their continued work to address long-standing impediments to Tribal sovereignty and our public safety efforts.” – Jeremy Takala, Law & Order Committee Chairman, Yakama Nation Tribal Council

“The Chehalis Tribe strongly supports the bill. Our Tribe is fortunate in that we are able to pay our law enforcement officers competitive salaries but competitive retirement benefits are currently out of reach for Chehalis and most other tribes around the country. If enacted, this will allow Chehalis and other tribes to take care of the officers that patrol and keep our communities safe.” – Dustin Klatush, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

“Many tribal police departments are chronically understaffed and massively underfunded. The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act would level the playing field for tribal police benefits, retirement, and pension, allowing tribes to improve retention and recruitment of officers on tribal lands. Ultimately, passage of the act would help improve overall safety in tribal communities. We are grateful to Senator Cantwell, Congressman Newhouse, Congresswoman, Gluesenkamp Perez, and their colleagues for championing this act and hope the overwhelming tribal support will ensure its approval.” – Chairman Glen Nenema, Kalispel Tribe of Indians

“As a tribal law enforcement officer and an elected tribal leader, I know firsthand how hard it is to recruit and retain law enforcement officers. This bill will make it so much easier to achieve that objective by ensuring tribal law enforcement officers have access to proper retirement benefits. This bill will make our community safer.” – Vice-President Everett Ekdahl, Jr. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

“The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act will provide tribal nations with the tools necessary to recruit and retain law enforcements officers. It shows Congress’s commitment to public safety on tribal lands and the fair treatment of tribal law enforcement officers. We are grateful for Senator Cantwell, Congressman Newhouse, and Congresswoman Gluesenkamp Perez for their leadership on this important issue.” – Chairman Leonard Forsman, Suquamish Tribe

“The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act represents a crucial advancement in ensuring that tribal law enforcement agencies, such as Hopi Law Enforcement Services, have the support they need to protect those that live and work on the Hopi Reservation. The Hopi Tribe is grateful to Senator Cantwell, Congressman Newhouse, Congresswoman Gluesenkamp Perez, and their colleagues for their leadership strengthening recruitment, retention, and public safety across tribal nations.” – Chairman Timothy Nuvangyaoma, Hopi Tribe

“Access to resources is critical to improving the recruitment and retention tribal law enforcement officers. The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act removes administrative barriers and provides the necessary reforms to protect our community. The Nisqually Tribe thanks Senator Cantwell and Representative Newhouse for their leadership in strengthening safety and security across tribal communities.” – Chairman Ken Choke, Nisqually Tribe

“Jurisdictional gaps in Indian Country have allowed far too many criminals to fall through the cracks. We appreciate Senator Cantwell’s leadership in taking meaningful action to close these gaps. By allowing qualified Tribal officers operating under 638 contracts to enforce federal law and receive federal protections, this bill strengthens our ability to respond to serious criminal activity on our reservation.” Chairman Anthony Hillaire, Lummi Nation

Combatting the Fentanyl Epidemic

Sen. Cantwell is a strong advocate for increasing the presence of tribal law enforcement officers on reservations to help combat the fentanyl epidemic and Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and People (MMIWP) crisis among Native communities.

Sen. Cantwell first introduced the Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act in July 2023. The bipartisan bill was first considered at a U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing on May 1, 2024. During a hearing on the fentanyl crisis in Indian Country later that month, Sen. Cantwell pressed federal officials about the need to help tribes hire and keep more tribal law enforcement officers and highlighted several tribes in Washington state that urgently need more resources to improve chronic understaffing issues.

In October 2023, Sen. Cantwell sent a letter to the leaders of the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee requesting that the committee hold an oversight hearing on how to address the fentanyl crisis in Indian Country. Soon after, the committee announced two hearings on the topic. At the November 2023 hearing titled: “Fentanyl in Native Communities: Native Perspectives on Addressing the Growing Crisis,” Sen. Cantwell invited Lummi Nation Chairman Anthony Hillarie to testify.

In December 2023, Vanessa Waldref, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, and Glen Melville, Deputy Bureau Director at the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Office of Justice Services and member of the Makah Tribe, participated in the second hearing titled: “Fentanyl in Native Communities: Examining the Federal Response to the Growing Crisis.” At the hearing, both Waldref and Melville commented that fentanyl traffickers often target tribal lands due to lack of tribal law enforcement.

A background document on Sen. Cantwell’s legislative track record and advocacy to combat the fentanyl crisis is available HERE.

Fighting Against MMIWP Crisis

In 2020, Sen. Cantwell’s Savanna’s Act was signed into law to help federal, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies better respond to cases of missing and murdered indigenous women and people by improving coordination among all levels of law enforcement, increasing data collection and information sharing, and providing tribal governments with vital resources.

In May 2023, Sen. Cantwell announced she sent a letter to the Biden Administration urging them to prioritize funding to assist Tribes and organizations working to combat the MMIWP crisis.

Following Sen. Cantwell’s urging, in June 2023 the U.S. Department of Justice announced the creation of the Missing or Murdered Indigenous Persons Regional Outreach Program, which dedicated five Assistant U.S. Attorneys and five coordinators to the task of resolving the cases of missing and murdered indigenous people. This included dedicated personnel based in Eastern Washington.

In October 2024, Sen. Cantwell announced $6.9 million in federal funding for state and municipal law enforcement agencies, tribal justice departments and programs, and medical examiner offices to help fight the fentanyl crisis, gun violence, and violence against women and children.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Shaheen Helps Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Streamline Housing Regulations, Increase Supply of Affordable Housing in Rural Communities

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) joined Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Pete Ricketts (R-NE) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) in introducing bipartisan legislation to streamline rural housing regulations between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) by requiring the two agencies to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to align housing standards. The Streamlining Rural Housing Act would simplify the process to build housing, lowering the cost and shortening project timelines for developers.

“To address the shortage of quality, affordable housing in rural areas, federal regulations need to work for communities rather than against them,” said Senator Shaheen. “I’m glad to join my colleagues in introducing bipartisan legislation that would improve and streamline environmental reviews and housing unit inspections so that we can build more homes and lower costs where it’s needed most.”

“The Council for Affordable and Rural Housing (CARH) applauds the efforts of Senators Moran, Ricketts, Shaheen, and Gallego in introducing this important legislation which will help streamline program requirements at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development (RD) programs,” said Colleen Fisher, Executive Director of CARH. “Many times when housing developers and owners are operating a property here is a need to have multiple sources of funding so that the property can cash flow and rents are at levels that low-income residents can afford. When this occurs, the agencies require separate if not identical inspections, somewhat negating the purpose of having the multiple layers of funding, thus increasing regulatory costs. By requiring one inspection, operating costs will be reduced or redirected toward services on properties. The approach envisioned in the bill has been supported by several different Administrations, with the goal of reducing regulatory burdens and improving the delivery of affordable housing programs.”

Specifically, the Streamlining Rural Housing Act would:

Require HUD and USDA to enter into a memorandum of understanding to align housing standards.
Require the creation of an advisory group to consult with the agencies on the MOU’s implementation. This group would include rural affordable housing nonprofit organizations, state housing agencies, home builders, property management companies, multifamily property owners and housing contract administrators.
Require HUD and USDA to report to the appropriate committees on recommendations for legislative, regulatory or administrative actions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of combined funding housing projects.

The full text of the legislation can be found here.

As a senior member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies (Ag-FDA) Subcommittee, Shaheen has continually worked to ensure rural communities have the federal funding needed to tackle the housing affordability crisis. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Ag-FDA Appropriations bill, Shaheen fought to fully fund the Rental Assistance program so that participating families can remain housed, provides funding to preserve the existing affordable housing portfolio and makes $1 billion in financing available for very low-income homebuyers, many of whom are first-time homeowners. In the FY24 Ag-FDA bill, Shaheen two Shaheen-led provisions were signed into law to help to preserve existing rural housing, build new housing in rural areas and protect low-income renters in rural areas from losing their homes.

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Opening Remarks at Full Committee Mark Up of Interior-Environment and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development Bills

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

***WATCH: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, delivered the following opening remarks as the committee meets to consider the draft fiscal year 2026 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriations acts.

Senator Murray’s opening remarks, as delivered, are below:

“Thank you very much, Chair Collins, and thank you to Senator Murkowski and Senator Merkley, our Interior subcommittee leads, and Senators Hyde-Smith and Gillibrand, our THUD subcommittee leaders, for working so hard and working together to hammer out two bipartisan bills.

“May not be the bills I would have written on my own, certainly more I would love to see us do and investments and accountability measures I’d like to see. But these bills are serious bipartisan compromises that reject many of the truly harmful cuts Trump and House Republicans are pushing for, and maintains crucial programs that help make sure folks back home have a roof over their heads; safe, reliable transportation; and clean air and water.

“In the Interior bill, we were able to put together a bill that protects public lands and national parks, invests in fighting wildfires, helps live up to our obligations to Tribes, and invests in critical work protecting our environment—and our families.

“And in the THUD bill, we were able to maintain crucial investments to address the housing crisis reject Trump’s deep cuts to rental assistance programs that make sure millions of families have a roof over their head and invest in transportation infrastructure across the board—including a much needed increase to hire more air traffic controllers.

“These are worthwhile investments—and they show just what is possible if we work together and exactly why a bipartisan process is a better path for everyone than the Trump bills House Republicans seem intent on writing—or another slush fund CR.

“Now, Russ Vought may want to break this process—and make it more partisan, he said so. He may want to set Congress on a track for a shutdown. But we, on this committee, can reject that partisan vision that hurts working families everywhere. And we can reject the painful cuts and policies they’re trying to inflict in our communities—just as these bills do.

“In fact, I think most of us here recognize that we have to reject that path.

“Because, at the end of the day—passing funding bills here in the Senate takes 60 votes.

“And that means the Trump-Vought path is choosing a dead end and a shut down.

“I won’t pretend the work ahead is going to be easy—I think every one of us knows, compromise means doing hard work, making hard choices.

“And it requires trust—something that unfortunately continues to be chipped away at. I hope that trajectory can be reversed—and I look forward to more discussion on each of the bills before us today.”

MIL OSI USA News –

July 25, 2025

Category: housing

July 24, 2025

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS

AUKUS treaty deepens UK-Australia defence partnership to generate £20 billion in trade and create 7,000 new jobs

Defence Secretary, John Healey, said:

Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said:

Share this page

Updates to this page

Inter-agency humanitarian assistance in Syria

Limited access to Sweida

Nationwide attacks in Ukraine

Evacuations and humanitarian response

Weighing the options

Fonterra or supermarkets?

Why are young people more conspiratorial?

What can be done?

More inclusive democracy

Cantwell Intros Bipartisan Bill to Help Tribes Combat MMIWP Crisis and Fentanyl Trafficking

Bipartisan legislation would boost federal benefits to help recruit and retain tribal law enforcement officers; This week – local, federal, and tribal law enforcement indict 12 individuals in major drug trafficking operation on Yakama Nation lands