Category: housing

MIL-Evening Report: The Greens are hoping for another ‘greenslide’ election. What do the polls say?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Associate Professor in Politics, Murdoch University

Election talk is inevitably focused on Labor and the Coalition because they are the parties that customarily form government.

But a minor party like the Greens is consequential, regardless of whether the election delivers a minority government. Certainly, the level of anti-Greens campaigning by third party groups, like Better Australia, suggests as much.

The Greens’ have declared that their electoral aim is to “Keep Dutton out and get Labor to act”. They know this would be best achieved in a minority government, where the crossbench would be powerful players.

But can the Greens build on their historic 2022 election result, which delivered four lower house seats and the balance of power in the Senate?

State of play

An aggregation of the main polls estimates the Greens’ nationwide primary vote has ticked up since 2022, now ranging from 12.4% to 14.1%.

They are expected to retain all six Senate seats up for election. When combined with their five other Senate seats, the party will be critical in the next parliament to the fate of legislation in the red chamber.

In the contest for the House, the Greens are defending a record four seats: Melbourne, Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan. Melbourne is held by party leader Adam Bandt, on a comfortable 8.5% margin. It is as safe as it gets for the Greens.

The balance of the party’s seats are all Brisbane-based, starting with Ryan, which is held by just 2.6% if the two-party preferred vote. Despite the slender margin, Ryan has better prospects than the neighbouring seat of Brisbane, which it holds by 3.6%. This is based on the party’s 2022 swing of almost 10%, which placed them second in Ryan on primary votes.

In contrast, the Greens finished in third position on primary votes in Brisbane on the back of a respectable, but much more modest swing of just under 5%. The electoral dynamics are also complicated because the seat is a genuine three-cornered contest.

On the other hand, Griffith is now classed as a safe seat for the Greens. The party attained the highest number of primary votes (34.6%) on the back of a 10.94% swing three years ago. The Greens should be able to defend Griffith.

Target seats

The Greens have declared five additional electorates as “priority target seats” – two in Victoria and one in each of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.

Wills is the first of two Melbourne-based seats earmarked by the Greens. The party is betting on a redistribution in the Labor held seat, which independent analyst The Poll Bludger estimates will reduce the ALP’s primary vote by 2.6% and increase the Greens’ vote by 5%. The Greens are also fielding a high profile candidate, former state MP Samantha Ratnam.

In the case of Macnamara, the Greens finished in second position behind Labor in 2022. At the point of the Greens’ exclusion in the count they were on 32.84%, just marginally behind Labor on 33.48%

While the Greens’ prospects might be helped by a weakened Victorian Labor brand, victory could still prove elusive. In the case of Macnamara, the electorate takes in parts of the state seat of Prahran, which the party lost in a byelection in February. The by-election was precipitated by the resignation of the state Greens MP owing to allegations of inappropriate conduct with an intern.

Moreover, Liberal how-to-vote cards in both Wills and Macnamara are preferencing Labor over the Greens, which may be enough to push Labor over the line in both seats.

Chances elsewhere

The NSW seat of Richmond is a marginal Labor electorate that was once held by the Nationals. The Greens are calculating the seat is winnable based on their strong primary vote in 2022 and candidate continuity.

Richmond boasts one of the highest levels of rental stress in the nation, making it a perfect setting for Greens campaigning on housing affordability issues. Polling shows the Greens vote is up by 3% in NSW. If it’s accurate, and translates to Richmond, then the seat is potentially winnable.

Sturt in South Australia is the Liberal Party’s second most marginal seat (0.5%). However, the likelihood of a Greens victory is slim. At the 2022 election the Greens attracted only 16.39% of the primary vote, well behind both Labor and the Liberals.

The party’s final target seat is Perth, held by Labor on a very safe 14.4%, two party preferred. The seat’s demography explains why it’s a Greens priority. Perth is a relatively affluent inner metropolitan seat, with a high percentage of people who finished school, and a constituency that skews young.

But Perth is unlikely to turn to the Greens. In 2022 they finished in third position on primary votes (22.16%), well behind Labor (39.25%). The party’s Perth campaign may have also been damaged by plans, since abandoned, to hold a fundraising event on ANZAC Day.

Numbers game

Based only on the seats examined, the Greens will likely retain at least Melbourne and Griffith in the lower house, along with the 6 senate seats it is defending.

A more optimistic reading of the polling would also include Ryan, Brisbane and Wills. A best case scenario would also add Richmond and Macnamara to that list.

And then, of course, there are the unexpected victories that many of us simply don’t see coming. This is because party support and voter swings are never uniform at the seat level. There will be electorates that under-perform for all parties. And that includes the Greens.

Narelle Miragliotta 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. The Greens are hoping for another ‘greenslide’ election. What do the polls say? – https://theconversation.com/the-greens-are-hoping-for-another-greenslide-election-what-do-the-polls-say-254600

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to win a majority of seats at next Monday’s election. Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump’s ratings in US national polls have dropped to a -5 net approval.

The Canadian election will be held next Monday, with the large majority of polls closing at 11:30am AEST Tuesday. The 343 MPs are elected by first past the post, with 172 seats needed for a majority.

The Liberals had looked doomed to a massive loss for a long time. In early January, the CBC Poll Tracker had given the Conservatives 44% of the vote, the Liberals 20%, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) 19%, the separatist left-wing Quebec Bloc (BQ) 9%, the Greens 4% and the far-right People’s 2%. With these vote shares, the Conservatives would have won a landslide with well over 200 seats.

At the September 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 of the then 338 seats on 32.6% of votes, the Conservatives 119 seats on 33.7%, the BQ 32 seats on 7.6%, the NDP 25 seats on 17.8%, the Greens two seats on 2.3% and the People’s zero seats on 4.9%. he Liberals were short of the 170 seats needed for a majority.

The Liberal vote was more efficiently distributed than the Conservative vote owing to the Conservatives winning safe rural seats by huge margins. The BQ benefited from vote concentration, with all its national vote coming in Quebec, where it won 32.1%.

On January 6, Justin Trudeau, who had been Liberal leader and PM since winning the October 2015 election, announced he would resign these positions once a new Liberal leader was elected. Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, was overwhelmingly elected Liberal leader on March 9 and replaced Trudeau as PM on March 14.

With the Liberals short of a parliamentary majority, parliament was prorogued for the Liberal leadership election and was due to resume on March 24. Carney is not yet an MP (he will contest Nepean at the election). Possibly owing to these factors, Carney called the election on March 23.

In Tuesday’s update to the CBC Poll Tracker, the Liberals had 43.1% of the vote, the Conservatives 38.4%, the NDP 8.3%, the BQ 5.8% (25.4% in Quebec), the Greens 2.2% and the People’s 1.4%. The Liberals have surged from 24 points behind in early January to their current 4.7-point lead.

Seat point estimates were 191 Liberals (over the 172 needed for a majority), 123 Conservatives, 23 BQ, five NDP and one Green. The tracker gives the Liberals an 80% chance to win a majority of seats and a 15% chance to win the most seats but not a majority.

The Liberal lead over the Conservatives peaked on April 8, when they led by 7.1 points. There has been slight movement back to the Conservatives since, with the French and English leaders’ debates last Wednesday and Thursday possibly assisting the Conservatives.

But the Liberals still lead by nearly five points in the polls five days before the election. With the Liberals’ vote more efficiently distributed, they are the clear favourites to win an election they looked certain to lose by a landslide margin in January.

Carney’s replacement of Trudeau has benefited the Liberals, but I believe the most important reason for the Liberals’ poll surge is Trump. Trump’s tariffs against Canada and his talk of making Canada the 51st US state have greatly alienated Canadians and made it more difficult for the more pro-Trump Conservatives.

In an early April YouGov Canadian poll, by 64–25, respondents said the US was unfriendly or an enemy rather than friendly or an ally (50–33 in February). By 84–11, they did not want Canada to become part of the US. If Canadians had been able to vote in the 2024 US presidential election, Kamala Harris would have defeated Donald Trump by 57–18 in this poll.

Trump’s US ratings have fallen well below net zero

In Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump currently has a net approval of -5.4, with 50.8% disapproving and 45.4% approving. At the start of his term, Trump’s net approval was +12, but went negative in mid-March. His ratings fell to their current level soon after Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2.

Silver has presidential approval poll data for previous presidents since Harry Truman (president from 1945–53). Trump’s current net approval is worse than for any other president at this point in their tenure except for Trump’s first term (2017–2021).

Silver also has a net favourability aggregate for Elon Musk that currently gives Musk a net favourable rating of -13.6 (53.0% unfavourable, 39.3% favourable). Musk’s ratings began to drop from about net zero before Trump’s second term commenced on January 20.

G. Elliott Morris used to manage the US poll aggregate site FiveThirtyEight before it was axed. He wrote last Friday that Trump’s net approval on the economy (at -5.8) is worse than at any point in his first term. During his first term, Trump’s net approval on the economy was mostly positive, helping to support his overall ratings.

Adrian Beaumont 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. After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election – https://theconversation.com/after-stunning-comeback-centre-left-liberals-likely-to-win-majority-of-seats-at-canadian-election-254926

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: Only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending: new research

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Dunley, Senior Lecturer in History and Maritime Strategy, UNSW Sydney

National security issues have been a constant feature of this federal election campaign.

Both major parties have spruiked their national security credentials by promising additional defence spending. The Coalition has pledged to spend 3% of Australia’s GDP on defence within a decade, while Labor is accelerating its own spending increase of $50 billion over the next decade.

Even the Greens have got in on the act, pledging to “decouple” Australia from the US military.

Against this backdrop, of course, is the omnipresent figure of US President Donald Trump, with questions about the reliability of the US as an ally and the impact his policy decisions will have on Australian security. The possible deployment of Russian aircraft to Indonesia and the Chinese warships sailing around Australia have made these issues even more salient.

But what do Australians actually know about defence issues, and what are they comfortable spending on it?

According to our major new survey of 1,500 Australian adults, only a third of respondents thought the defence budget should be increased.

The survey was conducted from late February to early March as part of our work at the War Studies Research Group to measure public attitudes towards the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Australians know little about the ADF’s role

More than two-thirds of our respondents said they had a positive opinion of the ADF, and only 8% held a negative opinion. There were significant differences by political affiliation, with 76% of those expecting to vote for the Liberal Party having positive views compared to 72% of Labor supporters. By contrast, only 53% of Greens supporters felt the same way.

However, when asked how much they actually knew about the ADF and its activities, only a quarter of respondents felt well-informed.

One reason for this is that only 22% of respondents served in the ADF themselves, or had an immediate family member who had. Similarly, only 35% of respondents knew a veteran.

But even public knowledge on issues that have received considerable media attention was limited.

Remarkably, only 56% of respondents were aware of the allegations that Australian Special Forces soldiers committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Less than half had heard of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

Support for increasing defence spending is mixed

Successive governments have emphasised the rapidly deteriorating strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific region. This has led to much debate over whether Australia should increase its defence spending – and by how much.

In this election, both sides have committed more resources to upgrade and expand Australia’s military capabilities.

However, despite efforts to turn defence spending into a major issue at this election (especially on the right of politics), it is far from clear this has cut through with the wider population.

Our survey reveals public support for a larger ADF is split. Just over half of respondents thought the ADF was appropriately sized, while 41% considered it too small and 7% thought it too large.

Notably, when asked whether they thought more money should be spent on defence, the support for growth shrinks further.

Liberal supporters were the most likely to favour increasing the defence budget. But only 44% of them did, suggesting a majority felt that current spending on the ADF was either appropriate or too large.

Only 28% of Labor voters supported an increase in the defence budget. And among Greens voters, those supporting cuts to the defence budget outnumbered those in favour of expansion.

Read more:
Should Australia increase its defence spending? We asked 5 experts

Most still support the US, despite Trump

Ever since the US presidential election in November, many Australians have also questioned the US alliance and the AUKUS agreement, specifically. Recent actions by Trump – most notably his public statements on the Ukraine war – have only reinforced these doubts.

Given the tone of the public debate, we expected to see lower levels of support in our survey for the US alliance as the bedrock of Australian security.

However, respondents strongly favoured (75%) the ADF continuing to prioritise working closely with allies and partners, especially the US. Only 2% opposed it. Notably, there was very little variation based on political allegiance.

However, the idea of deploying the ADF to support our allies and partners overseas, including in the event of a conflict, saw greater division among respondents.

Two-thirds favoured deploying troops to support our allies overall. Liberal voters largely supported this proposition (75%), while 64% of Labor supporters backed it. Only about half of Greens voters felt the same way.

Respondents were also asked whether Australia should focus primarily on the defence of our territory rather than supporting our allies and partners in maintaining wider regional security. Just under half (46%) of respondents agreed with this idea, while 38% expressed neutral opinions and only 17% opposed it.

Overall, the results of this survey suggest that while the Australian public generally holds the ADF in high regard, they don’t know very much about it, nor do they consider additional funding for defence and security to be a real priority.

Successive governments, intelligence agencies and military analysts have long warned of the growing threats to Australia’s national security. Our survey suggests, however, that this messaging is either not cutting through – or that other concerns, such as housing or cost-of-living pressures, are taking priority.

Either way, it does not look like this issue will be decisive in the coming election.

This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.

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

– ref. Only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending: new research – https://theconversation.com/only-a-third-of-australians-support-increasing-defence-spending-new-research-253943

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

The centre of gravity of Australian politics has shifted. Millennials and Gen Z voters, now comprising 47% of the electorate, have taken over as the dominant voting bloc.

But this generational shift isn’t just about numerical dominance. It’s also about political unpredictability.

While the youth have progressive leanings, they aren’t neatly aligned with Labor. The Greens are gaining ground and there are signs of a subset of younger men drifting right.

This makes them both a decisive and volatile force. So how might they vote?

The climbing Greens vote

According to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), youth enrolment (18–24-year-olds) at the end of March 2025 stood at 90.4%. This surpasses the national youth enrolment rate target of 87%.

Further analysis of enrolment data shows electorates with the highest proportion of voters under 30 saw unprecedented support for the Greens in 2022, with the party topping the vote share in four of the youngest seats.

Elsewhere, electorates with a high youth vote became battlegrounds, with Labor facing its fiercest competition not from the Liberals, but from the Greens.

Take Canberra, for example. A historically safe Labor seat was a comfortable Labor retain, but Greens’ primary vote reached nearly 25%, pushing the Liberals out of the two party-preferred calculations entirely.

This year, the main contest for the youth vote will likely be between Labor and the Greens.

Capturing young hearts and minds

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knows how important these voters are. In a bid to retain the youth vote, he is already sweetening the deal for them, dangling higher education reforms like election cookies.

If re-elected, Labor promises a 20% cut to student loan debt by June 1. The government also plans a higher income threshold before repayments begin, and an expansion of fee-free TAFE places to 100,000 per year from 2027.

These proposals have received strong support from young people – even among Coalition voters.

Read more:
Every generation thinks they had it the toughest, but for Gen Z, they’re probably right

This underscores the significance of youth issues in shaping their political behaviour. Young Australians are issue-based voters, with housing affordability, employment, and climate change topping their concerns, according to the 2024 Australian Youth Barometer.

They’re acutely aware of intergenerational inequality. They’re paying more tax than their parents did, while facing skyrocketing housing, education, and living costs. Financial anxiety runs deep, with 62% believing they’ll be worse off than their parents.

Yet, they see lack of sincere government action to address their struggles.

Not doing enough

Take housing affordability – a red-hot issue in the past three years. A bitter parliamentary standoff last year saw Labor and the Greens locked in negotiations over housing policy.

The Greens criticised the government’s Build to Rent and Help to Buy schemes, calling for tougher reforms. They wanted rent caps, the winding back negative gearing and phasing out $176 billion in tax breaks for property investors.

Such parliamentary gridlocks are unsavoury to voters, but the rent cap debate could have given the Greens an edge among young people, most of whom are renters.

Youth trust in the Albanese government has slipped since 2022, according to the first wave of the ANU 2025 Election Monitoring Survey. Perceptions of politicking over important issues like housing could be part of the reason why.

Divided by gender

Another fault line in the youth vote is the gender divide.

There are signs of a right-wing shift among young men, much like in Donald Trump’s America. According to The Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll in November 2024, 37% of men aged 18–34 back opposition leader Dutton, compared to just 27% of women.

Pollsters point to young, non-university educated voters in the outer suburbs and regions as potential disruptors. They’re volatile, disillusioned and more likely to vote against a system they feel has failed them.

This trend is harder to spot in aggregate data, likely due to compulsory voting, but studies suggest a subset of men with economic grievances – particularly blue-collar workers – are drawn to anti-government rhetoric and the discourse of white male victimhood.

Many express nostalgia for traditional masculinity and feel alienated by progressive social shifts. Such a perception leads to a “backlash” against these changes.

This resentment plays out well online. Trump, for example, has mobilised young men by mastering direct communication through digital media and podcasts, and Dutton seems to be taking notes.

So a lot hinges on the online battleground. It’s about reaching all types of young voters with relatable, political messaging.

The days of one-size-fits-all political advertising are over. Younger voters consume media differently, making political messaging more about influencers than traditional advertising.

Major parties need to step up their game in digital-first platforms, moving beyond mere presence on social media to crafting compelling, digital-first content.

Grassroots and community-driven campaigning, both online and on the ground, can bridge the disconnect. The Greens’ success in Brisbane proved this, with young, personable candidates engaging directly.

Meanwhile, the establishment parties are lacking young, relatable leaders who can tell stories that resonate.

Intifar Chowdhury 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. This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it? – https://theconversation.com/this-election-gen-z-and-millennials-hold-most-of-the-voting-power-how-might-they-wield-it-252803

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: The ‘responsible gambling’ mantra does nothing to prevent harm. It probably makes things worse
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Haelen Haagen/Shutterstock

Recent royal commissions and inquiries into Crown and Star casino groups attracted much media attention. Most of this was focused on money laundering and other illegalities.

The Victorian royal commission found widespread evidence that Crown also took advantage of vulnerable people.

The regulatory framework that in large part allows this to occur is known as “responsible gambling”.

Read more:
Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended

What is ‘responsible gambling’?

Gambling operators usually adhere to a system of purported harm minimisation known as responsible gambling.

In practice, this requires gambling operators to adopt and supposedly implement a “responsible gambling code of practice”.

This is supposed to protect people from experiencing gambling harm. Crown and Star, like other gambling venues, are required to adopt such codes.

Royal Commissioner Ray Finkelstein, overseeing the Victorian Crown inquiry, was scathing in his assessment of Crown’s implementation:

Crown Melbourne had for years held itself out as having a world’s best approach to problem gambling. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Unfortunately, Finkelstein’ comments about Crown could readily be made about most other gambling operators.

How it all began

The responsible gambling framework was developed by gambling operators as a way of deflecting attention from the serious harm of gambling.

The document that arguably consolidated this was prepared in 2004 by a group of gambling researchers gathered, naturally, in Reno, Nevada (close to Las Vegas, the spiritual home of gambling excesses).

This document argued the choice to gamble should be left to people and no external organisation should interfere with this.

Now, responsible gambling is cemented in law, regulation, and practice. It is the overwhelming frame for gambling operators, governments and regulators to conceal gambling’s downside.

Stacking the odds

Responsible gambling depicts gambling harm as an issue for a small minority of people: so-called problem gamblers.

So from this perspective, any issues with gambling are issues with people.

But little if any attention is devoted to the environment in which gambling is available. Often, even less is devoted to examining the nature of gambling products.

When it comes to wagering marketing, the Australian gambling ecosystem has argued very effectively to forestall prohibition or further regulation in recent years.

The far-reaching power of this conglomeration of self-interested actors is hard to overestimate.

Read more:
Will the government’s online gambling advertising legislation ever eventuate? Don’t bet on it

At venue level, responsible gambling interventions required include signage, referral to counselling and mottos such as “gamble responsibly”.

With few exceptions, little of this is evidence based. Almost none of it is effective.

Codes of conduct, for example, argue it is possible to intervene at a venue when a gambler shows signs of distress, or has a gambling disorder. While this is theoretically possible, the problem is to do so would rob venue operators of their most lucrative customers.

The available evidence indicates such interventions are extremely rare, or nonexistent.

Another major element is self-exclusion: an opportunity for people (or in some states their relatives) to ban themselves from gambling at particular venues.

This is, again, fine in theory. But it has generally been poorly enforced at “bricks and mortar” venues.

There are two fundamental issues with this approach:
- those who self-exclude are very much in the minority of those with gambling problems
- self-exclusion is generally undertaken only by those who are at rock-bottom. It is not a preventive approach.
The other major intervention in the responsible gambling coda is treatment.

Gambling treatment services are available and free via Gamblers Help but fewer than 10% of those who might benefit from treatment actually seek it.

Unfortunately, attrition rates for counselling are high, so both the lack of help-seeking and the attrition rates when help is sought are at least partially attributable to another side effect of the responsible gambling mantra: shame and stigma, which are commonly reported by those struggling with gambling disorders.

The blame game

Responsible gambling effectively blames people for getting into trouble.

It argues problem gamblers are far outnumbered by “responsible gamblers”, and deflects attention away from the highly addictive nature of many gambling products.

It largely absolves operators of responsibility, while maintaining their revenues and stigmatising those who bear the consequences.

As it does all this, it also provides a smokescreen of concern, a suggestion that gambling operators and governments care about gambling harm.

Ideas for the future

The best way to curb gambling harm is to view it as a public health problem.

Public health is generally focused on prevention (think vaccines and clean water). At this stage, the most likely effective preventive intervention is what is known as pre-commitment, which uses technology to allow people to determine the amount of money they want to gamble.

High-intensity gambling products rely on people becoming highly immersed in the product. Gamblers call this “the zone” – which limits or negates a person’s ability to make rational decisions.

But pre-commitment systems allow this choice to be made outside of “the zone”.

Unsurprisingly, few gambling operators support such a solution, even though these systems are now commonplace in many European countries.

Pre-commitment and cashless systems are now required for casinos in NSW and Victoria, and shortly in Queensland, as recommended by the Crown and Star inquiries.

These are welcome steps but much more is needed.

A long overdue change

Responsible gambling has allowed gambling operators to self-regulate and blame people for harmful gambling practices.

It has made gambling businesses – casinos, wagering companies, pokie pubs and clubs – extraordinary profitable. But this has come at considerable cost to hundreds of thousands of Australians, and their families and friends.

Ditching the responsible gambling mantra is long overdue. Along with effective interventions to prevent harm, doing so will dramatically reduce the damage that gambling does.

Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government’s Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm. He made a submission to and appeared before the HoR Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.

– ref. The ‘responsible gambling’ mantra does nothing to prevent harm. It probably makes things worse – https://theconversation.com/the-responsible-gambling-mantra-does-nothing-to-prevent-harm-it-probably-makes-things-worse-251487
MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –
April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Padilla, Schiff, Reed Call on Trump Administration to Reverse Plans to Defund Libraries and Museums

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Padilla, Schiff, Reed Call on Trump Administration to Reverse Plans to Defund Libraries and Museums

Senators: “The consequences of eliminating IMLS will be devastating for states, local communities, and the millions of Americans who rely on these institutions every day”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and 23 lawmakers expressed serious concerns regarding President Trump’s call to eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which was created by a Republican-led Congress in 1996 and is the only federal agency dedicated to supporting the nation’s libraries and museums. In the letter, the lawmakers called on the Administration to ensure there is continued funding in accordance with federal law for libraries and museums and to reverse any actions that jeopardize their provision of critical services on which many communities rely on.
“The consequences of eliminating IMLS will be devastating for states, local communities, and the millions of Americans who rely on these institutions every day. These institutions are critical pillars of educational opportunity, cultural preservation, civic engagement, and economic development in our communities,” wrote the lawmakers.
“We urge you to uphold the law, immediately disburse all LSTA grant funding to our states, including California, Connecticut and Washington, and reverse any actions that jeopardize the future of the libraries and museums our communities rely on,” concluded the lawmakers.
Libraries serve as essential lifelines for families, students, and workers throughout California providing literacy programs, access to technology, job training, small business support, and more.
In addition to Senators Padilla, Schiff, and Reed, the letter is also signed by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.). In the U.S. House of Representatives, this letter is signed by Representatives Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.-14), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26), Scott Peters (D-Calif.-50), Jim Costa (D-Calif.-21), Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.-25), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.-52), Mark Takano (D-Calif.-39), George Whitesides (D-Calif.-27), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04), Norma Torres (D-Calif.-35), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.-34), Lou Correa (D-Calif.-46), Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.-24), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.-44), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18).
Full text of the letter is available here and below:
Dear Mr. Sonderling,
We write to express our serious concerns regarding President Trump’s call to eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the only federal agency dedicated to supporting the nation’s libraries and museums. On March 14, 2025 President Trump issued the Executive Order “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy” which includes IMLS to be eliminated “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law” and for IMLS to submit a report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to confirm compliance. We are reminding the Administration of its obligation to fully execute the law as authorized by Congress under the Museum and Library Services Act (MLSA) of 2018 (PL 115-40), as signed by President Trump. Beginning on April 3, 2025, several grantees — including the states of California, Connecticut and Washington — received written notice from IMLS that their federal Fiscal Year 2024–25 grants under the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) had been terminated. We strongly urge the Administration to reverse these terminations and ensure continued funding in accordance with federal law.
For Fiscal Year 2024, Congress appropriated $294.8 million for IMLS, specifying funding should be allotted across the programs in the following manner:
Library Services Technology Act
                Grants to States                                                                                           $180,000,000
                Native American Library Services                                                             $5,763,000
                National Leadership: Libraries                                                                  $15,287,000
                Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian                                                            $10,000,000
Museum Services Act
Museums for America                                                                                  $30,330,000
Native American/Native Hawaiian Museum Services                          $3,772,000
National Leadership: Museums                                                                 $9,348,000
African American History and Culture Act                                                       $6,000,000
National Museum of the American Latino Act                                                     $6,000,000
Research, Analysis, and Data Collection                                                              $5,650,000
Program Administration                                   $22,650,000
We expect the Administration to fully implement the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025 consistent with the Fiscal Year 2024 allocations. We also urge the Administration to allow IMLS to continue to engage with and support libraries and museums as Congress intended and as authorized in the MLSA, including maintaining the expertise of the IMLS staff to carry out the functions of the agency.
Libraries and museums are deeply embedded in local communities across the country and millions of Americans rely on their services and programs, particularly the most rural and underserved areas. In 2024, IMLS funding reached 140,000 libraries and museums across all 50 states and U.S. territories. Public, school, academic, and specialty libraries provide a wide range of local services such as summer reading programs for youth, high-speed internet, workforce training, and support for small businesses. Libraries are especially vital for low-income families, students, and workers who depend on them for free access to technology, educational resources, and job search support. In California, local libraries serve as critical lifelines for families experiencing homelessness and those displaced by natural disasters, offering space for community gathering and access to emergency information. Every year, more than 1.2 billion people visit libraries in-person—and they are deeply valued by the American public.
Museums serve as crucial sources of information for history, art, science, and culture and have broad public support. In fact, 96 percent of surveyed Americans believe lawmakers should support museums. Museums support more than 726,000 American jobs and contribute $50 billion to the U.S. economy every year. Beyond their cultural significance, museums play a vital role in education, offering hands-on learning opportunities for students of all ages and providing resources that supplement school curricula, especially in underserved communities. For states like California, Connecticut, and Washington, museums are essential pillars of local identity, tourism, and community development.
The consequences of eliminating IMLS will be devastating for states, local communities, and the millions of Americans who rely on these institutions every day. These institutions are critical pillars of educational opportunity, cultural preservation, civic engagement, and economic development in our communities.
As such, please provide us with a written response to the questions below no later than May 1, 2025.
How many IMLS employees have been fired, put on administrative leave, accepted the deferred resignation program offer, or accepted the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority or Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment offer since January 20, 2025? Please provide the number of employees in each category.
How many individuals are currently employed at the agency? Please provide their titles and duties.
How many of these employees were responsible for, or assisted in, administering grants?

Which officials at IMLS were involved in the staffing reduction decisions and what planning, if any, was undertaken prior to these reductions?
What factors are being used to determine the cancellation of grants, including the Grants to States funding?
Please provide a full list of cancelled grants, including the date of cancellation, type of grant, and dollar amount.
Please share what the agency’s “updated priorities” are and how grants are being assessed for alignment and plans for grant competitions in Fiscal Year 25.

Which officials at IMLS are involved in developing the report to the Director of OMB?
What are such officials’ expertise in IMLS administration and the Museum and Library Services Act statute?
Please share with Congress the report detailing the functions of IMLS and what is statutorily required and to what extent.

Museums and libraries are the cornerstone of our society that serve as protected spaces for people to learn, engage with their community, and build curiosity. We urge you to uphold the law, immediately disburse all awarded LSTA grant funding to our states, including California, Connecticut and Washington, and reverse any actions that jeopardize the future of the libraries and museums our communities rely on.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: 80 years of CFA fire stations

Source:

From tin sheds, red brick buildings to weatherboard structures and ex-army Nissen huts, the home base for CFA brigades across Victoria has evolved significantly over the last 80 years.

From tin sheds, red brick buildings to weatherboard structures and ex-army Nissen huts, the home base for CFA brigades across Victoria has evolved significantly over the last 80 years.

Our volunteers work hard to protect the growing Victorian community, so it is important they have adequate facilities to support their fire response. 

When CFA made its impact throughout Victoria in the early 1950s, and postwar shortages had ended, large numbers of tin shed fire stations began to appear across rural Victoria. Now, to cater for growing communities and response efforts, state-of-the-art features are being rolled out statewide in our fire stations.

CFA General Manager Infrastructure Services Paul Santamaria said CFA first made the decision to borrow funds from the government in 1951 to put toward the construction of new fire stations.

“While farm sheds were the garages for rural fire brigades pre the 1950’s, some primitive stations were also made of fibro cement,” Paul said.

“From 1953, CFA embarked on building galvanised iron sheds for rural brigades, renovating and extending urban fire stations and building several new ones.

“We borrowed £50,000 to build 40 sheds for rural fire trucks and urgently needed urban fire stations. Brigades often erected the two bay or single bay prefabricated iron buildings themselves.”

The tin sheds have become landmarks throughout Victoria, appearing in clearings without a house in sight, and were deemed a public sign of a community prepared to defend itself.

“Back then, brigade members lent horses, ploughs and scoops to level the ground of the new sites, and working bees took place to build the stations. Local fundraisers were held to pay for sirens and connect electricity,” Paul said.

“All CFA stations conformed to the building standards at the time that they were constructed to ensure alignment with building codes and to provide adequate housing for appliances that were developed for various risk environments.

“Over time, these station design standards have changed and have been amended to include additional functional requirements to support remote rural, rural, semi urban, and fully urbanised areas.”

Over the 2000s, a new generation of modern sheds and stations with additional facilities replaced older stations around the state, with greater consideration for sustainability and of diverse communities and membership.

Today, our latest, fit-for-purpose facilities can include drive-through motor bay rooms and ancillary sheds for equipment, separate toilet facilities and turnout areas that ensure privacy for our members.

“It is really pleasing to see the improvements our fire stations have seen over the years. Whether brigades are receiving renovations or a brand-new station, all enhancements will go a long way in accommodating the future needs of the brigade,” Paul said.

“Some stations now have adequate room for kitchens, multi-purpose rooms, privacy areas, gender diverse amenities, administration areas, workshops, breathing apparatus maintenance spaces, ICT equipment, laundry facilities, storerooms and hose drying towers.

“The larger, and improved facilities will be of great benefit to our Victorian towns as a whole, with members efficiently able to continue responding to incidents in the local area and surrounding neighbourhoods.”

Submitted by CFA Media

MIL OSI News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: SBA Offers Disaster Assistance to Texas Small Businesses, Nonprofits and Residents Affected by Spring Storms

Source: United States Small Business Administration

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced the availability of low interest federal disaster loans to Texas small businesses, nonprofits and residents who sustained physical damage and economic losses from the thunderstorms, straight-line winds, and tornadoes occurring on April 4. The SBA issued a disaster declaration in response to a request received from Gov. Greg Abbott on April 17.

The disaster declaration covers the Texas counties of Bowie, Camp, Cass, Marion, Morris, Red River, Titus and Upshur.

Businesses and nonprofits are eligible to apply for business physical disaster loans and may borrow up to $2 million to repair or replace disaster-damaged or destroyed real estate, machinery and equipment, inventory, and other business assets.

Homeowners and renters are eligible to apply for home and personal property loans and may borrow up to $100,000 to replace or repair personal property, such as clothing, furniture, cars, and appliances. Homeowners may apply for up to $500,000 to replace or repair their primary residence.

Applicants may be eligible for a loan increase of up to 20% of their physical damages, as verified by the SBA, for mitigation purposes. Eligible mitigation improvements include insulating pipes, walls and attics, weather stripping doors and windows, and installing storm windows to help protect property and occupants from future disasters.

SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to eligible small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries and private nonprofit (PNP) organizations impacted by financial losses directly related to this disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for aquaculture enterprises.

EIDLs are for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the small business or PNP did not suffer any physical damage. They may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills not paid due to the disaster.

Interest rates are as low as 4% for businesses, 3.625% for nonprofits and 2.75% for homeowners and renters, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not begin to accrue and payments are not due until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

Beginning Wednesday, April 23, SBA customer service representatives will be on hand at a Disaster Loan Outreach Center (DLOC) to answer questions about SBA’s disaster loan program, explain the application process and help individuals complete their applications. Walk-ins are accepted, but you can schedule an in-person appointment in advance at appointment.sba.gov.

“When disasters strike, SBA’s Disaster Loan Outreach Centers play a vital role in helping small businesses and their communities recover,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “At these centers, SBA specialists assist business owners and residents with disaster loan applications and provide information on the full range of recovery programs available.”

The DLOC hours of operation are listed below.

MORRIS COUNTY
Disaster Loan Outreach Center
Morris County Collaborative
200 Jefferson St.
Daingerfield, TX 75638

Opens at 11 a.m. Wednesday, April 23

Mondays – Fridays, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Closes at 5 p.m. Wednesday, May 14

To apply online, visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

The deadline to return physical damage applications is June 20. The deadline to return economic injury applications is Jan. 21, 2026.

###

About the U.S. Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Canada: Claire Anderson to the British Columbia Broadband Association

Source: Government of Canada News

Richmond, British Columbia
April 22, 2025

Claire Anderson, Commissioner for British Columbia and the Yukon
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

Check against delivery

Thank you once again, Bob, for that welcome and for inviting me to join all of you once again at the British Columbia Broadband Association’s annual conference. My thanks, as well, to the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations for allowing us to conduct our conference on their traditional, ancestral and unceded territories.

The City of Vancouver acknowledges that the City is “located on territory that was never ceded, or given up to the Crown by the Musqueam, Squamish, or Tsleil-Waututh peoples. The term unceded acknowledges the dispossession of the land and the inherent rights of those Indigenous peoples to the territory.” So again, I pay my respects.

Thank for you for inviting me to speak with you for a third year running now. This time, of course, I am meeting with you under very different circumstances, as we are currently in the midst of an election period.

As you know, the CRTC is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that regulates the Canadian communications sector in the public interest. We hold public consultations on telecommunications and broadcasting matters and make decisions based on the public record.

And as an independent tribunal, we are mindful that during an election period the federal public service operates under the principles outlined in what is commonly referred to as the “caretaker convention.” We, like the rest of the government, continue routine operations and necessary business, but we exercise restraint in what we say and do to demonstrate respect for the democratic process.

What that means for today is I will not be able to discuss, for the most part, what the future might hold for the CRTC. I certainly will not speculate on the election or what it might mean for the CRTC, your sector, or any other areas of interest being discussed at the conference today. This will be true both for my time here at the podium, as well as in any discussion we have together afterward.

With that out of the way, I would like to get to the things we can discuss, especially considering the theme of this year’s conference: “The Dollars and Sense of Telecom.” Because for many of the members here today, the CRTC’s recent regulatory decisions create the potential to open up new market opportunities for service providers willing to seize them.

So let’s get started.

HSA

I am, of course, referring to our decisions over the past couple years regarding aggregated, wholesale high-speed access services over fibre-to-the-home networks. The process by which we arrived at our decision began when we received a new policy direction from the government in February 2023. The direction asked us to renew our approach to telecommunications policy in Canada, requiring the CRTC to consider how our decisions could promote competition, affordability, reliability, and consumer interests.

Shortly after we launched a proceeding on the Internet services market, focusing on how we could increase competition and encourage more affordable choices for consumers in the market.

In November of the same year, we released an interim decision that provided competitors with a workable way to sell Internet services using the fibre-to-the-home networks of large telephone companies in Ontario and Quebec, where the CRTC had noticed that competition in the market had declined most significantly.

We continued our public process, including a comprehensive review of all submissions on the matter, as well as a week-long public hearing in February of last year. In August 2024, we released our final decision in the proceeding. That decision expands competitor access to fibre networks nationwide.

Our decisions throughout this process have aimed to promote greater competition in the Internet services marketplace while ensuring incentives for companies to continue investing in high-quality networks. For example, the access granted in our decisions only includes fibre that was already deployed on the date of the decision. Any new fibre built after that date is exempt until August 2029.

Our hope is that through this decision, British Columbians and Canadians in general will soon benefit from increased competition for high-speed Internet. Because we know increased competition leads to more affordable choices and innovative services.

For service providers like many of you here today, the new framework presents an opportunity to compete in the fibre-to-home market. The access to that market is already available – large telephone companies had to be ready to grant it to competitors by February 2025. So we hope that you consider this as an option in your business planning.

Broadband Fund

Promoting both competition and continued investment has been one key focus of CRTC decisions in the past couple years. Another area where we have focused much of our attention is on expanding networks to ensure all Canadians have access to high-quality and reliable Internet – especially in underserved rural, remote, and Indigenous communities. The open data we publish tells us that 21.8 percent of households in those areas do not have access to reliable 50/10 connectivity.

In 2016, we decided to overhaul our program for ensuring basic telephone service to all Canadians to focus on broadband. We established the criteria for the Broadband Fund in 2018, and launched three calls for applications – the first two in 2019, and then the third in 2022.

We have directed funding to Inuit communities in northern Quebec and Nunavut, to nearly 100 kilometres of major roads in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Ontario, and to roads and rural communities in the Yukon, here in B.C., and in Manitoba. Over the Fund’s lifetime, it has supported improved broadband infrastructure for more than 270 communities, including significant investments in the Far North.

Thirty-one of these projects are in the $1 to $10 million range. Seventeen of these projects come in at $1 million or below. Although we are encouraged to see that smaller providers have been able to successfully apply for funding, we know that we can do more to make it easier.

That’s why we are conducting an ongoing review of the Fund. Late last year we announced a number of changes in three broad areas — making it faster for you to submit an application and for us to evaluate it; supporting Indigenous applicants; and making our mapping more sensible and accessible.

In terms of faster application and evaluation, we simplified some eligibility and assessment criteria, like the requirement to propose specific packages and rates. We also collapsed the separate access and transport categories to further simplify things. We have reduced the amount of information required at all stages of the funding process, and we’ve consolidated separate reporting requirements.

In terms of reducing barriers for Indigenous applicants, we have made a number of changes including on community engagement. We have taken steps to streamline the application process and to provide Indigenous applicants with a dedicated point of contact in our Indigenous Relations Team, instead of having to navigate our processes alone.

We are also providing funding for up to two years of technical training for Indigenous staff in communities they are proposing to serve as part of funded capital projects, and for Indigenous applicants we are not requiring a 10% holdback on projects with approved funding of $5 million or less. Furthermore, we are requiring each Broadband Fund applicant to obtain and show they have conducted meaningful consultations with Indigenous communities and earned consent for any projects that are built on their territories.

Finally, in terms of updating our mapping, we’ve dropped the hexagons for a call-by-call approach, expanded how we define major transportation roads, and provided a way to identify the roads that provide key linkages between communities.

We expect these changes to improve how we operate the Fund and improve outcomes for recipients. Any further changes we make will be in service of our overarching goal: to help close the remaining connectivity gaps across the country effectively and efficiently.

Recent decisions and ongoing consultations

Our Broadband Fund work and our decisions regarding network access are not our only ongoing telecommunications work at the CRTC. Far from it.

Just two months ago at the end of February we also released a decision to help strengthen network resiliency and reliability for emergency services like 9-1-1. Measures in the decision will help improve the resiliency of the wireless public alerting system, prioritize 9-1-1 traffic over Internet traffic during periods of network congestion, and provide greater information to the public on how to contact emergency services during outages.

As British Columbians know all too well, access to emergency services and public alerts are even more important in a crisis. We will continue to help support Canadians’ access to 9-1-1 services and public alerts within our mandate.

Another of our ongoing work streams at the CRTC regards access to poles and support structures. As many of you know, we issued decisions in recent years streamlining the approach to accessing support structures that are owned or controlled by large incumbent local exchange carriers, and then finalizing the tariffs by which to do so.

At the same time, we have been exploring whether these tariffs ought to give competitors the right to include wireless attachments to help deploy next-generation 5G networks — in other words, whether the rules requiring telcos to let third parties attach equipment to support structures should be modified and, potentially, broadened. What types of facilities could be deployed to support wireless networks? What would that mean for spare capacity, construction standards, and interference? What can we do at the Commission to streamline processes?

These are just a few of the questions we are considering. Because this is a matter before us, I cannot even hint at any possible outcome, except that any decision we make will continue to promote both greater competition and more investment in networks.

Next, I want to take a few moments to explain some of our ongoing work on the consumer side of things. While we hope our high-speed access to fibre-to-the-home networks decision will improve choice and affordability for consumers, we also think more can be done to ensure consumers have better information in the Internet services market.

Last fall, we published our Consumer Protections Action Plan, which summarizes our measures to ensure clear contracts and promote transparency both in terms of how consumers are able to choose their provider, and in knowing what to expect from them.

We are currently engaged in a series of four consultations around making it easier to choose, change, and cancel a plan.

The first one is about clear rules for notifying customers when their plans or discounts are about to end. The second looks at fees that some service providers may charge when a subscriber cancels or changes a plan. The third consultation is around tools that providers give their subscribers to manage their plans, like online portals.

And the fourth is about whether service providers should have to provide information in a standardized way to make it easier for Canadians to compare plans. To take a well-known example — we are all used to seeing nutrition labels when we visit the grocery store. We are considering a common look and feel for information on broadband services, so that it can be conveyed in a consistent manner from one provider to the next, just like the labels on your cereal boxes and granola bars.

These consultations are still very much ongoing, and there will be a public hearing on the potential labeling system in June.

Conclusion

Which, I think, is a good place for me to wrap up today. As I said at the beginning, at the CRTC we regulate the Canadian communications sector in the public interest. To ensure we achieve our mandate, we have to gather input from everyone – including and especially everyone gathered here in this room – from our Internet service providers to everyday Canadians.

So please visit our website, and work with your trade associations and advisors to stay up to date on our proceedings as they continue. Intervene in our proceedings and let us know the impact they could have on you and your business. Your input matters a great deal to what we do. When you intervene on the record of our proceedings, we’re able to take it into account and consider it in our final decision.

Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to continuing our work together.

MIL OSI Canada News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Senators Markey, Baldwin Announce Resolution to Designate April as Earth Month

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey

Resolution Text (PDF)

Washington (April 22, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-author of the Green New Deal resolution and member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) today announced the Earth Month resolution to recognize the importance of environmental stewardship and climate action. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) cosponsors the resolution.

“Planet Earth is our home. Now more than ever, we need stewardship of our home. As the Trump administration is targeting environmental safeguards that ensure we have a livable future, I am doubling down on my commitment to fight back and uplift efforts that promote environmental stewardship and spur even more climate action. Earth Day is our moment to recommit and expand our movement for a just and livable future – a future with clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean land on which to live,” said Senator Markey. “We know environmental pollution and the climate crisis do not affect us all equally. That is why environmental stewardship and climate action must center the most marginalized communities, particularly Black and Indigenous communities who have been overburdened with pollution and the harms of climate change. Using the tenets of a Green New Deal – fighting for environmental justice and climate action while creating good-paying union jobs – we can work together toward a livable future every day, but especially during Earth Month.”

“From the Great Lakes and the rolling hills of the Driftless Region, to the Great Northwoods and Mighty Mississippi, Wisconsin is rich with natural resources that have defined our state and way of life. I’m proud to carry on Wisconsin’s tradition of environmental stewardship and recognize Earth Month as we all do our part to protect and preserve Wisconsin’s wilderness and resources for the next generation,” said Senator Baldwin.

“We proudly support Senators Markey’s & Baldwin’s Earth Month resolution as a vital affirmation of our collective responsibility to protect Mother Earth and the communities most impacted by environmental injustice. At a time when climate change is both accelerating and the solutions to it are being actively undermined, Congressional recognition of Earth Month sends a powerful message: that bold, equitable, and community-led climate action is not only necessary — it is the only thing that will solve the problem for us all,” said KD Chavez, Executive Director of the Climate Justice Alliance.

“Since it was first observed in 1970, Earth Day has successfully provided countless Americans with an opportunity to reflect on the shared responsibility we have to preserve the beauty of our planet. The designation of Earth Month would help get and keep people engaged for more than just one day, as we rededicate ourselves to doing all we can to explore, enjoy, and protect our environment year round. Together, we can protect our lands, clean air, and clean water to ensure a livable planet for future generations. We’re incredibly thankful for the efforts of Senator Markey, a true champion in the fight to combat climate change and protect America’s wild places,” said Ben Jealous, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Booker, Padilla, Reed Introduce Bills to Permanently Protect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans from Offshore Drilling

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for New Jersey Cory Booker
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Earth Day, U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Jack Reed (D-RI) announced a pair of bills to permanently protect the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean from the dangers of fossil fuel drilling. The package includes Booker and Reed’s Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism (COAST) Anti-Drilling Act, which would permanently prohibit the U.S. Department of the Interior from issuing leases for the exploration, development, or production of oil and gas in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida Planning Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, as well as Padilla’s West Coast Ocean Protection Act, which would permanently prohibit new oil and gas leases for offshore drilling off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.
This legislation comes just after the 15th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which resulted in the deaths of 11 workers, 134 million gallons spilled into the Gulf of Mexico over 87 days, the demise of thousands of marine mammals and sea turtles, and billions of dollars in economic losses from the fishing, outdoor recreation, and tourism industries.
U.S. Representatives Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ-06), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Jared Huffman (D-CA-02), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, are leading companion legislation in the House for the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism (COAST) Anti-Drilling Act and West Coast Ocean Protection Act respectively.
Full text of the COAST Anti-Drilling Act is available here.
Full text of the West Coast Protection Act is available here, and a one-pager is available here.
“This week marks both Earth Day and the 15th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster,” said Senator Booker. “I’m standing alongside my colleagues in the House and Senate to reaffirm our commitment to protecting our communities and our environment. Offshore drilling endangers our coastal communities – both their lives and their livelihoods – and threatens marine species and ecosystems. The COAST Act, along with this critical package of legislation, will ensure that marine seascapes along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, and the wildlife, industries, and communities that rely on them, are protected from the dangers of fossil fuel drilling.”
“Offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean would open up the eastern seaboard to considerable risk, and we have seen the destruction that an accident can cause. This legislation is about more than simply protecting the environment, it’s also about protecting the tourism and fishing industries that create jobs and help power Rhode Island’s economy,” said Senator Reed.
“We must end offshore oil drilling in coastal waters once and for all,” said Senator Padilla. “Over 50 years ago, after a catastrophic oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, Californians rose up and demanded environmental protections, spurring the modern environmental movement and creating the very first Earth Day. As the Trump Administration threatens to recklessly open our coasts to new drilling, California and the West Coast need permanent safeguards to protect our communities from the devastation of fossil fuels and disastrous oil spills. We must act now to fulfill the promises we made to our children and our constituents to meet the urgency of this environmental crisis with bold action.”
“For decades, I’ve fought to protect our coasts from the dangers of oil and gas development, and this legislative package reaffirms that commitment. Offshore drilling risks devastating spills, accelerates climate change, and threatens the livelihoods of coastal communities like those in New Jersey. On Earth Day and every day, we must stand up to Big Oil and prioritize renewable energy that actually protects our planet,” said Representative Pallone.
“It’s clear that in the 15 years since the most catastrophic oil spill disaster in history, Republicans in the pocket of Big Oil have learned nothing. Offshore drilling poses significant threats to our public health, coastal economies, and marine life. The science is clear, and so is the public sentiment: we need to speed up our transition to a clean energy future, not lock ourselves into another generation of fossil fuel fealty,” said Representative Huffman. “We cannot let history repeat itself. My Democratic colleagues aren’t standing idly by as the Trump administration tries to reverse all of our progress so they can give handouts to Big Oil. Our legislation will cut pollution and ramp up clean energy, ensuring our coasts remain safe, clean, and open to all Americans— not turned into open season for fossil fuel billionaires looking to drill, spill, and cash in.”
These bills reaffirm vital protections for America’s coastal communities and ecosystems. The Biden Administration protected more than 625 million acres of U.S. ocean waters — including the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, the entire East Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of the Northern Bering Sea — from offshore oil and gas drilling. President Trump immediately tried to roll back those protections, attempting to illegally reopen those areas to drilling on day one of his second term. Trump’s record speaks for itself: during his first Administration, the Interior Department proposed a sweeping plan to open 47 offshore oil and gas lease areas across nearly every U.S. coastline, from California to New England.
The two bills would protect critical coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems against offshore drilling, which is especially important in the face of the climate crisis. U.S. coastal counties support 54.6 million jobs, produce $10 trillion in goods and services, and pay $4 trillion in wages. Offshore drilling poses significant threats to public health, coastal economies, and diverse marine life that play an important economical, ecological, and cultural role in our ecosystem.
The COAST Anti-Drilling Act is cosponsored by Senator Padilla as well as Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Coons (D-DE), Angus King (I-ME), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). It is endorsed by organizations including Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Oceana, Surfrider Foundation, Earthjustice, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Nassau Hiking & Outdoor Club, Lee (MA) Greener Gateway Committee, South Shore Audubon Society (Freeport, NY), Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Futureswell, Ocean Conservancy, Environment America, Food & Water Watch, Waterspirit, Business Alliance to Protect the Atlantic, Clean Ocean Action, Jersey Coast Anglers Association (NJ), American Littoral Society, Save Coastal Wildlife, Environmental Protection Information Center, Defenders of Wildlife, Ocean Defense Initiative, Center for Biological Diversity, The Ocean Project, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Animal Welfare Institute, Wild Cumberland, Climate Reality Project – North Broward and Palm Beach County Chapter, U.S. Climate Action Network, National Aquarium, American Bird Conservancy, and Hispanic Access Foundation.
The West Coast Protection Act is cosponsored by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) as well as Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). It is endorsed by organizations including Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Oceana, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Surfrider Foundation, Seattle Aquarium, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Nassau Hiking & Outdoor Club, Lee (MA) Greener Gateway Committee, South Shore Audubon Society (Freeport, NY), Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Futureswell, Ocean Conservancy, Environment America, WILDCOAST, Food & Water Watch, Environmental Protection Information Center, Ocean Defense Initiative, Center for Biological Diversity, The Ocean Project, Business Alliance to Protect the Pacific Coast, Animal Welfare Institute, Wild Cumberland, Climate Reality Project – North Broward and Palm Beach County Chapter, U.S. Climate Action Network, American Bird Conservancy, Surf Industry Members Association, Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast (BAPPC), Clean Ocean Action, and Hispanic Access Foundation.
“It’s time to end the threat of expanded drilling off America’s coasts forever,” said Joseph Gordon, Oceana Campaign Director. “Oceana applauds these Congressional leaders for reintroducing pivotal legislation that would establish permanent protections from offshore oil and gas drilling for millions of acres of ocean. Earth Day is an important reminder that every coastal community deserves healthy oceans and oil-free beaches. This bill is part of a national movement to safeguard our multi-billion-dollar coastal economies from dirty and dangerous offshore drilling. Congress must swiftly pass these bills into law and reject any expansion of drilling to protect our coasts.”
“Protecting these waters puts coastal communities and wildlife above polluters and brings us closer to a world where our waters are free from oil spills, endangered whale populations are free from seismic blasting, and local economies can thrive,” said Taryn Kiekow Heimer, Director of Ocean Energy at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). “Now more than ever, we need leadership from Congress to protect our oceans from an industry that only cares about its bottom line – and a Trump administration willing to do anything to give those oil billionaires what they want.”
“The Trump administration’s path of so-called ‘energy dominance’ is paved with threats to American coasts,” said Sierra Weaver, senior attorney for Defenders of Wildlife. “This set of bills offers real protections for coastal communities and wildlife against unwanted, unreasonable and unsafe offshore oil drilling. This is just the type of bold action we need on the 15th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.”
“Imperiled species like Southern resident orcas and sea otters need clean, healthy ocean habitats to thrive. New offshore drilling would bring habitat destruction, noise pollution and the threat of spills and chronic contamination to those species and their homes,” said Joseph Vaile, Northwest Program senior representative for Defenders of Wildlife. “This legislation is a critical step toward permanently safeguarding marine mammals and coastal communities from irreversible harm. We thank Senator Padilla for championing the West Coast Ocean Protection Act at a time when the threat of offshore drilling is especially urgent.”
“California’s spectacular marine life — including complex kelp forests and charismatic sea otters — and vibrant coastal economies rely on healthy ecosystems. This legislation could, once and for all, block offshore drilling activities along the continental shelf, and protect critical marine habitats along California’s iconic Pacific Coast,” said Pamela Flick, Defenders of Wildlife California Program Director.
“These bills will permanently protect our coastal communities from the threats of offshore drilling. Oil spills like the one caused by the deadly BP drilling disaster 15 years ago are dangerous to people’s health and our public waters. The economic vitality of entire regions depend on oceans staying healthy,” said Earthjustice Senior Legislative Representative Laura M. Esquivel. “We applaud these Members of Congress for doing what’s right on behalf of their constituents.”
“These important bills will protect our environment, communities, and economy from the harmful effects of offshore oil and gas development. Offshore drilling is a dirty and damaging practice that threatens our nation’s ocean recreation, tourism, and fisheries industries valued at $250 billion annually. The Surfrider Foundation urges members of Congress to support this important legislation to prohibit new offshore drilling in U.S. waters,” said Pete Stauffer, Ocean Protection Manager, Surfrider Foundation.
“These bills are critical, especially now. Protecting our environment and frontline communities from the dangers of offshore oil and gas development must be a top priority in the face of the escalating climate and biodiversity crises,” said Elizabeth Purcell, Environmental Policy Coordinator with Turtle Island Restoration Network. “Congress must act swiftly and support these bills to protect our oceans from further exploitation by the oil and gas industry, ensuring a healthy and safe planet for all.”
“We are the generation that will live with the consequences of today’s energy choices. As young ocean advocates, we want to leave a better legacy for ocean health behind us than what has been left for us,” said Mark Haver, North America Regional Representative with Sustainable Ocean Alliance. “Congress has a moral responsibility to prevent new offshore oil and gas drilling leases. We will be counting on Congress to act on behalf of our ocean and future generations.”
“Our coasts are a source of life, livelihood, and recreation for coastal communities and the millions of visitors they see every year,” said Athan Manuel, Director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program. “They also support untold diverse wildlife and ecosystems that are put at risk by exploitation from the oil and gas industry. These bills provide much-needed critical protections for the health of our coastal communities and to ensure that future generations will get to enjoy the wonders of our oceans and beaches.”
“It has been clear for years that we cannot afford to expand fossil fuel extraction and burning if we want any hope of staving off the ever worsening effects of climate change,” said Mitch Jones, Managing Director of Policy and Litigation at Food & Water Watch. “In addition to the threat of worsening climate chaos, offshore drilling directly endangers local environments, wildlife, and economies due to the threats of oil spills and disruptions to aquatic life. We urge Congress to pass these bills to protect our coastlines and our oceans from Trump’s disastrous push for more drilling.”
“Water is the pulse of our planet, the sacred thread that connects all life. We all have a responsibility to protect the very essence that sustains us,” said Rachel Dawn Davis, Public Policy & Justice Organizer at Waterspirit. “The threat of exploitation-whether through drilling or pollution-puts ecosystems and future generations at risk. We must continue to honor and defend our waters; in preserving them, we preserve life itself.”
“Our oceans provide forever benefits in so many ways for both local communities and whole nations. We thoroughly support the bipartisan protections put forward in these Bills, which would position the United States to lead the world and reap huge benefits for tourism, energy security, health and local jobs, not to mention the beautiful wildlife that drives billions of dollars of tourism and other benefits,” said Global Rewilding Alliance.
“A clean ocean is crucial for the conservation of marine biodiversity,” said Jenna Reynolds, Executive Director of Save Coastal Wildlife. “A polluted ocean poses significant risks to marine wildlife, including increased vessel traffic around oil platforms, which can lead to collisions with marine animals, especially sea turtles and juvenile whales which are difficult to see from moving vessels. Oil spills can directly coat and kill marine animals, including seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and can also damage coastal ecosystems like beaches and coastal wetlands, impacting wildlife and people that rely on these areas. We need to bring back and fully protect biodiversity in our ocean!”
“We must work toward a future where our coastal communities, economies, and marine life can thrive thanks to a healthy ocean. As the Trump Administration seeks to threaten our favorite beaches and ecosystems with new offshore drilling, it’s more important than ever for ocean champions in Congress to advance ocean protections,” said Sarah Guy, Ocean Defense Initiative. “We are grateful for the leadership of members supporting these bills, and commit to working toward a future where all our coasts are protected from the harms of offshore drilling.”
“We believe our coasts are far too valuable to risk for short-term fossil fuel gains,” said Katie Thompson, Executive Director of Save Our Shores. “Permanently protecting offshore areas from oil and gas leasing is a critical step toward safeguarding marine ecosystems, coastal communities, and our climate future. These bills reflect the will of the people to prioritize ocean health and long-term sustainability over polluting industries of the past.”
“This suite of legislation is a critical move to safeguard our marine resources against Trump and his Big Oil agenda,” said Rachel Rilee, oceans policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s been 15 years since the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster devastated coastlines and killed hundreds of thousands of marine animals. Our oceans and the incredible ecosystems they support are counting on us. Congress must pass these bills and then get right back to work protecting marine life and coastal communities from every manmade danger and every Republican attack.”
“Americans love our coasts. For some of us, they’re home, and for many others, they’re home to wonderful memories, including family vacations at the beach, fishing trips with friends, and encounters with wildlife like sea turtles, dolphins, and whales. But oil spills can destroy all of that. It’s simply not worth the risk. We must not squander our children’s inheritance,” said Bill Mott, Executive Director of The Ocean Project. “The ocean offers endless inspiration, recreational opportunities, and serves as a critically important economic driver. Yet despite its vastness, it is incredibly vulnerable. As we’ve seen too many times before, offshore oil and gas drilling is not compatible with stewarding our ocean. We all share a responsibility to keep our coasts clean and our ocean healthy for future generations. That’s why we urge Congress to act now to prohibit new offshore oil and gas development forever.”
“AWI commends these Congressional leaders for taking bold action to protect our oceans and coasts from dirty, dangerous oil and gas development along the outer continental shelf,” said Georgia Hancock, Senior Attorney and Director of the Animal Welfare Institute’s marine wildlife program. “Fifteen years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it remains painfully clear: there is no such thing as safe offshore oil drilling, nor is there any way to fully clean up a significant oil spill. Keeping oil rigs out of the ocean prevents unnecessary harm to sensitive marine animals like sea turtles, whales, and seabirds, and avoids the massive costs associated with environmental remediation when things go wrong. These bills draw a clear line in the sand: our marine ecosystems are too precious to risk.”
“The Pacific west coast economy provides over $80 Billion in GDP via industries like tourism, outdoor recreation, fishing, retail, and real estate, supporting more than 825,000 jobs. And BAPPC’s 8,100 business members rely on a clean ocean to drive their revenues and provide for their customers, employees and families. We strongly support the West Coast Protection Act and other legislation to prohibit new offshore drilling and protect our businesses by prioritizing a healthy coastal ecosystem,” said Grant Bixby, Founding Member, The Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast.
“The impact of offshore oil drilling on marine life is well-documented, from toxic discharges of drilling mud and fracking chemicals, to chronic oil spills, to the effects of a major well blow-out as has occurred many times in the history of offshore oil drilling. It is time we stopped burning fossil fuels and switch to non-polluting sources such as wind, solar, and other green energy sources. Industrializing our oceans is the last thing we should be doing,” said the International Marine Mammal Project, Earth Island Institute.
“The oceans and coasts are the lifeblood of the US economy. They deserve not only protection but increased investment and stewardship. Anyone that threatens the coasts puts the entire US economy at risk,” said the Center for the Blue Economy.
“We strongly support these bills to protect our vital coastal ecosystems and ocean health, which are increasingly threatened by the climate crisis. Offshore oil and gas leasing not only poses a direct risk of pollution to our waters and endangers marine life, but also contributes to climate change by perpetuating our reliance on fossil fuels. We urge swift passage of these protections to safeguard coastal communities, their economies, and a livable future for all,” said the U.S. Climate Action Network.
“Offshore oil and gas drilling threatens coastal communities and endangers whales, sea turtles and other wildlife that Americans treasure,” said National Aquarium President and CEO John Racanelli. “On Earth Day and every day, all of us – people and wildlife – rely on a healthy ocean for our very survival. The science is clear that moving from dependence on fossil fuels towards clean energy sources safeguards marine ecosystems and protects public health. Legislation that places sensible limits on new oil and gas development along our shores is just smart public policy.”
“President Biden’s recent permanent ban on offshore drilling in most ocean realms of the US is strong and cause for celebration! That said, codifying this long-overdue protection with acts of Congress is needed to add bulwark against attempts to override the ban as well as provide proof of bipartisan support for the ocean. The reason is simple: a healthy ocean sustains all life on earth and is essential to a vibrant clean ocean economy,” said Cindy Zipf, Executive Director of Clean Ocean Action.
“Last year President Biden issued an executive action to protect more than 625 million acres of federal waters from fossil fuel development, a historic and bold decision to defend coastal communities, public health, and ecosystems. Azul’s 2024 nationwide poll found that Latinos across political ideologies support action to ban offshore drilling and are even willing to pay more out of pocket to make it happen. We applaud the leadership of members of Congress seeking to codify protections for coastal waters against offshore drilling, and these added protections are needed to defend against threats to undo existing protections against offshore drilling,” said Marce Gutiérrez-Graudins, Founder of Azul.
“Protecting our oceans is a matter of safeguarding our health, our economy, and our future. Proposals to reduce existing ocean protections and expand offshore drilling raise serious concerns for coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and millions of livelihoods,” said Maite Arce, President and CEO of Hispanic Access Foundation. “Latino communities, many of whom live along our coasts and rely on clean water and healthy marine environments for recreation, jobs, and cultural connection, are uniquely impacted. We support efforts that uphold strong protections and ensure our public lands and waters remain preserved for future generations. Now is the time for bold, bipartisan leadership that centers communities and protects the ocean legacy we all share.”
“The New Jersey Environmental Lobby unequivocally supports all of the bills,” said Anne Poole, President of the NJ Environment Lobby. “Our organization’s primary focus is State legislation and policies that affect our densely populated coastal state, but oceans know no national or state boundaries. The oceans are connected and impact all life on this globe. What affects one coast eventually affects us all. Thank you to all of these ocean champions for their foresight and political courage!”

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Senators Introduce Bipartisan New England Offshore Drilling Ban

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Maggie Hassan

Washington, DC – On Earth Day, a bipartisan group of New England Senators is announcing the introduction of legislation to bar offshore drilling along the New England coast. The New England Coastal Protection Act is cosponsored by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Angus King (I-ME), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Congressman Seth Magaziner (D-RI) introduced companion legislation in the House.

“Offshore drilling would enrich the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the Ocean State’s coastal economy and the health of our Narragansett Bay,” said Whitehouse, who originally introduced the legislation during the first Trump administration. “With President Trump scrambling to grant the looters and polluters swarming around his administration every item on their wish list, I’m committed to doing everything in my power to stop reckless oil and gas drilling off Rhode Island’s coast.”

“President Trump’s blatant efforts to benefit Big Oil will devastate economies and environments up and down the New England coast, including Long Island Sound,” said Blumenthal. “Our measure takes the bold action we need to prevent new offshore drilling and protect our waterways for future generations. Our coastline should be protected as a vital tourism, fishing, and environmental resource – not exposed to the dangers of oil spills or drilling pollution.”

“The waters off Maine’s coast provide a healthy ecosystem for our fisheries and are an integral part of our tourism industry, supporting thousands of jobs and generating billions of dollars in revenue each year,” said Collins. “Offshore drilling along the coast could impact Mainers of all walks of life for generations, which is why I join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to ban offshore drilling on the New England coastline.”

“Coastal drilling has led to some of the worst natural disasters in modern history, and we cannot afford to risk harm to New Hampshire’s coastal communities,” said Hassan. “This bipartisan bill would ban offshore drilling in New Hampshire and throughout the region, and I’ll continue to speak out to make clear that our coast is off limits to offshore oil and natural gas extraction.”

“Maine’s fisheries and coastal communities rely on healthy, clean waters to support their livelihoods. Offshore oil drilling would pose an immense threat to this delicate ecosystem and the people it supports,” said King. “As we respond to global energy crises, we must work together to find practical, fiscally responsible clean energy solutions that can protect Maine communities and the Atlantic Ocean that do not rely on offshore drilling. This bipartisan effort would be a positive step forward to ensure we continue to protect the Gulf of Maine and all the communities that rely on its bountiful, yet fragile, ecosystem.”

“We must do everything in our power to protect New England’s coasts and waters from the dangers of offshore drilling,” said Markey. “As the Bay State, we will not allow Massachusetts coasts to be destroyed by Donald Trump’s reckless mission to ‘drill baby drill.’ We refuse to stand by as the President and his Big Oil buddies destroy our environment, disrupt our waters, and make consumers pay for their pollution. It’s time to say goodbye to the Oil-igarchy.”

“Offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean poses tremendous risks for the Ocean State’s environment and economy. This legislation is about protecting critical natural resources and the livelihoods of New Englanders in countless industries who rely on a clean, healthy Atlantic Ocean,” said Reed.

“New Hampshire’s eighteen miles of coastline are home to families, small businesses that power our economy and cherished wildlife – all of which would be severely threatened by harmful offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean,” said Shaheen. “As President Trump eyes opportunities to expand offshore drilling, which has led to disastrous oil spills that cause economic and environmental devastation, New England’s bipartisan delegation is introducing legislation to help safeguard of our communities, local economies and way of life.”

“Rhode Islanders take pride in being the Ocean State, and in our clean waterways that support good jobs and quality of life,” said Magaziner. “The New England Coastal Protection Act will help safeguard our environment by preventing new offshore drilling that would threaten the coastline that is so essential to our state.”

According to NOAA Fisheries, ocean and coastal industries, including tourism, fishing, and recreation, generate more than $17.5 billion in New England annually. Expanding drilling in the Atlantic would harm New England’s key industries, and significantly increase the chance of environmental disaster in the region.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Russia: Global Financial Stability Report Press Briefing

Source: IMF – News in Russian

April 22, 2025

GFSR PRESS BRIEFING

Speakers:

Tobias Adrian, Financial Counsellor and Director, Monetary and Capital Markets Department, IMF
Jason Wu, Assistant Director, Monetary and Capital Markets Department, IMF
Caio Ferreira, Deputy Division Chief, Monetary and Capital Markets Department, IMF

Moderator: Meera Louis, Communications Officer, IMF

Ms. LOUIS: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the GFSR press conference. And thank you for joining us today. I am Meera Louis with the Communications Department at the IMF.

Joining us here today is Tobias Adrian, Financial Counsellor of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department. Also with us is Jason Wu, Assistant Director, and Caio Ferreira, Deputy Division Chief of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department.

So, Tobias, before we turn the floor over for questions, I wanted to start by asking you, what were some of the challenges you and your team faced in preparing for this report? We are in uncharted territory now. So how did you come up with a strategy to shape this report?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thank you so much, Meera. And welcome, everybody, to the International Monetary Fund.

We are launching the Global Financial Stability Report, and let me give you a couple of headline messages from the report.

Our baseline assessment for global financial stability is that risks have been increasing, and there are really two main factors here: One is that the overall level of policy uncertainty has increased; and the second factor is that the forecast of economic activity going forward is slightly lower, as Pierre‑Olivier presented at the World Economic Outlook press conference just now. So, it’s a combination of a lower baseline and larger downside risks. Having said that, we do see both downside and upside risks, and we will certainly explain more about the two sides of uncertainty throughout the press conference.

So let me highlight three vulnerabilities that are driving our assessment.

The first one is the level of risky asset values. We have certainly seen some adjustment in risky asset values. It’s important to see that in the broader context of where we are coming from. And, in recent years, we saw quite a bit of appreciation—particularly in equity markets and in some sectors, such as technology. So valuations were quite stretched and credit spreads were very tight by historical standards. And we have certainly seen some decline in valuations; but by historical standards, price-earnings ratios in equity markets, for example, continue to be fairly elevated and credit spreads and sovereign spreads have widened to some degree, but they are still fairly contained by historical standards. The stretching of asset valuations continues to be a vulnerability we are watching closely.

The second vulnerability is about leverage and maturity transformation in the financial system, particularly in the nonbank sector, where we are looking closely at how leverage is evolving. As market volatility has increased, we have seen some degree of deleveraging, but market functioning has been sound so far. With higher volatility, we would expect asset prices to come down, but the functioning of how those asset prices adjusted has been very orderly to date.

The third vulnerability that we are watching is the overall level of debt globally. In the past decade, and particularly since the pandemic in 2020, sovereign debt levels have been increasing around the world. It’s the backdrop of higher debt that can interact with financial stability and that’s particularly true for emerging markets and frontier economies, where we have certainly seen some widening of sovereign spreads. Issuance year to date has been strong, but, of course, the tightening of financial conditions that we observed in the past three weeks has an outsized impact on those more vulnerable countries.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias.

And now I will open up the floor to questions. If you could please identify yourself and your outlet. You also have the report online, if need be. And you can also join us online via the Webex link. Thank you.

So, the lady here in the front.

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Ray. I am with 21st Century Business Herald, Guangdong, China.

So, my question is that, you’ve highlighted a series of vulnerabilities and risks. So how does the IMF assess the risk of these tensions triggering broader macro‑financial instability, especially in emerging markets with weaker buffers?

My second question is that during times of global uncertainty, safe haven assets, such as gold and US treasuries, have been very volatile recently. So how does the IMF assess the volatility affecting currency stability? Thank you so much.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

So, starting with the second part of your question. We have seen a strong rally in gold prices, which is the sort of usual relationship we see in safe haven flows. When there is a high level of uncertainty, risky assets are selling off, oftentimes gold is viewed as a hedge asset and it has been appreciating.

Of course, US treasuries remain the baseline reserve asset globally. It’s the largest and most liquid sovereign market. And we have seen yields move. They have been increasing in the past two weeks, which is somewhat similar to the episode in 2020, when longer‑duration assets had yields increasing, as well. What is somewhat unusual is that the dollar has been falling, to some degree, but it’s important to keep that in the context of the strong dollar rally previously.

Concerning the emerging markets and frontier economies, yes, the tightening of global financial conditions has an outsized the impact on weaker economies. We have seen a number of weaker emerging markets and frontier economies with high levels of debt. We have seen issuance throughout last year and earlier this year, but tighter financial conditions certainly adversely impact the financing conditions for those countries.

Mr. WU: Maybe just to quickly add on emerging markets.

I think it’s important to distinguish the major larger emerging markets versus the frontiers, as Tobias has mentioned. I think so far, we have seen currencies and capital flows being relatively muted in this episode. And I think this speaks to the ongoing theme that we have mentioned for several rounds now, that there’s resilienc among the emerging market economies for a whole host of reasons.

However, as Tobias has pointed out, the external environment is not favorable and financial conditions are tightening globally. At this time, we need to worry about, countries where they are seeing sovereign spreads increasing, with large debt maturities forthcoming. Policy can be proactive to head off these risks by, for example, making sure that fiscal sustainability is being sent the right message.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Jason. The gentleman in the first row, at that end.

QUESTION: Thank you. Rotus Oddiri with Arise News.

So theoretically, if the dollar is weakening, isn’t that, to some degree, relatively good for countries with dollar debts?

And secondly, how are you seeing fund flows to cash? If there’s a lot of volatility, are you seeing more movements to cash? And are there implications there in terms of [M&A] activity and so on and so forth?

Mr. ADRIAN: So let me take this in three parts.

The first question is about sort of like the strength of the dollar and the impact for emerging markets. When we look at exchange rates relative to emerging markets, there’s some heterogeneity. The dollar has appreciated against some emerging markets and depreciated against others. But it’s not the only impact on those financing conditions. We certainly have seen a notable widening of financing spreads. And that is probably the more important determinant for external financing conditions in emerging markets.

Now, having said that, in some of the larger emerging markets with developed local government bond markets, we have seen some inflows into those local markets, but it’s very country‑specific.

Turning to the question of investment decisions. We think that the first‑order impact here is the overall level of uncertainty. So, generally, investment decisions are easier in an environment with certainty. Given that some uncertainty remains about how policies are going to play out going forward, that can be a temporary headwind to investments or merger activity.

Mr. WU: Just to quickly respond to your question about cash. I think during periods where markets are volatile, it’s reasonable that market participants and investors demand more liquidity, thereby moving in cash. We have not seen this happening en masse so far during this episode. So, we have seen bank deposits increase a little bit in the United States, but I think the magnitude is significantly smaller compared to previous episodes of stress.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Jason. So, the lady here in the second row, with the glasses.

QUESTION: Hi. Szu Chan from the Telegraph.

Do you see any parallels between recent moves in the bond market, particularly in US treasuries, with what happened in the wake of the Liz Truss mini budget? And do you think any lasting damage has been done?

Mr. ADRIAN:

Just for everybody’s recollection, in October 2022, there was some turbulence in UK gilt markets when the budget announcements were larger than expected and the Bank of England intervened to stabilize markets at that time. Clearly, we haven’t seen interventions by central banks, and the market conditions have been very orderly in recent weeks. There’s a repricing relative to the higher level of uncertainty but as I said at the beginning, there is both upside and downside risk. And we could certainly see upside risk if uncertainty is reduced going forward.

And market conditions have been quite orderly. The moves are notable in treasuries, in equities, in exchange rates, but they are within movements we have seen in recent years and really reflect the higher level of volatility.

Mr. Ferreira: I don’t think I have much to add to this, Tobias.

I think that what we are seeing is some moves that have not been historically deserved in this kind of situation. But these mostly respond to these higher uncertainties and a repricing to the new macro scenario.

Ms. LOUIS: So, before I go back to the floor, we do have a question on Webex, Pedro da Costa from Market News International. Pedro?

QUESTION: Thank you so much, Meera. Thank you, guys, for doing this.

My question is, given the market concerns about the threat to central bank independence, if the threat were exercised in a greater way, what would be the financial stability implications of a potential firing of either the Fed Chair or Fed Governors?

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Pedro. Are there any other questions on central bank independence? I don’t see any in the room. So over to you, Tobias

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

So, the International Monetary Fund has been advising central banks for many decades. Helping central banks in terms of governance and monetary policy frameworks is really one of the core missions of the IMF. And we have seen time and time again that central bank independence is an important foundation for central banks to achieve their goals, which are primarily price stability and financial stability. We do advise our membership to, have a degree of independence that is aimed at achieving those overarching goals for monetary policy and financial stability policies.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias. The gentleman in the first row.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. My name is Simon Ateba. I am with Today News Africa in Washington, DC.

I want to ask you about AI. It seems that is the big thing now. First, are you worried about AI? And what type of safeguards is the IMF putting in place to make sure that advanced countries—that AI doesn’t increase risk?

And maybe, finally, on tariffs. We know that President Trump is imposing tariffs today, removing them tomorrow. China is retaliating. How much will that affect the financial stability of the world? Thank you.

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much. Let me start with the question on artificial intelligence, and Jason can complement me.

We have done quite a bit of work on that. In October, we actually had a chapter specifically focused on the impact of artificial intelligence on capital market activity, but, of course, the impact of AI is broader. And in our view, there are both risks and opportunities. I think the main opportunity is that it’s actually potentially quite inclusive, right?

Everybody that has access to the internet via a smartphone or a computer or a tablet, in principle, can use those very powerful artificial intelligence tools. And we have seen examples in emerging markets and lower‑income economies where entrepreneurs are actually using these new tools to innovate. That can boost productivity around the world.

In financial markets, we do quite a bit of outreach to market participants. And financial institutions—including banks and capital market institutions—are very actively exploring avenues to use artificial intelligence productively. There’s a lot of innovation going on. At the moment, we see a lot of that concentrated in back‑office kind of applications, so keeping your house in order in terms of getting processes done. But in trading and in credit decisions, these are also quite promising.

In terms of risks, our primary concerns are cybersecurity risks. Many financial institutions are already under cyber attack., AI can be used to make defenses more efficient, but it can also be used for malicious purposes and making attacks more powerful. So, there’s really a bit of a power game on both sides. And we certainly advise many of our members to help them get to a more resilient financial system, relative to those cyber threats.

Mr. WU: Maybe just quickly, to complement.

I would encourage everybody to read Chapter 3 of the October 2024 GFSR, which addresses the issue of artificial intelligence in financial markets. Tobias is right, that there are benefits and risks on both sides.

In addition to cybersecurity, I just wanted to highlight a couple more things, which is that, many of the financial institutions that we spoke to are still at their infancy in terms of deploying AI to make decisions—meaning, for trading or for investment allocation, they are at very early stages. But suppose that this trend rapidly gains? What would happen to risks?

I think I will highlight two. One is concentration. Will it be a situation where the largest firms with the best models tend to win out and, therefore, dominate the marketplace? And then what are the implications for this? The second is that the speed of adjustment in financial markets might be much quicker if everything is based on high‑powered, artificial intelligence-type algorithms.

With regard to these two risks, I think there’s great scope for supervisors to gather more information and understand who the key players are and what they are doing. International collaboration obviously is a crucial aspect of this. Market conduct needs to be taken into account, the future possibility that markets will be very much faster and more volatile, perhaps.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. The gentleman in the second row, please, in the middle here. Thank you.

QUESTION: Good morning. I am [Fabrice Nodé‑Langlois] from the French newspaper Le Figaro.

I have a question on the US public debt. There is a widespread opinion that whatever the level of the public debt—because of the significant role of the dollar, because of the might of the American military and economic power—it’s not a big concern. But under what circumstances, under what financial conditions would the US public debt become a concern for you?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much for the question. We are certainly watching sovereign debt around the world, including in the US. I do want to point out that there will be a briefing for the Western Hemisphere region that will specifically focus on the Americas, including the United States.

When you look at our last Article IV for the United States, we certainly find that the debt situation is sustainable. You know, The U.S. has many ways to adjust its expenditures and revenues. And we think that this makes the debt levels manageable.

Having said that, as I explained at the beginning, we have seen broadly around the world an increase in debt‑to‑GDP levels, particularly since the start of the pandemic in 2020. And it is an important backdrop in terms of pricing and financial stability. So, we are watching the nexus between sovereign debt and financial intermediaries very carefully.

Mr. Ferreira: Maybe one issue related with that— I think that we flagged it in the GFSR—is that I think there is an anticipation that—not only in the US but in several countries—there will be a lot of issuance of new debt going forward. Particularly in a moment where several central banks are doing some quantitative tightening, this might bring some challenges in terms of the function of the financial sector.

Everything that we are seeing now seems to be working very well, even when we have this kind of shock. This is not a major concern. But going forward, we feel that it’s important to continue monitoring market liquidity. There are some flags that have been raised, particularly in terms of broker‑dealers’ capacity to continue intermediating and providing liquidity to public debt. It’s important to keep monitoring this, as central banks keep going in the direction of quantitative tightening.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Caio.

And just to add to Tobias’s point, we will have a lot of regional pressers this week. And the Western Hemisphere presser will be on Friday if you have any US‑specific questions. Thank you.

The lady here in the front row.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you for taking my question. My name is Nume Ekeghe from This Day newspaper, Nigeria.

The report mentions Nigeria’s return to Eurobond markets. And we know it was received positively by investors. So how does Nigeria’s return to Eurobond markets signal renewed investor confidence? And what specific macroeconomic reforms or improvements contributed to the shift in sentiments? Thank you.

Mr. WU: Thank you for that question. Let me make some remarks about Nigeria and then sub‑Saharan Africa, in general.

In the case of Nigeria, macroeconomic performance has held up, GDP growth has been fairly consistent, and inflation has been coming down. Earlier this year, we have seen Nigeria’s sovereign credit spreads lowering. I think the reforms that the authorities have done, including the liberalization of exchange rates, has helped in that regard.

That said, I think I want to go back to the theme that Tobias has mentioned, which is that during a time where global financial markets are volatile and risk appetite, in particular, is wavering, this is when we might see increases in sovereign spreads that will challenge the external picture for Nigeria, as well as other frontier economies. So, for example, Nigeria’s sovereign spread has increased in recent weeks, as stock markets globally have declined.

The other challenge, of course, is for large commodity exporters, like Nigeria. If trade tensions are going to lead to lower global demand for commodities, this will obviously weigh on the revenue that they will receive. So, I think both of those developments would counsel that authorities remain quite vigilant to these developments and take appropriate policies to counter them.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Jason.

And just before I come back to the floor, we have another question online, from Lu Kang, Sina Finance. The question is, in light of the IMF’s recent GFSR warning about rising debt, volatile capital flows, and diverging monetary policy paths, how should countries, especially emerging markets, balance financial stability with the imperative to finance climate transitions and digital infrastructure?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

We do a lot of work on debt management with countries. We are providing technical assistance and we are doing a lot of policy work on debt market developments. I think the two main takeaways are, No. 1, the plumbing matters. Putting into place mechanisms such as primary dealers and clearing systems, and pricing mechanisms in government bond markets. It is important all over the world. That includes the most advanced economies, as well as emerging markets. And we have seen tremendous progress in many countries, particularly the major emerging markets in terms of developing those bond markets.

The second key aspect, of course, is fiscal sustainability. Here again, we engage very actively with our membership to make sure that fiscal frameworks are in place that keep debt trajectories on a path that is commensurate with the economic prospects of the countries.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias. A question here in the front row, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. Kemi Osukoya with The Africa Bazaar magazine.

I wanted to follow up on the question that my colleague from Nigeria mentioned, regarding sovereign debts. As you know, African nations, after a period of pause, are just right now returning back to the Eurobond. But at the same time, there is unsustainable high borrowing costs that many of these countries face. So, in your recommendation, what can governments do regarding their bond to use it strategically, as well as to make it sustainable?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much for this question. And you know, we are working very closely with many sub‑Saharan African countries to support the countries either via programs or via policy advice and technical assistance to have a macro environment that is conducive for growth. So let me mention three things.

I think the first one is to recognize that we have been through a period of extraordinarily adverse shocks. Particularly in sub‑Saharan Africa, the pandemic had an outsized impact on many countries. The inflation that ensued was very costly for many countries, particularly for those that are importing commodities. So, the adverse economic shocks have been extraordinary. And I would just note that we have engaged more actively in programs with sub‑Saharan Africa in the past five years than we ever did previously.

The second point is about the financing costs. And, of course, there are two main components. One is the overall level of financial conditions globally. All countries in the world are part of the global capital markets. And that really depends on overall financing conditions. But more specifically, of course, there are country‑specific conditions—the macroeconomic performance of each country, the buffers in the countries—and the mandate of the Fund is very much focused on macro‑financial stability. So, getting back to a place with buffers, which then can lead to lower financing costs is the main goal. Our work with those countries is very much focused on the kind of catalytic role of the Fund, where we are trying to get growth back and stability back. Let me stop here.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias. And a question here in the front row, please. And then I will come back to the middle.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. My name is [Shuichiro Takaoka]. I am working for Jiji Press.

Just I would like to make clear the risk of a depreciation of the US dollar. And what are the implications of the recent depreciation of US dollar, especially regarding the global financial stability viewpoint?

Mr. ADRIAN: As I mentioned earlier, we had seen quite a bit of an appreciation of the dollar earlier in the year and late [next] year. And now we have seen a depreciation that is roughly of commensurate magnitude. The volatility in the exchange rates is reflecting the broader volatility. There are some indications that the exchange rate movements are related to flows to investor reallocations, but the magnitudes of those flows are relatively small, relative to the run‑up of inflows into US assets in recent years. The cumulative inflows into bonds and stocks from around the world have been quite pronounced. So, to what extent these movements in the exchange rate and the associated flows are just a temporary or a more permanent impact remains to be seen. It really depends on how the current uncertainty is going to be resolved. As I said at the beginning, there are various scenarios. For the moment, it’s highly uncertain. As I said earlier, it is notable that the dollar declined, but I would not jump to conclusions in terms of how permanent that move may be.

Mr. WU: Just to complement. I think when exchange rates are very volatile, one of the key channels for financial stability could be pressures in various funding markets. And this includes in cross currency markets, as well as in repo markets and other secure financing markets. I think this is something that we will be watching very closely. So far, we have not seen any major disruptions in those markets, despite the very volatile exchange rates.

Mr. ADRIAN: So as a comparison, you can think of last August when there was a risk‑off moment. That was very short, but that did lead to dislocations in those cross‑currency funding markets. And we haven’t really seen that in recent weeks.

Ms. LOUIS: So just on that line, I think you may have captured it, but I just wanted to get in this question that came in online from Greg Robb from MarketWatch. And it’s, have treasuries and the dollar lost their safe haven status? If not, what accounts for their recent performance?

Mr. ADRIAN: So, again, it is somewhat unusual to see the dollar decline in the recent two weeks, really, when equity prices traded down with a negative tone and when longer‑term yields increased. But how lasting that is, is really too early to tell.

US capital markets remain the largest and most liquid capital markets in the world. When you look at US dollars as a reserve asset, that remains over 60 percent among reserve managers. Global stock market capitalizations increased to 55 percent most recently, up from 30 percent in 2010. So, we have seen price movements that are notable; but in the big picture, the depth and size of the markets remain where they have been.

Ms. LOUIS: And just on the same line, of capital markets. We have another question that came in online, [Anthony Rowley] from the South China Morning Post. And he says, both the EU and ASEAN are seeking more actively to promote capital market integration. Do you see this as reducing global dependence on US capital markets to any significant extent in the short to the medium term?

Mr. ADRIAN: We are generally of the view that deep capital markets are beneficial everywhere. So, we are helping countries around the world to get to solid regulations and market mechanisms in sovereign bond markets but also, more broadly, in capital markets. And, for emerging markets and advanced economies, deepening capital markets has been a key priority.

We have seen many firms from around the world come to US markets to issue stocks and bonds. And we think that’s related to the depth of the market and the sophistication of the financial sector in the US markets. So, it does provide a service to corporations and financial institutions around the world. But there are certainly many other markets that are deep, that are developing, and that are providing opportunities for both corporations and governments to issue. So, we have seen that trend continue.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Caio?

Mr. Ferreira: Maybe just more broadly on the development of capital markets, as Tobias was saying, I think that it’s an important goal. And this has come hand‑in‑hand with the growth of non‑banking financial institutions that we are seeing across the globe. We see this as a potential positive development. You diversify the sources of funding and the credit to the real economy, diversify the risks across a broader set of institutions, this is good for the economy and financial stability.

There are risks that need to be mitigated. We discuss some of them in the GFSR—leverage, interconnectedness between different kinds of institutions. But overall, there are policies created by the standard setters that, if implemented, can mitigate these risks.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Caio and Tobias.

Going back to the room. There’s a lady in the second row.

QUESTION: Hi. Riley Callanan from GZERO Media.

The IMF downgraded the US, the most of all advanced economies. And I was wondering, is this a short‑term hit that in a year could lead to greater growth and investment in the US? Or is this a long‑term downgrade? Or is it too soon to tell, as you said, with capital markets?

Mr. ADRIAN: We are really looking more at the financial stability aspects. And I would just note that there has been a readjustment in expectations. Where the US and other economies are going to end up remains to be seen. But I think what is notable is that with the sharp adjustment in asset prices, the increase in uncertainty has been absorbed well in capital markets. And as Caio alluded to, it is the policy framework around the banking system and the non‑banks that is so important to create resilient and deep financial markets that are then facilitating adjustments, relative to new policy developments. And from that vantage point, I think even though we have seen the level of uncertainty increase, markets have been very orderly. And we think that the regulatory and policy framework is key for that achievement.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias.

And if you would like to flesh out any more details on the growth ramifications, we have a conference on Friday. And I can send you the details.

Another question here, in the second row. I will come back to you.

QUESTION: Hi. Gabriela Viana from Galapagos Capital in Brazil.

So, in Brazil, commodities prices play an important role for currency [and] international capital inflows, especially in the stock market. Do you see commodities prices as a main important constraint for markets or the economic policy’s uncertainties or maybe the monetary tightening? Thank you.

Mr. WU: All these factors are related to each other, obviously. So, I think the commodity prices, if the WEO forecast were to play out, the global economy is going to be slowing. It’s certainly an impact on the revenue side.

I think for many emerging markets, the silver lining here is that they do have policy room. Many of them do have monetary policy room. Some of them have fiscal room, although only a few of them. So, it seems like this is going to be a challenging period, and uncertainty [and] commodity channels are both going to weigh on economies for emerging markets.

We have seen broad‑based resilience among emerging markets over the last few years compared to, let’s say, five years before the pandemic. So, I think this speaks to the institutional quality having improved in emerging markets. And hopefully this would continue to buffer emerging markets from these external shocks.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Jason.

And the lady in the middle. And then I will come back to Agence France‑Presse.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for taking my question. I am Stephanie Stacey from the Financial Times.

I wanted to expand on the previous questions about the dollar and treasuries. And I know you mentioned it’s hard to assess at this point how lasting the impact will be. But I wanted to ask what risks and future factors you think could drive a real shift in their safe haven status.

Ms. LOUIS: Before we continue, are there any other questions on the dollar and the safe haven status? Yes. There is a question here.

QUESTION: Hi. Mehreen Khan from The Times. I’m sorry. I will stand up.

You mentioned the importance of swap lines and central banks cooperating at times of market stress. I mean, how much are we taking this type of cooperation for granted? And how much is the idea of the Fed providing swap lines to other central banks now in question, given the nature of the scrutiny that the institution is under from the Trump administration?

Mr. ADRIAN: Let me start with the swap lines.

In previous episodes of distress, such as the COVID-19 shock in 2020 or the global financial crisis in 2008, we have seen that swap lines from the major central banks—including Bank of England, ECB, Bank of Japan, and the Federal Reserve—have played an important role in terms of stabilizing market liquidity. The way to think about that is that the central banks are providing funding to partner central banks in the currency of the foreign assets that those institutions own. So, it’s an important underpinning to provide market functioning and resilience to your own assets in the hands of foreign financial institutions.

As we mentioned earlier central banks have not intervened for liquidity purposes in recent weeks. And, despite a heightened market volatility, the VIX, for example, went from below 20 to between 40 and 50, which is fairly elevated. We have seen a very, very smooth market functioning across the board.

Concerning the role of treasuries we are looking at the pricing of longer duration treasuries very carefully. We particularly look at supply factors, demand factors, and technical factors. We have seen volatility in the price moves, but we think that those are within reasonable historical norms.

Mr. WU: Just to complement, I think in the treasury market, we have seen market functioning held up—meaning that buyers can find sellers and transactions are going through. I think that’s a very important sign.

One thing that I wanted to mention also is that a year ago in our report, we pointed out that there are leveraged trades in the treasury market. These are trades that have not very much to do with economic fundamentals in the US or elsewhere but, rather, are using leverage to capture arbitrage opportunities in markets. When these trades are unwound, there will be impact in the treasury market. And this is something that we have pointed out before. These include the so‑called treasury cash‑futures basis trade, as well as a swap spread trade, which we have documented before. And I think during this episode, given the very heightened volatility, we have seen evidence of some of these positions being unwound, potentially having an impact on treasury yields as well. So, I just wanted to put this into context. This is not about capital outflows, but it’s about unwinding these trades having amplified the recent price movements in treasury markets.

Mr. ADRIAN: We are seeing some indication that there’s some lowering in terms of the leverage in these trades, but we haven’t heard of disorderly deleveraging at this point. So, of course, with market volatility increasing, financial institutions naturally reduce their leverage. But we haven’t seen the kind of adverse feedback loop that was common, say, in 2008 or even as recent as the COVID-19 shock initially.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias.

And there’s a question from Agence France‑Presse, in the middle. And then I will come back to you, and you. We are running out of time. So, we will take very, very few questions left.

QUESTION: Thanks for taking my question. Just a quick question. In your report, you talk about geopolitical risk, including the risk of military conflicts. I just wonder how seriously you think people should take that and where you rate that when it comes to the global financial stability risks you have discussed already.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. And I have just been told we are running out of time. So, we will just clump those questions, if you could be very quick. The gentleman over there and the lady there. And then we will wrap it up. Thank you.

QUESTION: Hi. [Rafia] from Nigeria. I work on [Arise TV].

The IMF keeps talking about building resilience to face the global challenge of the state of the economy of the world. How do you build resilience in a world economic climate when one man’s decision can tip the scale? Just one man. He could wake up tomorrow and all our projections falter. One man.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. And then the last question.

QUESTION: Laura Noonan, Bloomberg News. Thanks for taking the question. It’s actually a related question.

You spoke in the report about the need for policymakers to try to do what they can to guard against these future financial shocks. Do you have any practical suggestions on what those measures could be? And also, are you expecting people to take measures to make the financial system safer when the overall political mood, as you have seen, has very much been about trying to liberalize things, trying to deregulate, and trying to simplify? Thank you.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

Mr. ADRIAN: Let me address the three sets of questions and then turn to my colleagues as well.

On geopolitical risk, we do have a chapter that was released last week that is looking at capital market performance relative to geopolitical risks. And the good news is that, generally, when adverse risks realize, there is an asset price adjustment. But on average, relative to recent decades, those risks are absorbed well by the financial system in general. Now, of course, when conflicts directly impact countries, that can have a pronounced impact on their financial systems, and it’s something that we are discussing in more detail in the chapter.

Secondly, in terms of the exposure of countries to physical risk, we have certainly seen in some countries around the world, a heightened incidence of drought and floods, even those can be macro‑critical. To the extent that these developments impact macro stability, we are certainly there to support countries and help them, either via programs or policy frameworks.

Thirdly, in terms of the regulation of financial institutions and financial markets. You know, I think the last couple of weeks are very good illustrations for the importance of resilience of financial institutions. I mean, we have seen a tremendous increase in the level of volatility, which reflects the higher level of uncertainty. Last October, our overarching message in the GFSR was that there was this wedge between policy uncertainty and financial market volatility, which at the time was very low. And we have seen financial market volatility catch up with the high level of policy uncertainty. But that has been orderly, and financial institutions have been resilient. That is really the main objective of financial sector regulation—to get to a place where the financial system can do its job in terms of adjusting to unexpected developments. And when you have resilience in banks and in non‑banks, these adjustments are smooth. And that is the point of finance, right? It’s a kind of an insurance mechanism for the global economy and for individual country macro economies. Good regulation leads to good stability. And we have a lot of detail on that in the GFSR.

Mr. Ferreira: Maybe I could add a little bit on this about how to build resilience.

I think that as Tobias was saying, trying to anticipate shocks is very hard. And it is very hard to do it. So, I think the way to build the resilience is focusing on vulnerabilities. In the GFSR, we have mentioned some vulnerabilities that we feel are important at this time. So, the valuations issues that makes the risk of repricing more likely, leveraging in some segments of the financial sector and in the interconnectedness with the banks, and also, of course, rising and high debt in several countries.

How do you build the resilience in the face of these vulnerabilities? We do feel that banks in most countries are actually the cornerstone of the financial sector and so ensuring that they have appropriate levels of capital and liquidity is key. And the international standards do provide the basis for doing that. To address some of the other vulnerabilities, like leveraging an interconnection between different types of institutions, excessive [transformations], maybe.

Finally, I think that on the issue of rising debt, one common theme that we have been talking about is about the need to credibly rebuild fiscal buffers.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you very much. I know we have covered a lot of ground, and I apologize that we could not get to everybody. If you do have any follow‑ups or any questions, please feel free to reach out to me. You can find the report online, and we can also send it to you bilaterally.

Again, thank you very much for coming and thank you for your time. Take care.

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS

PRESS OFFICER: Meera Louis

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

@IMFSpokesperson

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/04/22/tr-04222024-gfsr-press-briefing

MIL OSI

MIL OSI Russia News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: San Fernando Valley Man Sentenced to More Than 5 Years in Federal Prison for Fraudulently Obtaining at Least $1.8 Million Through Mail and ID Theft

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

LOS ANGELES – A San Fernando Valley man was sentenced today to 61 months in federal prison for fraudulently obtaining at least $1.8 million by stealing Beverly Hills residents’ identities – often by stealing mail and packages from their homes – then using that information to open fraudulent bank accounts to which he unlawfully transferred money from the bank accounts of the victims, of which included elderly people.

Oren David Sela, 36, of North Hills, was sentenced by United States District Judge Dolly M. Gee, who also ordered him to pay $1,818,369 in restitution.

Sela pleaded guilty in October 2024 to one count of bank fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. Sela has been in federal custody since October 2023.

From November 2021 to October 2023, Sela stole mail to obtain debit cards, bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, and other personal identifiable information (PII) belonging to victims, especially victims living in and around Beverly Hills. He then used the victims’ PII to gain access to their online bank and financial accounts, at times SIM-swapping – a type of identity theft where a fraudster illegally obtains a victim’s phone number by transferring it to a new Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card – or porting the victims’ phone numbers to gain temporary control over those numbers to defeat two-factor authentication security protocols in place on their accounts.

Sela then opened additional fraudulent accounts in the victims’ names to transfer funds into intermediary accounts he controlled and withdrew money from those accounts or used them to make purchases or transfers. He also caused debit or credit cards linked to victim accounts to be issued to him, so he could spend directly from those cards.

Sela engaged in hundreds of fraudulent withdrawals and transfers from dozens of victim accounts, attempting to steal at least approximately $2,590,836, and stealing at least approximately $1,818,369.

He defrauded numerous banks and at least 62 individual victims, including various elderly victims. Sela often used victim funds to purchase expensive goods for himself, including, for example, a nearly $17,000 watch.

In 2022, Sela was arrested in Beverly Hills and found with nearly $25,000 in cash, various expensive items of jewelry, and numerous fraudulent debit and credit cards belonging to four elderly victims.

After Sela’s 2022 arrest, he was released, and his conduct persisted. During two subsequent searches of Sela’s properties in 2022 and 2023, law enforcement identified more than $70,000 in cash, many items of expensive jewelry and similar such receipts, stolen mail, extensive PII, means of identification including driver’s licenses, and banking information including debit cards, credit cards, and checks, belonging to dozens of victims.

The United States Secret Service and the Beverly Hills Police Department investigated this matter.

Assistant United States Attorneys Aaron B. Frumkin of the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section and Jena A. MacCabe of the Violent and Organized Crime Section prosecuted this case.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: East Bay Property Developers Charged In Scheme To Bribe Antioch City Councilmember

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

OAKLAND – A two-count indictment was unsealed today charging property developers David Sanson and Trent Sanson with conspiracy and bribery in connection with offering to pay an Antioch City Councilmember $10,000, and later giving the Councilmember a company travel mug with $5,000 in cash, in exchange for favorable treatment for one of their development projects. The Councilmember reported the alleged bribe to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Both defendants made their initial appearances in federal court this morning.

According to the indictment filed April 3, 2025, David Sanson, 60, of Philipsburg, Mont., is the owner and Chief Executive Officer of a home building and development company based in Concord, Calif., and his son, Trent Sanson, 33, of Walnut Creek, Calif., is the Vice President. The development company has a number of projects in Antioch and neighboring areas, including the Aviano project, a multi-phase 533-unit residential development project.

As alleged, the Antioch Engineering and Development Services Division indicated that the development company had not completed all of its required public infrastructure improvements and that Phase 3 of the Aviano project should not be deemed complete or approved by the City Council until those improvements were completed. As a result, the City of Antioch had not approved the release of bonds secured for the project. To get the Antioch Engineering and Development Services Division to affirm completion and release the bonds associated with the project, Trent Sanson allegedly contacted an Antioch City Councilmember via iMessage on May 29, 2024, stating that he wanted to discuss with the Councilmember issues that the development company was facing with the Antioch “Engineering department” on a number of projects, including Phase 3 of the Aviano project.

The indictment describes a video-recorded meeting between the Councilmember and Trent Sanson on June 12, 2024, during which Trent Sanson allegedly stated that he wanted the Councilmember to place on the City Council agenda, and vote in favor of, “acceptance for Phase 3 at Aviano to release the completion and guarantee bonds . . . .” Trent Sanson allegedly stated that David Sanson was willing to pay the Councilmember $10,000 in exchange for the requested actions. A second video-recorded meeting took place on June 20, 2024, at which David Sanson allegedly paid the Councilmember $5,000 in cash concealed in a travel coffee mug branded with the logo of the Sansons’ development company.

“This indictment alleges that the defendants tried to bribe an Antioch City Councilmember to take favorable action on their real estate project and to evade having to make the public infrastructure improvements that the City required,” said Acting United States Attorney Patrick D. Robbins. “This case is another example of my Office’s commitment to working closely with our partners at the FBI to root out bribery and attempts to corrupt public office.”

“Attempting to bribe a public official is a blatant attack on the integrity of our government and the trust of the communities we serve,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sanjay Virmani. “The allegations in this case reflect a clear attempt to manipulate the system for personal gain. The FBI will continue to aggressively investigate and hold accountable anyone who seeks to corrupt public institutions through bribery or abuse of power.”

The defendants are next scheduled to appear in district court on June 12, 2025, for a status conference before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

The indictment charges each defendant with one count of conspiracy to commit bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and one count of bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2). The bribery count also includes an allegation that defendants aided and abetted one another in bribing the Antioch City Councilmember.

An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, defendants each face a maximum sentence of five years in prison for the count under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 10 years in prison for the count under 18 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(2). Any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thomas R. Green and Benjamin K. Kleinman are prosecuting the case with the assistance of Amala James and Laurie Worthen. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI.

Sanson, David and Trent Indictment

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI United Kingdom: New smart appliance standards will help consumers save on bills
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

Press release

New smart appliance standards will help consumers save on bills

Consumers will be able to save money on their bills thanks to new regulations for many smart energy appliances.
New standards for smart appliances to save consumers money on their bills as part of the Plan for Change

rules will mean new heat pumps and certain other electric heating appliances must be sold with smart functionality, which customers can choose to activate to access cheaper deals

customers able to shop around for best deals as smart appliances like electric vehicle charge points and heat pumps must operate across different suppliers

Consumers will benefit from a wider range of cheaper energy deals thanks to new requirements for smart appliances like heat pumps and electric vehicle chargers.

This will enable more households to access cheaper tariffs to cut their energy bills, to deliver on the government’s Plan for Change to put more money in people’s pockets.

Energy Smart Appliances allow consumers to shift their electricity usage to times when it is less costly for the energy system. When an appliance’s smart function is activated, it will respond to price signals and can then use energy when it is cheapest, such as overnight.

Many are already cutting their bills by taking advantage of off-peak deals. For example, electric vehicle owners with a typical annual mileage can save £332 a year by charging their cars overnight using a time-of-use tariff.

A new framework will introduce requirements for heat pumps to be sold smart-ready, in line with regulations that already apply to electric vehicle chargers. This will give heat pump owners the choice to activate smart functionality and make savings by heating their homes when energy is cheaper. This can save around £100 per year compared to the costs of a gas boiler.

The government will also ensure that a range of appliances including electric vehicle smart charge points, heat pumps, and battery energy storage systems must be able to operate across different tariffs. This will mean that devices are not tied to one energy supplier, and so consumers will not be locked into one plan. This will deliver savings by encouraging competition and allowing customers to shop around for the best deals regardless of what device they have.

The measures form part of the government’s Clean Power Action Plan, which sets out pro-consumer reforms to help households benefit from lower energy bills.

Energy Minister Michael Shanks said:

From EV chargers to heat pumps, smart appliances can do the hard work for consumers by automatically using energy when the price is low. We want to put more money in people’s pockets as part of Our Plan for Change by making it easier for people to benefit from cheaper off-peak tariffs in their home.

These new standards will also bring a common-sense approach to smart appliances by ensuring different brands and models can operate across different energy suppliers, allowing consumers to shop around for the best deals.

Tough new cyber security standards will be introduced for smart appliances, to protect customers and their data from cyberattacks.

Not only will these measures help smart energy consumers to cut their bills, but lowering peak electricity demand would minimise the electricity infrastructure that needs to be built. This could contribute to saving £40 to £50 billion between now and 2050, leading to further savings for all billpayers.

Increased consumer-led flexibility will help to deliver the Clean Energy Mission, by enabling Britain to make the most of its renewable electricity at times of high generation or low demand, which will reduce the need for expensive fossil fuelled power.

The introduction of the Market-wide Half Hourly Settlement in 2027 will require energy suppliers to use the most accurate data, so they can offer more smart tariffs that allow customers to choose when to use energy and benefit from savings. Earlier this month, the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley wrote to energy companies warning that no further delay will be tolerated to the roll out of this new system, to ensure consumers can benefit as quickly as possible.

Notes to editors

The new regulations for heat devices will apply to hydronic heat pumps, storage heaters, heat batteries, standalone direct electric hot water cylinders, hot water heat pumps, and hybrid heat pumps, all up to a thermal capacity of 45 kW.

The savings for switching from a gas boiler to a heat pump on a time-of-use tariff are based on internal DESNZ analysis. In this scenario, switching from a gas boiler on a fixed price tariff to an air source heat pump on Octopus’ Cosy tariff have been modelled.

DESNZ published the potential savings from overnight EV charging in the Future default tariffs: call for evidence (p10).

The electricity infrastructure savings from CLF have been estimated by the Electricity Networks Strategic Framework analysis (ENSF) to be £40 to £50 billion (cumulative, 2021-2050, 2020 prices).

See more information on the letter from the Energy Secretary and Ofgem CEO.

The government will, subject to Parliamentary approval, put forward secondary legislation on energy smart appliances within the next year. There will then be a 20-month period to allow manufacturers to update production, before the regulations will be enforced.

The measures follow a consultation on Smart Secure Energy System proposals between April 2024 and June 2024.

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)

Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Updates to this page

Published 23 April 2025
MIL OSI United Kingdom –
April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Reed Hosts Medal Ceremony for Family of Local WWII Veteran

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

CRANSTON, RI – Nearly eight decades after Seaman First Class Ferdinand “Bull” Viveiros was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy, U.S. Senator Jack Reed today presented Mr. Viveiros’ family with several military honors he received through his courageous and honorable service during World War II.

Senator Reed, the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today joined Mr. Viveiros’ children to honor their father, celebrate his tremendous service and sacrifice, and deliver military medals and recognitions for his role in defending freedom around the globe.

“We are grateful to Mr. Viveiros and his fellow servicemembers for their courage and dedication. They made tremendous sacrifices. It is a privilege to recognize and honor their service and thank their families,” said Senator Reed.

“I’m proud to join Senator Reed today to pay tribute to my dad. These military honors are long overdue, and I honestly think my dad can rest in peace now,” said Sharon Alves, Mr. Viveiros’ daughter who was joined today by her husband, Peter Alves, and their son, PJ.

Born and raised in Bristol by his parents, Louis and Maria Viveiros, Bull Viveiros enlisted in the U.S. Navy in December 1943 just before his eighteenth birthday. He went on to participate in the Allied Invasion of Europe on D-Day on June 6, 1944, serving as a gunner on a Landing Ship, Tank (LST) which landed on Utah Beach.

During Seaman First Class Viveiros’ approximately three years of service, he trained at the U.S. Naval Training Station in Sampson, NY and served on several military vessels, including: USS Cassia County (LST 527), an amphibious landing ship that participated in the Invasion of Normandy; USS Fall River, a Baltimore-class heavy cruiser which sailed in experimental development operations; and USS Wyandot, an Andromeda-class attack cargo ship.

After the war, Mr. Viveiros returned home and settled in Fall River, MA to start a family and return to his work as a carpenter and tradesman. He married his wife, Mary (Ferreira) Viveiros, and had three children: a daughter, Sharon; and two sons, Dean and Ferdinand Jr.

Mr. Viveiros worked for over four decades as a lead shipper for the Haskon Corporation of Taunton. He continued to serve his nation, fellow veterans, and community in his native state of Rhode Island as a devoted member and past commander of the Veterans of Foreign War (VFW), Woodrow L. Silvia Post 5392 in Tiverton.

Until his passing in 2017 at the age of 91, Mr. Viveiros donated his time to fellow veterans by serving with organizations such as the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the U.S. Landing Ship, Tank (LST) Association.

During the ceremony, Mr. Viveiros’ family received four military honors for exemplary conduct, efficiency, and fidelity that he earned while serving in the U.S. Navy during WWII, including:

World War II (WWII) was the most widespread war in history with more than 100 million people serving in military units, including roughly 16 million Americans, according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Durbin, Senators Demand President Trump Rescind Harmful Claims That He Will Transfer Incarcerated U.S. Citizens To A Foreign Prison

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

April 22, 2025

In the letter, Durbin also leads his colleagues in a call to return Maryland father wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Kilmar Abrego Garcia

CHICAGO – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today led 25 of his Democratic colleagues in a letter to President Donald Trump calling for him to immediately rescind the dangerous and offensive claim that he may transfer incarcerated U.S. citizens to El Salvador.

In the letter, the Senators also urge the President to follow the law and adhere to all applicable court orders and immediately facilitate the return to the United States of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom his Administration illegally deported to El Salvador in direct contravention of a court order specifically prohibiting such removal. In the letter, the Senators explain how these unprecedented actions threaten the constitutional protections of all Americans and violate the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.

Along with Durbin, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Chris Coons (D-DE), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM).

The Senators wrote, “With regard to your shocking assertion about transferring Americans to El Salvador, you cannot deport Americans to a foreign country for any reason. This nation’s founding fathers declared independence based on ‘repeated injuries and usurpations’ by the then-King of Great Britain, including ‘transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences’ and ‘depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.’ Accordingly, Congress has passed no provision into law that would permit exiling United States citizens to a foreign country for any reason. One conservative legal scholar called your threats to deport U.S. citizens ‘obviously illegal and unconstitutional.’”

The Senators continued, “Our laws also do not allow you to send individuals from U.S. soil to El Salvador without due process. Further, the Executive Branch must comply with longstanding domestic and international law that prohibits the United States from transferring any person from our jurisdiction or effective control to a place where the person would face certain serious human rights violations. Your Administration’s actions in sending individuals to a Salvadoran prison notorious for inhumane conditions underscore the urgency and applicability of these requirements. The bedrock principles of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protect individuals from being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’”

Even under extraordinary wartime authorities such as the Alien Enemies Act, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that noncitizens should, at a minimum, have an opportunity to prove whether or not the Act should apply to them. The Supreme Court recently ordered the federal government to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia and “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

The Senators continued, “You must immediately facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia, which is unquestionably within your power to do since your Administration is paying the government of El Salvador to detain him… You must also end your unlawful attempts to deport noncitizens without due process under the Alien Enemies Act, as the Supreme Court ordered this weekend. You have no authority to openly defy court orders requiring you: (1) to return someone who has been wrongfully deported, or (2) to grant individuals the due process they are owed under our laws… You must immediately facilitate the return to the United States of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, follow all court orders, and withdraw your dangerous and offensive claims that you may transfer U.S. citizens to a foreign prison. The Constitution demands it.”

Today’s letter is endorsed by the following organizations: Center for Victims of Torture, American Immigration Council, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, FWD.us, People for the American Way, National Immigrant Justice Center, SMART Union, and Human Rights First.

A copy of the letter is available here and below:

April 22, 2025

Dear President Trump:

We call on you to immediately rescind the dangerous and offensive claim that you may transfer incarcerated U.S. citizens to El Salvador. We further urge you to follow the law and adhere to all applicable court orders and immediately facilitate the return to the United States of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom your Administration illegally deported to El Salvador in direct contravention of a court order specifically prohibiting such removal. Your unprecedented actions threaten the constitutional protections of all Americans and violate the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.

With regard to your shocking assertion about transferring Americans to El Salvador, you cannot deport Americans to a foreign country for any reason. This nation’s founding fathers declared independence based on “repeated injuries and usurpations” by the then-King of Great Britain, including “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences” and “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.” Accordingly, Congress has passed no provision into law that would permit exiling United States citizens to a foreign country for any reason. One conservative legal scholar called your threats to deport U.S. citizens “obviously illegal and unconstitutional.”

Our laws also do not allow you to send individuals from U.S. soil to El Salvador without due process. Further, the Executive Branch must comply with longstanding domestic and international law that prohibits the United States from transferring any person from our jurisdiction or effective control to a place where the person would face certain serious human rights violations. Your Administration’s actions in sending individuals to a Salvadoran prison notorious for inhumane conditions underscore the urgency and applicability of these requirements. The bedrock principles of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protect individuals from being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Throughout our nation’s history, the Supreme Court has long read the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process to require that the government provide persons with certain procedural due process protections, including notice and an opportunity to be heard before any such deprivation of liberty.

Even under extraordinary wartime authorities such as the Alien Enemies Act, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that noncitizens should, at a minimum, have an opportunity to prove whether or not the Act should apply to them. In a statement accompanying the Supreme Court’s recent order for the federal government to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia and “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” Justice Sotomayor noted that your Administration’s argument suggesting that the government is permitted to leave Mr. Abrego Garcia in the Salvadoran prison after wrongfully sending him there “implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.” She went on to note that this is a “view [that] refutes itself.”

You must immediately facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia, which is unquestionably within your power to do since your Administration is paying the government of El Salvador to detain him. As Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a conservative appointee of President Reagan, wrote in a unanimous Fourth Circuit opinion rejecting your Administration’s efforts to delay taking steps to bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back to the United States:

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

You must also end your unlawful attempts to deport noncitizens without due process under the Alien Enemies Act, as the Supreme Court ordered this weekend. You have no authority to openly defy court orders requiring you: (1) to return someone who has been wrongfully deported, or (2) to grant individuals the due process they are owed under our laws. As Judge Boasberg wrote in his order last week concluding that probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt:

The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.” …“So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.”

You must immediately facilitate the return to the United States of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, follow all court orders, and withdraw your dangerous and offensive claims that you may transfer U.S. citizens to a foreign prison. The Constitution demands it.

Sincerely,

-30-

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Teen’s Murder in September 2019 Results in Guilty Verdict

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

WASHINGTON – Bernard Eddy, 24, of Washington, D.C., was found guilty by a jury, earlier today, of second-degree murder while armed and related weapons offenses for the September 2019 shooting of 16-year-old Steffen Brathwaite, announced U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. and Chief Pamela Smith, of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).

The verdict was returned following a trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The Honorable Michael Ryan scheduled sentencing for June 20, 2025. Eddy faces a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison for the murder conviction.

According to the government’s evidence, at approximately 12:12 a.m., on September 10, 2019, in the 3000 block of 24th Place, S.E., Eddy approached Steffen as Steffen was walking alone through the neighborhood, on his way to a friend’s house. Eddy, who was armed with a 9 mm handgun, proceeded to fire multiple gunshots at Steffen. Steffen fell to the ground and the defendant fled on foot. Steffen was declared deceased several hours later.

The evidence against the defendant included a 15-second audio-video recording found on the defendant’s cell phone, which was recovered eight days after the murder. In the recording, which was made about three hours after the shooting, Eddy is shown celebrating Steffen’s murder.

Eddy was arrested on January 6, 2023, and has been held without bail since then.

This case was investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department.

It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Liebman and Mark Levy.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Economics: Global Financial Stability Report Press Briefing

Source: International Monetary Fund

April 22, 2025

GFSR PRESS BRIEFING

Speakers:

Tobias Adrian, Financial Counsellor and Director, Monetary and Capital Markets Department, IMF
Jason Wu, Assistant Director, Monetary and Capital Markets Department, IMF
Caio Ferreira, Deputy Division Chief, Monetary and Capital Markets Department, IMF

Moderator: Meera Louis, Communications Officer, IMF

Ms. LOUIS: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the GFSR press conference. And thank you for joining us today. I am Meera Louis with the Communications Department at the IMF.

Joining us here today is Tobias Adrian, Financial Counsellor of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department. Also with us is Jason Wu, Assistant Director, and Caio Ferreira, Deputy Division Chief of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department.

So, Tobias, before we turn the floor over for questions, I wanted to start by asking you, what were some of the challenges you and your team faced in preparing for this report? We are in uncharted territory now. So how did you come up with a strategy to shape this report?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thank you so much, Meera. And welcome, everybody, to the International Monetary Fund.

We are launching the Global Financial Stability Report, and let me give you a couple of headline messages from the report.

Our baseline assessment for global financial stability is that risks have been increasing, and there are really two main factors here: One is that the overall level of policy uncertainty has increased; and the second factor is that the forecast of economic activity going forward is slightly lower, as Pierre‑Olivier presented at the World Economic Outlook press conference just now. So, it’s a combination of a lower baseline and larger downside risks. Having said that, we do see both downside and upside risks, and we will certainly explain more about the two sides of uncertainty throughout the press conference.

So let me highlight three vulnerabilities that are driving our assessment.

The first one is the level of risky asset values. We have certainly seen some adjustment in risky asset values. It’s important to see that in the broader context of where we are coming from. And, in recent years, we saw quite a bit of appreciation—particularly in equity markets and in some sectors, such as technology. So valuations were quite stretched and credit spreads were very tight by historical standards. And we have certainly seen some decline in valuations; but by historical standards, price-earnings ratios in equity markets, for example, continue to be fairly elevated and credit spreads and sovereign spreads have widened to some degree, but they are still fairly contained by historical standards. The stretching of asset valuations continues to be a vulnerability we are watching closely.

The second vulnerability is about leverage and maturity transformation in the financial system, particularly in the nonbank sector, where we are looking closely at how leverage is evolving. As market volatility has increased, we have seen some degree of deleveraging, but market functioning has been sound so far. With higher volatility, we would expect asset prices to come down, but the functioning of how those asset prices adjusted has been very orderly to date.

The third vulnerability that we are watching is the overall level of debt globally. In the past decade, and particularly since the pandemic in 2020, sovereign debt levels have been increasing around the world. It’s the backdrop of higher debt that can interact with financial stability and that’s particularly true for emerging markets and frontier economies, where we have certainly seen some widening of sovereign spreads. Issuance year to date has been strong, but, of course, the tightening of financial conditions that we observed in the past three weeks has an outsized impact on those more vulnerable countries.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias.

And now I will open up the floor to questions. If you could please identify yourself and your outlet. You also have the report online, if need be. And you can also join us online via the Webex link. Thank you.

So, the lady here in the front.

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Ray. I am with 21st Century Business Herald, Guangdong, China.

So, my question is that, you’ve highlighted a series of vulnerabilities and risks. So how does the IMF assess the risk of these tensions triggering broader macro‑financial instability, especially in emerging markets with weaker buffers?

My second question is that during times of global uncertainty, safe haven assets, such as gold and US treasuries, have been very volatile recently. So how does the IMF assess the volatility affecting currency stability? Thank you so much.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

So, starting with the second part of your question. We have seen a strong rally in gold prices, which is the sort of usual relationship we see in safe haven flows. When there is a high level of uncertainty, risky assets are selling off, oftentimes gold is viewed as a hedge asset and it has been appreciating.

Of course, US treasuries remain the baseline reserve asset globally. It’s the largest and most liquid sovereign market. And we have seen yields move. They have been increasing in the past two weeks, which is somewhat similar to the episode in 2020, when longer‑duration assets had yields increasing, as well. What is somewhat unusual is that the dollar has been falling, to some degree, but it’s important to keep that in the context of the strong dollar rally previously.

Concerning the emerging markets and frontier economies, yes, the tightening of global financial conditions has an outsized the impact on weaker economies. We have seen a number of weaker emerging markets and frontier economies with high levels of debt. We have seen issuance throughout last year and earlier this year, but tighter financial conditions certainly adversely impact the financing conditions for those countries.

Mr. WU: Maybe just to quickly add on emerging markets.

I think it’s important to distinguish the major larger emerging markets versus the frontiers, as Tobias has mentioned. I think so far, we have seen currencies and capital flows being relatively muted in this episode. And I think this speaks to the ongoing theme that we have mentioned for several rounds now, that there’s resilienc among the emerging market economies for a whole host of reasons.

However, as Tobias has pointed out, the external environment is not favorable and financial conditions are tightening globally. At this time, we need to worry about, countries where they are seeing sovereign spreads increasing, with large debt maturities forthcoming. Policy can be proactive to head off these risks by, for example, making sure that fiscal sustainability is being sent the right message.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Jason. The gentleman in the first row, at that end.

QUESTION: Thank you. Rotus Oddiri with Arise News.

So theoretically, if the dollar is weakening, isn’t that, to some degree, relatively good for countries with dollar debts?

And secondly, how are you seeing fund flows to cash? If there’s a lot of volatility, are you seeing more movements to cash? And are there implications there in terms of [M&A] activity and so on and so forth?

Mr. ADRIAN: So let me take this in three parts.

The first question is about sort of like the strength of the dollar and the impact for emerging markets. When we look at exchange rates relative to emerging markets, there’s some heterogeneity. The dollar has appreciated against some emerging markets and depreciated against others. But it’s not the only impact on those financing conditions. We certainly have seen a notable widening of financing spreads. And that is probably the more important determinant for external financing conditions in emerging markets.

Now, having said that, in some of the larger emerging markets with developed local government bond markets, we have seen some inflows into those local markets, but it’s very country‑specific.

Turning to the question of investment decisions. We think that the first‑order impact here is the overall level of uncertainty. So, generally, investment decisions are easier in an environment with certainty. Given that some uncertainty remains about how policies are going to play out going forward, that can be a temporary headwind to investments or merger activity.

Mr. WU: Just to quickly respond to your question about cash. I think during periods where markets are volatile, it’s reasonable that market participants and investors demand more liquidity, thereby moving in cash. We have not seen this happening en masse so far during this episode. So, we have seen bank deposits increase a little bit in the United States, but I think the magnitude is significantly smaller compared to previous episodes of stress.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Jason. So, the lady here in the second row, with the glasses.

QUESTION: Hi. Szu Chan from the Telegraph.

Do you see any parallels between recent moves in the bond market, particularly in US treasuries, with what happened in the wake of the Liz Truss mini budget? And do you think any lasting damage has been done?

Mr. ADRIAN:

Just for everybody’s recollection, in October 2022, there was some turbulence in UK gilt markets when the budget announcements were larger than expected and the Bank of England intervened to stabilize markets at that time. Clearly, we haven’t seen interventions by central banks, and the market conditions have been very orderly in recent weeks. There’s a repricing relative to the higher level of uncertainty but as I said at the beginning, there is both upside and downside risk. And we could certainly see upside risk if uncertainty is reduced going forward.

And market conditions have been quite orderly. The moves are notable in treasuries, in equities, in exchange rates, but they are within movements we have seen in recent years and really reflect the higher level of volatility.

Mr. Ferreira: I don’t think I have much to add to this, Tobias.

I think that what we are seeing is some moves that have not been historically deserved in this kind of situation. But these mostly respond to these higher uncertainties and a repricing to the new macro scenario.

Ms. LOUIS: So, before I go back to the floor, we do have a question on Webex, Pedro da Costa from Market News International. Pedro?

QUESTION: Thank you so much, Meera. Thank you, guys, for doing this.

My question is, given the market concerns about the threat to central bank independence, if the threat were exercised in a greater way, what would be the financial stability implications of a potential firing of either the Fed Chair or Fed Governors?

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Pedro. Are there any other questions on central bank independence? I don’t see any in the room. So over to you, Tobias

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

So, the International Monetary Fund has been advising central banks for many decades. Helping central banks in terms of governance and monetary policy frameworks is really one of the core missions of the IMF. And we have seen time and time again that central bank independence is an important foundation for central banks to achieve their goals, which are primarily price stability and financial stability. We do advise our membership to, have a degree of independence that is aimed at achieving those overarching goals for monetary policy and financial stability policies.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias. The gentleman in the first row.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. My name is Simon Ateba. I am with Today News Africa in Washington, DC.

I want to ask you about AI. It seems that is the big thing now. First, are you worried about AI? And what type of safeguards is the IMF putting in place to make sure that advanced countries—that AI doesn’t increase risk?

And maybe, finally, on tariffs. We know that President Trump is imposing tariffs today, removing them tomorrow. China is retaliating. How much will that affect the financial stability of the world? Thank you.

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much. Let me start with the question on artificial intelligence, and Jason can complement me.

We have done quite a bit of work on that. In October, we actually had a chapter specifically focused on the impact of artificial intelligence on capital market activity, but, of course, the impact of AI is broader. And in our view, there are both risks and opportunities. I think the main opportunity is that it’s actually potentially quite inclusive, right?

Everybody that has access to the internet via a smartphone or a computer or a tablet, in principle, can use those very powerful artificial intelligence tools. And we have seen examples in emerging markets and lower‑income economies where entrepreneurs are actually using these new tools to innovate. That can boost productivity around the world.

In financial markets, we do quite a bit of outreach to market participants. And financial institutions—including banks and capital market institutions—are very actively exploring avenues to use artificial intelligence productively. There’s a lot of innovation going on. At the moment, we see a lot of that concentrated in back‑office kind of applications, so keeping your house in order in terms of getting processes done. But in trading and in credit decisions, these are also quite promising.

In terms of risks, our primary concerns are cybersecurity risks. Many financial institutions are already under cyber attack., AI can be used to make defenses more efficient, but it can also be used for malicious purposes and making attacks more powerful. So, there’s really a bit of a power game on both sides. And we certainly advise many of our members to help them get to a more resilient financial system, relative to those cyber threats.

Mr. WU: Maybe just quickly, to complement.

I would encourage everybody to read Chapter 3 of the October 2024 GFSR, which addresses the issue of artificial intelligence in financial markets. Tobias is right, that there are benefits and risks on both sides.

In addition to cybersecurity, I just wanted to highlight a couple more things, which is that, many of the financial institutions that we spoke to are still at their infancy in terms of deploying AI to make decisions—meaning, for trading or for investment allocation, they are at very early stages. But suppose that this trend rapidly gains? What would happen to risks?

I think I will highlight two. One is concentration. Will it be a situation where the largest firms with the best models tend to win out and, therefore, dominate the marketplace? And then what are the implications for this? The second is that the speed of adjustment in financial markets might be much quicker if everything is based on high‑powered, artificial intelligence-type algorithms.

With regard to these two risks, I think there’s great scope for supervisors to gather more information and understand who the key players are and what they are doing. International collaboration obviously is a crucial aspect of this. Market conduct needs to be taken into account, the future possibility that markets will be very much faster and more volatile, perhaps.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. The gentleman in the second row, please, in the middle here. Thank you.

QUESTION: Good morning. I am [Fabrice Nodé‑Langlois] from the French newspaper Le Figaro.

I have a question on the US public debt. There is a widespread opinion that whatever the level of the public debt—because of the significant role of the dollar, because of the might of the American military and economic power—it’s not a big concern. But under what circumstances, under what financial conditions would the US public debt become a concern for you?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much for the question. We are certainly watching sovereign debt around the world, including in the US. I do want to point out that there will be a briefing for the Western Hemisphere region that will specifically focus on the Americas, including the United States.

When you look at our last Article IV for the United States, we certainly find that the debt situation is sustainable. You know, The U.S. has many ways to adjust its expenditures and revenues. And we think that this makes the debt levels manageable.

Having said that, as I explained at the beginning, we have seen broadly around the world an increase in debt‑to‑GDP levels, particularly since the start of the pandemic in 2020. And it is an important backdrop in terms of pricing and financial stability. So, we are watching the nexus between sovereign debt and financial intermediaries very carefully.

Mr. Ferreira: Maybe one issue related with that— I think that we flagged it in the GFSR—is that I think there is an anticipation that—not only in the US but in several countries—there will be a lot of issuance of new debt going forward. Particularly in a moment where several central banks are doing some quantitative tightening, this might bring some challenges in terms of the function of the financial sector.

Everything that we are seeing now seems to be working very well, even when we have this kind of shock. This is not a major concern. But going forward, we feel that it’s important to continue monitoring market liquidity. There are some flags that have been raised, particularly in terms of broker‑dealers’ capacity to continue intermediating and providing liquidity to public debt. It’s important to keep monitoring this, as central banks keep going in the direction of quantitative tightening.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Caio.

And just to add to Tobias’s point, we will have a lot of regional pressers this week. And the Western Hemisphere presser will be on Friday if you have any US‑specific questions. Thank you.

The lady here in the front row.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you for taking my question. My name is Nume Ekeghe from This Day newspaper, Nigeria.

The report mentions Nigeria’s return to Eurobond markets. And we know it was received positively by investors. So how does Nigeria’s return to Eurobond markets signal renewed investor confidence? And what specific macroeconomic reforms or improvements contributed to the shift in sentiments? Thank you.

Mr. WU: Thank you for that question. Let me make some remarks about Nigeria and then sub‑Saharan Africa, in general.

In the case of Nigeria, macroeconomic performance has held up, GDP growth has been fairly consistent, and inflation has been coming down. Earlier this year, we have seen Nigeria’s sovereign credit spreads lowering. I think the reforms that the authorities have done, including the liberalization of exchange rates, has helped in that regard.

That said, I think I want to go back to the theme that Tobias has mentioned, which is that during a time where global financial markets are volatile and risk appetite, in particular, is wavering, this is when we might see increases in sovereign spreads that will challenge the external picture for Nigeria, as well as other frontier economies. So, for example, Nigeria’s sovereign spread has increased in recent weeks, as stock markets globally have declined.

The other challenge, of course, is for large commodity exporters, like Nigeria. If trade tensions are going to lead to lower global demand for commodities, this will obviously weigh on the revenue that they will receive. So, I think both of those developments would counsel that authorities remain quite vigilant to these developments and take appropriate policies to counter them.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Jason.

And just before I come back to the floor, we have another question online, from Lu Kang, Sina Finance. The question is, in light of the IMF’s recent GFSR warning about rising debt, volatile capital flows, and diverging monetary policy paths, how should countries, especially emerging markets, balance financial stability with the imperative to finance climate transitions and digital infrastructure?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

We do a lot of work on debt management with countries. We are providing technical assistance and we are doing a lot of policy work on debt market developments. I think the two main takeaways are, No. 1, the plumbing matters. Putting into place mechanisms such as primary dealers and clearing systems, and pricing mechanisms in government bond markets. It is important all over the world. That includes the most advanced economies, as well as emerging markets. And we have seen tremendous progress in many countries, particularly the major emerging markets in terms of developing those bond markets.

The second key aspect, of course, is fiscal sustainability. Here again, we engage very actively with our membership to make sure that fiscal frameworks are in place that keep debt trajectories on a path that is commensurate with the economic prospects of the countries.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias. A question here in the front row, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. Kemi Osukoya with The Africa Bazaar magazine.

I wanted to follow up on the question that my colleague from Nigeria mentioned, regarding sovereign debts. As you know, African nations, after a period of pause, are just right now returning back to the Eurobond. But at the same time, there is unsustainable high borrowing costs that many of these countries face. So, in your recommendation, what can governments do regarding their bond to use it strategically, as well as to make it sustainable?

Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much for this question. And you know, we are working very closely with many sub‑Saharan African countries to support the countries either via programs or via policy advice and technical assistance to have a macro environment that is conducive for growth. So let me mention three things.

I think the first one is to recognize that we have been through a period of extraordinarily adverse shocks. Particularly in sub‑Saharan Africa, the pandemic had an outsized impact on many countries. The inflation that ensued was very costly for many countries, particularly for those that are importing commodities. So, the adverse economic shocks have been extraordinary. And I would just note that we have engaged more actively in programs with sub‑Saharan Africa in the past five years than we ever did previously.

The second point is about the financing costs. And, of course, there are two main components. One is the overall level of financial conditions globally. All countries in the world are part of the global capital markets. And that really depends on overall financing conditions. But more specifically, of course, there are country‑specific conditions—the macroeconomic performance of each country, the buffers in the countries—and the mandate of the Fund is very much focused on macro‑financial stability. So, getting back to a place with buffers, which then can lead to lower financing costs is the main goal. Our work with those countries is very much focused on the kind of catalytic role of the Fund, where we are trying to get growth back and stability back. Let me stop here.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias. And a question here in the front row, please. And then I will come back to the middle.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. My name is [Shuichiro Takaoka]. I am working for Jiji Press.

Just I would like to make clear the risk of a depreciation of the US dollar. And what are the implications of the recent depreciation of US dollar, especially regarding the global financial stability viewpoint?

Mr. ADRIAN: As I mentioned earlier, we had seen quite a bit of an appreciation of the dollar earlier in the year and late [next] year. And now we have seen a depreciation that is roughly of commensurate magnitude. The volatility in the exchange rates is reflecting the broader volatility. There are some indications that the exchange rate movements are related to flows to investor reallocations, but the magnitudes of those flows are relatively small, relative to the run‑up of inflows into US assets in recent years. The cumulative inflows into bonds and stocks from around the world have been quite pronounced. So, to what extent these movements in the exchange rate and the associated flows are just a temporary or a more permanent impact remains to be seen. It really depends on how the current uncertainty is going to be resolved. As I said at the beginning, there are various scenarios. For the moment, it’s highly uncertain. As I said earlier, it is notable that the dollar declined, but I would not jump to conclusions in terms of how permanent that move may be.

Mr. WU: Just to complement. I think when exchange rates are very volatile, one of the key channels for financial stability could be pressures in various funding markets. And this includes in cross currency markets, as well as in repo markets and other secure financing markets. I think this is something that we will be watching very closely. So far, we have not seen any major disruptions in those markets, despite the very volatile exchange rates.

Mr. ADRIAN: So as a comparison, you can think of last August when there was a risk‑off moment. That was very short, but that did lead to dislocations in those cross‑currency funding markets. And we haven’t really seen that in recent weeks.

Ms. LOUIS: So just on that line, I think you may have captured it, but I just wanted to get in this question that came in online from Greg Robb from MarketWatch. And it’s, have treasuries and the dollar lost their safe haven status? If not, what accounts for their recent performance?

Mr. ADRIAN: So, again, it is somewhat unusual to see the dollar decline in the recent two weeks, really, when equity prices traded down with a negative tone and when longer‑term yields increased. But how lasting that is, is really too early to tell.

US capital markets remain the largest and most liquid capital markets in the world. When you look at US dollars as a reserve asset, that remains over 60 percent among reserve managers. Global stock market capitalizations increased to 55 percent most recently, up from 30 percent in 2010. So, we have seen price movements that are notable; but in the big picture, the depth and size of the markets remain where they have been.

Ms. LOUIS: And just on the same line, of capital markets. We have another question that came in online, [Anthony Rowley] from the South China Morning Post. And he says, both the EU and ASEAN are seeking more actively to promote capital market integration. Do you see this as reducing global dependence on US capital markets to any significant extent in the short to the medium term?

Mr. ADRIAN: We are generally of the view that deep capital markets are beneficial everywhere. So, we are helping countries around the world to get to solid regulations and market mechanisms in sovereign bond markets but also, more broadly, in capital markets. And, for emerging markets and advanced economies, deepening capital markets has been a key priority.

We have seen many firms from around the world come to US markets to issue stocks and bonds. And we think that’s related to the depth of the market and the sophistication of the financial sector in the US markets. So, it does provide a service to corporations and financial institutions around the world. But there are certainly many other markets that are deep, that are developing, and that are providing opportunities for both corporations and governments to issue. So, we have seen that trend continue.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Caio?

Mr. Ferreira: Maybe just more broadly on the development of capital markets, as Tobias was saying, I think that it’s an important goal. And this has come hand‑in‑hand with the growth of non‑banking financial institutions that we are seeing across the globe. We see this as a potential positive development. You diversify the sources of funding and the credit to the real economy, diversify the risks across a broader set of institutions, this is good for the economy and financial stability.

There are risks that need to be mitigated. We discuss some of them in the GFSR—leverage, interconnectedness between different kinds of institutions. But overall, there are policies created by the standard setters that, if implemented, can mitigate these risks.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Caio and Tobias.

Going back to the room. There’s a lady in the second row.

QUESTION: Hi. Riley Callanan from GZERO Media.

The IMF downgraded the US, the most of all advanced economies. And I was wondering, is this a short‑term hit that in a year could lead to greater growth and investment in the US? Or is this a long‑term downgrade? Or is it too soon to tell, as you said, with capital markets?

Mr. ADRIAN: We are really looking more at the financial stability aspects. And I would just note that there has been a readjustment in expectations. Where the US and other economies are going to end up remains to be seen. But I think what is notable is that with the sharp adjustment in asset prices, the increase in uncertainty has been absorbed well in capital markets. And as Caio alluded to, it is the policy framework around the banking system and the non‑banks that is so important to create resilient and deep financial markets that are then facilitating adjustments, relative to new policy developments. And from that vantage point, I think even though we have seen the level of uncertainty increase, markets have been very orderly. And we think that the regulatory and policy framework is key for that achievement.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias.

And if you would like to flesh out any more details on the growth ramifications, we have a conference on Friday. And I can send you the details.

Another question here, in the second row. I will come back to you.

QUESTION: Hi. Gabriela Viana from Galapagos Capital in Brazil.

So, in Brazil, commodities prices play an important role for currency [and] international capital inflows, especially in the stock market. Do you see commodities prices as a main important constraint for markets or the economic policy’s uncertainties or maybe the monetary tightening? Thank you.

Mr. WU: All these factors are related to each other, obviously. So, I think the commodity prices, if the WEO forecast were to play out, the global economy is going to be slowing. It’s certainly an impact on the revenue side.

I think for many emerging markets, the silver lining here is that they do have policy room. Many of them do have monetary policy room. Some of them have fiscal room, although only a few of them. So, it seems like this is going to be a challenging period, and uncertainty [and] commodity channels are both going to weigh on economies for emerging markets.

We have seen broad‑based resilience among emerging markets over the last few years compared to, let’s say, five years before the pandemic. So, I think this speaks to the institutional quality having improved in emerging markets. And hopefully this would continue to buffer emerging markets from these external shocks.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Jason.

And the lady in the middle. And then I will come back to Agence France‑Presse.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for taking my question. I am Stephanie Stacey from the Financial Times.

I wanted to expand on the previous questions about the dollar and treasuries. And I know you mentioned it’s hard to assess at this point how lasting the impact will be. But I wanted to ask what risks and future factors you think could drive a real shift in their safe haven status.

Ms. LOUIS: Before we continue, are there any other questions on the dollar and the safe haven status? Yes. There is a question here.

QUESTION: Hi. Mehreen Khan from The Times. I’m sorry. I will stand up.

You mentioned the importance of swap lines and central banks cooperating at times of market stress. I mean, how much are we taking this type of cooperation for granted? And how much is the idea of the Fed providing swap lines to other central banks now in question, given the nature of the scrutiny that the institution is under from the Trump administration?

Mr. ADRIAN: Let me start with the swap lines.

In previous episodes of distress, such as the COVID-19 shock in 2020 or the global financial crisis in 2008, we have seen that swap lines from the major central banks—including Bank of England, ECB, Bank of Japan, and the Federal Reserve—have played an important role in terms of stabilizing market liquidity. The way to think about that is that the central banks are providing funding to partner central banks in the currency of the foreign assets that those institutions own. So, it’s an important underpinning to provide market functioning and resilience to your own assets in the hands of foreign financial institutions.

As we mentioned earlier central banks have not intervened for liquidity purposes in recent weeks. And, despite a heightened market volatility, the VIX, for example, went from below 20 to between 40 and 50, which is fairly elevated. We have seen a very, very smooth market functioning across the board.

Concerning the role of treasuries we are looking at the pricing of longer duration treasuries very carefully. We particularly look at supply factors, demand factors, and technical factors. We have seen volatility in the price moves, but we think that those are within reasonable historical norms.

Mr. WU: Just to complement, I think in the treasury market, we have seen market functioning held up—meaning that buyers can find sellers and transactions are going through. I think that’s a very important sign.

One thing that I wanted to mention also is that a year ago in our report, we pointed out that there are leveraged trades in the treasury market. These are trades that have not very much to do with economic fundamentals in the US or elsewhere but, rather, are using leverage to capture arbitrage opportunities in markets. When these trades are unwound, there will be impact in the treasury market. And this is something that we have pointed out before. These include the so‑called treasury cash‑futures basis trade, as well as a swap spread trade, which we have documented before. And I think during this episode, given the very heightened volatility, we have seen evidence of some of these positions being unwound, potentially having an impact on treasury yields as well. So, I just wanted to put this into context. This is not about capital outflows, but it’s about unwinding these trades having amplified the recent price movements in treasury markets.

Mr. ADRIAN: We are seeing some indication that there’s some lowering in terms of the leverage in these trades, but we haven’t heard of disorderly deleveraging at this point. So, of course, with market volatility increasing, financial institutions naturally reduce their leverage. But we haven’t seen the kind of adverse feedback loop that was common, say, in 2008 or even as recent as the COVID-19 shock initially.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you, Tobias.

And there’s a question from Agence France‑Presse, in the middle. And then I will come back to you, and you. We are running out of time. So, we will take very, very few questions left.

QUESTION: Thanks for taking my question. Just a quick question. In your report, you talk about geopolitical risk, including the risk of military conflicts. I just wonder how seriously you think people should take that and where you rate that when it comes to the global financial stability risks you have discussed already.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. And I have just been told we are running out of time. So, we will just clump those questions, if you could be very quick. The gentleman over there and the lady there. And then we will wrap it up. Thank you.

QUESTION: Hi. [Rafia] from Nigeria. I work on [Arise TV].

The IMF keeps talking about building resilience to face the global challenge of the state of the economy of the world. How do you build resilience in a world economic climate when one man’s decision can tip the scale? Just one man. He could wake up tomorrow and all our projections falter. One man.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. And then the last question.

QUESTION: Laura Noonan, Bloomberg News. Thanks for taking the question. It’s actually a related question.

You spoke in the report about the need for policymakers to try to do what they can to guard against these future financial shocks. Do you have any practical suggestions on what those measures could be? And also, are you expecting people to take measures to make the financial system safer when the overall political mood, as you have seen, has very much been about trying to liberalize things, trying to deregulate, and trying to simplify? Thank you.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

Mr. ADRIAN: Let me address the three sets of questions and then turn to my colleagues as well.

On geopolitical risk, we do have a chapter that was released last week that is looking at capital market performance relative to geopolitical risks. And the good news is that, generally, when adverse risks realize, there is an asset price adjustment. But on average, relative to recent decades, those risks are absorbed well by the financial system in general. Now, of course, when conflicts directly impact countries, that can have a pronounced impact on their financial systems, and it’s something that we are discussing in more detail in the chapter.

Secondly, in terms of the exposure of countries to physical risk, we have certainly seen in some countries around the world, a heightened incidence of drought and floods, even those can be macro‑critical. To the extent that these developments impact macro stability, we are certainly there to support countries and help them, either via programs or policy frameworks.

Thirdly, in terms of the regulation of financial institutions and financial markets. You know, I think the last couple of weeks are very good illustrations for the importance of resilience of financial institutions. I mean, we have seen a tremendous increase in the level of volatility, which reflects the higher level of uncertainty. Last October, our overarching message in the GFSR was that there was this wedge between policy uncertainty and financial market volatility, which at the time was very low. And we have seen financial market volatility catch up with the high level of policy uncertainty. But that has been orderly, and financial institutions have been resilient. That is really the main objective of financial sector regulation—to get to a place where the financial system can do its job in terms of adjusting to unexpected developments. And when you have resilience in banks and in non‑banks, these adjustments are smooth. And that is the point of finance, right? It’s a kind of an insurance mechanism for the global economy and for individual country macro economies. Good regulation leads to good stability. And we have a lot of detail on that in the GFSR.

Mr. Ferreira: Maybe I could add a little bit on this about how to build resilience.

I think that as Tobias was saying, trying to anticipate shocks is very hard. And it is very hard to do it. So, I think the way to build the resilience is focusing on vulnerabilities. In the GFSR, we have mentioned some vulnerabilities that we feel are important at this time. So, the valuations issues that makes the risk of repricing more likely, leveraging in some segments of the financial sector and in the interconnectedness with the banks, and also, of course, rising and high debt in several countries.

How do you build the resilience in the face of these vulnerabilities? We do feel that banks in most countries are actually the cornerstone of the financial sector and so ensuring that they have appropriate levels of capital and liquidity is key. And the international standards do provide the basis for doing that. To address some of the other vulnerabilities, like leveraging an interconnection between different types of institutions, excessive [transformations], maybe.

Finally, I think that on the issue of rising debt, one common theme that we have been talking about is about the need to credibly rebuild fiscal buffers.

Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Thank you very much. I know we have covered a lot of ground, and I apologize that we could not get to everybody. If you do have any follow‑ups or any questions, please feel free to reach out to me. You can find the report online, and we can also send it to you bilaterally.

Again, thank you very much for coming and thank you for your time. Take care.

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS

PRESS OFFICER: Meera Louis

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

@IMFSpokesperson

MIL OSI Economics –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI New Zealand: Property Market – Clearer signs of a market rebound as property activity lifts in early 2025 – CoreLogic

Source: CoreLogic

New Zealand’s housing market continues to show signs of recovery, with national sales activity and dwelling values both lifting in March, supported by easing mortgage rates and renewed buyer confidence, according to CoreLogic NZ’s April Housing Chart Pack. (ref. https://www.corelogic.co.nz/news-research/reports/housing-chart-pack )

Sales volumes were 11% higher in March compared to the same time last year, more than offsetting February’s brief dip. This marks nearly two years of gradual growth in transaction activity.

“Clearly confidence levels are growing, no doubt reflecting the falls in mortgage rates,” said CoreLogic NZ Chief Property Economist Kelvin Davidson.

“The recovery in property values and activity levels is becoming clearer, but it remains measured. Higher stock levels are still giving buyers plenty of choice, which will keep a lid on price growth in the near term.”

National home values edged up 0.5% in March, following a 0.4% increase in February and a flat result in January, based on CoreLogic NZ’s latest Home Value Index.

The recovery is becoming more geographically widespread, extending beyond the main centres into key regional towns and cities.

Investor activity rising

While the supply of available listings continues to track at multi-year highs, reducing the urgency for buyers, improving conditions have nevertheless sparked renewed interest from a range of buyer groups.

First home buyer activity as a share of the market has eased slightly from recent record highs, but investor activity is on the rise, driven by lower mortgage rates.

“Mortgaged investors remain on the comeback trail. Lower interest rates are certainly helping investors by reducing the cashflow top-ups out of other income sources that are generally required on a rental property purchase.”

“While the share of purchases going to mortgaged multiple property owners (MPOs, including investors) remains below historical levels, this group has certainly started to return. Indeed, at 23% in Q1 2025, they’re back to levels not seen since late 2021.”

Mr Davidson said all buyer groups are expected to be more active through the rest of 2025.

“If current momentum continues, we anticipate around 10,000 more residential sales this year compared to 2024. That means more opportunities for everyone—first home buyers, investors and upgraders alike.”

Mixed economic outlook

The economic backdrop remains mixed, with global uncertainty fuelled by recent tariff changes in the United States. While the inflationary impact in New Zealand is expected to be relatively neutral, a softer global growth outlook may support further downward pressure on interest rates.

Despite these crosswinds, CoreLogic anticipates national home values to rise by approximately 5% throughout 2025.

“The year ahead is likely to deliver a subdued but broad-based upturn,” Mr Davidson said.

“Lower mortgage rates are doing much of the heavy lifting, but high listing volumes, ongoing labour market shifts and mortgage lending constraints such as debt-to-income ratio caps will temper the pace of growth.”

Highlights from the April 2025 Housing Chart Pack include:

New Zealand’s residential real estate market is worth a combined $1.62 trillion.
The CoreLogic Home Value Index shows property values across New Zealand increased 0.5% in March. Over the three months to March, there was a 0.9% rise in median property values across NZ.

The total sales count over the 12 months to March is 83,543.

Total listings on the market were 30,524 in March – 23% up on the five-year average. Some major regions such as Waikato, Auckland, and Bay of Plenty are lower than last year in terms of total listings on the market, but Canterbury and Otago are slightly higher, and Wellington more so.

Rental market conditions still favour tenants, as net migration (demand) eases down from its very high peak, and the stock of available rental listings (supply) on the market stays elevated.

Gross rental yields now stand at 3.9%, which Is the highest level since mid-2015.

Inflation is firmly back in the 1–3% target range, and after April’s 0.25% cut, further OCR reductions seem likely in the coming months.

The Chart of the Month shows that investors are starting to return to the market.

While the share of purchases going to mortgaged multiple property owners (MPOs, including investors) remains below normal, this group has certainly started to return. At 23% in Q1 2025, they’re back to levels not seen since late 2021.

MIL OSI New Zealand News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI New Zealand: Real Estate – $63m drops out of the NZ property market in Q1 2025
Source: RealEstate.co.nz

Wednesday, 23 April 2025 – More than $63 million was trimmed from asking prices across New Zealand in the first quarter of 2025. New data from realestate.co.nz shows a total of $63,044,313 in price reductions – down slightly from $69,610,914 million in quarter one of 2024 – as vendors adjusted prices to meet the market.

Vanessa Williams, spokesperson for realestate.co.nz, says vendors are pricing their properties to find the right buyer:

“Nationally, the average asking price has been trending downward over the past year, and stock levels are at decade-highs. We’re starting to see sellers come to market with more realistic expectations from the outset, which reduces the need for major price cuts later on.”

The data compares the original asking price of a property when it was first listed on realestate.co.nz with the price when it was sold or withdrawn. While it doesn’t reflect the final sale price, it indicates how much vendors were willing to adjust their expectations to align with market demand.

Regionally, the biggest total price drops were in Auckland (down $9,823,100), Waikato (down $7,013,100), and Wellington (down $5,928,009).

“All up, that’s millions of dollars no longer circulating in the market. Buyers aren’t paying it, and sellers aren’t receiving it.”

Williams notes that slightly more listings were discounted this year than last. 1,686 properties had their asking prices reduced in Q1 2025, up from 1,624 in Q1 2024.

Auckland leads with highest average drop per listing of nearly $60k

Nationally, sellers who adjusted their asking prices reduced them on average by $37,393 per listing. But the biggest average price drops per listing were in Auckland (down $59,175), Coromandel (down $58,602), and Wellington (down $54,385).

At the other end of the scale, the smallest average price drop per listing was in Wairarapa, where vendors reduced an average of $24,346 from their asking prices. This was closely followed by Otago (down $26,220) and Hawke’s Bay (down $26,490).

Williams notes that these are helpful benchmarks for buyers and sellers:

“For sellers, it offers a realistic view of how much they may need to negotiate. For buyers, it can give a sense of how much wriggle room might be available when making an offer.”

She explains that high stock levels and a slower market give both parties time to negotiate and reach a fair deal.

$600k off? The listings with the biggest price drops

The five biggest price drops in Q1 2025 were all properties with premium price tags, shedding from $300,000 to more than $600,000 from their original asking prices.

Taking out the top spot for the steepest price drop was a home in Auckland, which dropped by $604,500—from $4,899,500 to $4,295,000.

A Queenstown property followed, down $400,000 (from $3,900,000 to $3,500,000). Meanwhile, a Northland property fell $360,000 – a drop of over one-third from its original $950,000 listing to $590,000.

Properties in Mount Maunganui and Whitianga rounded out the top five, dropping by $346,000 and $300,000 respectively.

“At the peak of the market in 2022, it wasn’t unusual for properties to sell above the asking price. What we’re seeing now is a very different phase—one where sellers are having to meet buyers where they are,” says Williams.

About realestate.co.nz

We’ve been helping people buy, sell, or rent property since 1996. Established before Google, realestate.co.nz is New Zealand’s longest-standing property website and the official website of the real estate industry.

Dedicated only to property, our mission is to empower people with a property search tool they can use to find the life they want to live. With residential, lifestyle, rural and commercial property listings, realestate.co.nz is the place to start for those looking to buy or sell property.

Whatever life you’re searching for, it all starts here.

Want more property insights?

Market insights: Search by suburb to see median sale prices, popular property types and trends over time.

Sold properties: Switch your search to sold to see the last 12 months of sales and prices.

Valuations: Get a gauge on property prices by browsing sold residential properties, with the latest sale prices and an estimated value in the current market.

Glossary of terms:

Asking price drop is the difference between a property’s original asking price when it was first listed on realestate.co.nz and the price when it was sold or withdrawn. This figure does not reflect the final sale price but indicates how much a vendor adjusted their price expectations to meet market demand.

Total Price Drop is the combined dollar amount by which asking prices were reduced across all discounted listings in a region or nationally during the reporting period.

Average price drop per listing is calculated by dividing the total amount discounted in a region by the number of listings that reduced their asking price in that region.

Listings That Dropped Prices is the number of individual property listings that had their asking prices reduced at least once during the reporting period. This shows how widespread vendor discounting was in that timeframe.

Total Listings is the total number of property listings that appeared on realestate.co.nz in the reporting period, whether they had price reductions or not. This gives context to the overall activity and supply in the market.

Average asking price (AAP) is neither a valuation nor the sale price. It is an indication of current market sentiment. Statistically, asking prices tend to correlate closely with the sales prices recorded in future months when those properties are sold. As it looks at different data, average asking prices may differ from recorded sales data released simultaneously.
MIL OSI New Zealand News –
April 23, 2025

Submitted by	CFA Media

MIL-OSI: Timberland Bancorp Reports Second Fiscal Quarter Net Income of $6.76 Million

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

Quarterly EPS Increases 21% to $0.85 from $0.70 One Year Ago
Quarterly Net Interest Margin Increases to 3.79%
Quarterly Return on Average Assets of 1.43%
Quarterly Return on Average Equity of 10.95%
Announces a 4% Increase in the Quarterly Cash Dividend

HOQUIAM, Wash., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Timberland Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSBK) (“Timberland” or “the Company”), the holding company for Timberland Bank (the “Bank”), today reported net income of $6.76 million, or $0.85 per diluted common share for the quarter ended March 31, 2025. This compares to net income of $6.86 million, or $0.86 per diluted common share for the preceding quarter and $5.71 million, or $0.70 per diluted common share, for the comparable quarter one year ago.

For the first six months of fiscal 2025, Timberland’s net income increased 13% to $13.62 million, or $1.71 per diluted common share, from $12.00 million, or $1.47 per diluted common share for the first six months of fiscal 2024.

“Our second fiscal quarter operating results were strong, highlighted by net interest margin expansion and modest balance sheet growth,” stated Dean Brydon, Chief Executive Officer. “Second fiscal quarter net income and earnings per share increased 18% and 21%, respectively, compared to the second fiscal quarter a year ago, reflecting an improvement in our net interest margin. Compared to the prior quarter, net income and earnings per share decreased 2% and 1%, respectively, as the increase in net interest income was offset by a higher provision for credit losses and a modest increase in expenses. All profitability metrics improved compared to the year ago quarter, and tangible book value per share (non-GAAP) continued to trend upward.”

“As a result of Timberland’s solid earnings and strong capital position, our Board of Directors announced a 4% increase to the quarterly cash dividend to shareholders to $0.26 per share, payable on May 23, 2025, to shareholders of record on May 9, 2025,” stated Jonathan Fischer, President and Chief Operating Officer. “This represents the 50th consecutive quarter Timberland will have paid a cash dividend.”

“During the second fiscal quarter our net interest margin continued to improve, expanding 15 basis points to 3.79%, compared to the preceding quarter,” said Marci Basich, Chief Financial Officer. “The improvement was primarily driven by a reduction in funding costs as the weighted average cost of interest-bearing liabilities decreased by 15 basis points during the quarter. Total deposits increased $20 million, or 1% during the quarter, due to increases in checking and certificates of deposit account balances.”

“The loan portfolio continues to grow at a moderate pace, increasing 1% from the prior quarter and 4% year-over year,” Brydon continued. “We continue to monitor credit quality closely and saw improvements in several metrics during the quarter. The non-performing asset ratio improved to just 13 basis points, non-accrual loans decreased by 15%, and net charge-offs were less than $1,000 during the quarter. However, we experienced an increase in loans graded “Substandard”, as two loans related to one borrowing relationship were downgraded. Both of the loans are performing and Timberland remains well collateralized based on recent appraisals, but the loans were downgraded primarily because the borrower is experiencing a legal issue stemming from an unrelated project. We view this as an isolated event, and remain encouraged by the overall strength of our loan portfolio.”

Earnings and Balance Sheet Highlights (at or for the periods ended March 31, 2025, compared to March 31, 2024, or December 31, 2024):

Earnings Highlights:

Earnings per diluted common share (“EPS”) decreased 1% to $0.85 for the current quarter from $0.86 for the preceding quarter and increased 21% from $0.70 for the comparable quarter one year ago; EPS increased 16% to $1.71 for the first six months of fiscal 2025 from $1.47 for the first six months of fiscal 2024;
Net income decreased 2% to $6.76 million for the current quarter from $6.86 million for the preceding quarter and increased 18% from $5.71 million for the comparable quarter one year ago; Net income increased 13% to $13.62 million for the first six months of fiscal 2025 from $12.00 million for the first six months of fiscal 2024;
Return on average equity (“ROE”) and return on average assets (“ROA”) for the current quarter were 10.95% and 1.43%, respectively;
Net interest margin (“NIM”) for the current quarter expanded to 3.79% from 3.64% for the preceding quarter and 3.48% for the comparable quarter one year ago; and
The efficiency ratio for the current quarter improved to 56.25% from 56.27% for the preceding quarter and 60.22% for the comparable quarter one year ago.

Balance Sheet Highlights:

Total assets increased 1% from the prior quarter and increased 1% year-over-year;
Net loans receivable increased 1% from the prior quarter and increased 4% year-over-year;
Total deposits increased 1% from the prior quarter and increased 1% year-over-year;
Total shareholders’ equity increased 1% from the prior quarter and increased 6% year-over-year; 61,764 shares of common stock were repurchased during the current quarter for $1.91 million;
Non-performing assets to total assets ratio improved to 0.13% at March 31, 2025 compared to 0.16% at December 31, 2024 and 0.19% at March 31, 2024;
Book and tangible book (non-GAAP) values per common share increased to $31.95 and $29.99, respectively, at March 31, 2025; and
Liquidity (both on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet) remained strong at March 31, 2025 with only $20 million in borrowings and additional secured borrowing line capacity of $675 million available through the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) and the Federal Reserve.

Operating Results

Operating revenue (net interest income before the provision for credit losses plus non-interest income) for the current quarter increased 1% to $19.90 million from $19.67 million for the preceding quarter and increased 9% from $18.25 million for the comparable quarter one year ago. The increase in operating revenue compared to the preceding quarter was primarily due to a decrease in funding costs, which was partially offset by a decrease in total interest and dividend income. Operating revenue increased 7%, to $39.57 million for the first six months of fiscal 2025 from $37.05 million for the first six months of fiscal 2024, primarily due to increases in interest income from loans and interest-bearing deposits in banks, which was partially offset by an increase in funding costs and a decrease in interest income on investment securities.

Net interest income increased $243,000, or 1%, to $17.21 million for the current quarter from $16.97 million for the preceding quarter and increased $1.58 million, or 10%, from $15.64 million for the comparable quarter one year ago. The increase in net interest income compared to the preceding quarter was primarily due to a 15 basis point decrease in the weighted average cost of total interest-bearing liabilities to 2.47% from 2.62% and a six basis point increase in the weighted average yield on total interest-earning assets to 5.48% from 5.42%. These increases to net interest income were partially offset by an $11.44 million decrease in the average balance of total interest-earning assets. Timberland’s NIM for the current quarter expanded to 3.79% from 3.64% for the preceding quarter and 3.48% for the comparable quarter one year ago. The NIM for the current quarter was increased by approximately five basis points due to the collection of $201,000 in pre-payment penalties, non-accrual interest, and late fees and the accretion of $17,000 of the fair value discount on acquired loans. The NIM for the preceding quarter was increased by approximately three basis points due to the collection of $115,000 in pre-payment penalties, non-accrual interest, and late fees, and the accretion of $8,000 of the fair value discount on acquired loans. The NIM for the comparable quarter one year ago was increased by approximately three basis points due to the collection of $90,000 in pre-payment penalties, non-accrual interest, and late fees, and the accretion of $10,000 of the fair value discount on acquired loans. Net interest income for the first six months of fiscal 2025 increased $2.54 million, or 8%, to $34.18 million from $31.64 million for the first six months of fiscal 2024, primarily due to a $55.11 million increase in the average balance of total interest-earning assets and a 34 basis point increase in the weighted average yield of total interest-earning assets to 5.44% from 5.10%. These increases to net interest income were partially offset by an 18 basis point increase in the weighted average cost of interest-bearing liabilities to 2.55% from 2.37%. Timberland’s NIM expanded to 3.71% for the first six months of fiscal 2025 from 3.53% for the first six months of fiscal 2024.

A $237,000 provision for credit losses on loans was recorded for the quarter ended March 31, 2025. The provision was primarily due to loan portfolio growth and changes in the composition of the loan portfolio. This compares to a $52,000 provision for credit losses on loans for the preceding quarter and a $166,000 provision for credit losses on loans for the comparable quarter one year ago. In addition, a $14,000 provision for credit losses on unfunded commitments and a $5,000 recapture of credit losses on investment securities were recorded for the current quarter.

Non-interest income decreased $10,000, (less than 1%) to $2.69 million for the current quarter from $2.70 million for the preceding quarter and increased $72,000, or 3%, from $2.62 million for the comparable quarter one year ago. The decrease in non-interest income compared to the preceding quarter was primarily due to a decrease in ATM and debit card interchange transaction fees and smaller changes in several other categories, which was partially offset by an increase in gain on sales of loans and smaller changes in several other categories. Fiscal year-to-date non-interest income decreased by 1%, to $5.38 million from $5.41 million for the first six months of fiscal 2024.

Total operating (non-interest) expenses for the current quarter increased $127,000, or 1%, to $11.19 million from $11.07 million for the preceding quarter and increased $203,000, or 2%, from $10.99 million for the comparable quarter one year ago. The increase in operating expenses compared to the preceding quarter was primarily due to increases in premises and equipment expenses, professional fees and smaller increases in several other expense categories. These increases were partially offset by decreases in salaries and employee benefits and smaller decreases in several other expense categories. The efficiency ratio for the current quarter was 56.25% compared to 56.27% for the preceding quarter and 60.22% for the comparable quarter one year ago. Fiscal year-to-date operating expenses increased 3% to $22.26 million from $21.62 million for the first six months of fiscal 2024.

The provision for income taxes for the current quarter decreased $8,000, or less than 1%, to $1.71 million from $1.71 million for the preceding quarter, primarily due to lower taxable income. Timberland’s effective income tax rate was 20.2% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, compared to 20.0% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024 and 20.5% for the quarter ended March 31, 2024. Timberland’s effective income tax rate was 20.1% for the first six months of fiscal 2025 and fiscal 2024.

Balance Sheet Management

Total assets increased $23.25 million, or 1%, during the quarter to $1.93 billion at March 31, 2025 from $1.91 billion at December 31, 2024 and increased $25.50 million, or 1%, from $1.91 billion one year ago. The increase during the current quarter was primarily due to a $27.14 million increase in total cash and cash equivalents, an $8.26 million increase in net loans receivable and smaller increases in several other categories. These increases were partially offset by a $7.42 million decrease in investment securities and smaller decreases in several other categories.

Liquidity

Timberland has continued to maintain a strong liquidity position, both on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet. Liquidity, as measured by the sum of cash and cash equivalents, CDs held for investment, and available for sale investment securities, was 16.9% of total liabilities at March 31, 2025, compared to 15.0% at December 31, 2024, and 15.2% one year ago. Timberland had secured borrowing line capacity of $675 million available through the FHLB and the Federal Reserve at March 31, 2025. With a strong and diversified deposit base, only 18% of Timberland’s deposits were uninsured or uncollateralized at March 31, 2025. (Note: This calculation excludes public deposits that are fully collateralized.)

Loans

Net loans receivable increased $8.26 million, or 1%, during the quarter to $1.42 billion at March 31, 2025 from $1.41 billion at December 31, 2024. This increase was primarily due to a $10.31 million decrease in the undisbursed portion of construction loans in process, an $8.98 million increase in one- to four-family loans and a $5.19 million increase in commercial real estate loans. These increases were partially offset by a $12.57 million decrease in construction loans and smaller decreases in several other loan categories.

Loan Portfolio
($ in thousands)

	March 31, 2025				December 31, 2024					March 31, 2024
	Amount			Percent	Amount			Percent		Amount			Percent
Mortgage loans:
One- to four-family (a)	$	315,421		21%	$	306,443		20%		$	276,433		19%
Multi-family		178,590		12		177,861		12			167,275		12
Commercial		602,248		40		597,054		39			577,373		40
Construction – custom and
owner/builder		114,401		7		124,104			8		122,988		8
Construction – speculative one-to four-family		9,791		1		8,887		1			16,407		1
Construction – commercial		22,352		1		22,841		2			32,318		2
Construction – multi-family		46,602		3		48,940		3			36,795		3
Construction – land
development		15,032		1		15,977		1			16,051		1
Land		32,301		2		30,538		2			31,821		2
Total mortgage loans		1,336,738		88		1,332,645		88			1,277,461		88

Consumer loans:
Home equity and second
mortgage		47,458		3		48,851		3			42,357		3
Other		2,375		—		2,889		—			2,925		—
Total consumer loans		49,833		3		51,740		3			45,282		3

Commercial loans:
Commercial business loans		131,243		9		135,312		9			135,505		9
SBA PPP loans		156		—		204		—			367		—
Total commercial loans		131,399		9		135,516		9			135,872		9
Total loans		1,517,970		100%		1,519,901		100%			1,458,615		100%
Less:
Undisbursed portion of
construction loans in
process		(75,042	)			(85,350	)				(77,502	)
Deferred loan origination
fees		(5,329	)			(5,444	)				(5,179	)
Allowance for credit losses		(17,525	)			(17,288	)				(16,818	)
Total loans receivable, net	$	1,420,074			$	1,411,819				$	1,359,116

_______________________
(a) Does not include one- to four-family loans held for sale totaling $1,151, $411, and $1,311 at March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively.

The following table provides a breakdown of commercial real estate (“CRE”) mortgage loans by collateral type as of March 31, 2025:

CRE Loan Portfolio Breakdown by Collateral
($ in thousands)

Collateral Type	Balance		Percent of CRE Portfolio	Percent of Total Loan Portfolio	Average Balance Per Loan		Non- Accrual
Industrial warehouse	$	127,898	21%	8%	$	1,255	$	163
Medical/dental offices		84,013	14	5		1,254		—
Office buildings		68,239	11	5		784		—
Other retail buildings		53,121	9	3		553		—
Mini-storage		32,596	5	2		1,358		—
Hotel/motel		31,967	5	2		2,664		—
Restaurants		27,374	5	2		582		161
Gas stations/conv. stores		24,622	4	2		1,026		—
Churches		14,823	3	1		988		—
Nursing homes		13,606	2	1		2,268		—
Shopping centers		10,578	2	1		1,762		—
Mobile home parks		8,968	2	1		448		—
Additional CRE		104,443	17	7		762		—
Total CRE	$	602,248	100%	40%	$	938	$	324

Timberland originated $56.76 million in loans during the quarter ended March 31, 2025, compared to $72.07 million for the preceding quarter and $39.37 million for the comparable quarter one year ago. Timberland continues to originate fixed-rate one- to four-family mortgage loans, a portion of which are sold into the secondary market for asset-liability management purposes and to generate non-interest income. During the current quarter, fixed-rate one- to four-family mortgage loans totaling $5.17 million were sold compared to $2.31 million for the preceding quarter and $2.28 million for the comparable quarter one year ago.

Investment Securities

Timberland’s investment securities and CDs held for investment decreased $6.17 million, or 3%, to $235.33 million at March 31, 2025, from $241.50 million at December 31, 2024. The decrease was primarily due to maturities of U.S. Treasury investment securities (classified as held to maturity) and scheduled amortization. Partially offsetting these decreases, was the purchase of additional U.S. government agency mortgage-backed investment securities and U.S. Treasury investment securities, all of which were classified as available for sale.

Deposits

Total deposits increased $20.41 million, or 1%, during the quarter to $1.65 billion at March 31, 2025, from $1.63 billion at December 31, 2024. The quarter’s increase consisted of a $15.45 million increase in certificates of deposit account balances, a $9.91 million increase in NOW checking account balances, a $4.90 million increase in non-interest bearing account balances, and a $1.01 million increase in savings account balances. These decreases were partially offset by a $10.86 million decrease in money market account balances.

Deposit Breakdown ($ in thousands)

	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
	Amount		Percent	Amount		Percent	Amount		Percent
Non-interest-bearing demand	$	407,811	25%	$	402,911	25%	$	424,906	26%
NOW checking		333,325	20		323,412	20		336,621	20
Savings		207,857	13		206,845	13		211,085	13
Money market		300,552	18		311,413	19		311,994	19
Certificates of deposit under $250		227,137	14		212,764	13		190,762	12
Certificates of deposit $250 and over		124,009	7		122,997	7		118,698	7
Certificates of deposit – brokered		50,139	3		50,074	3		44,488	3
Total deposits	$	1,650,830	100%	$	1,630,416	100%	$	1,638,554	100%

Borrowings

Total borrowings were $20.00 million at both March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025, the weighted average rate on the borrowings was 3.97%.

Shareholders’ Equity and Capital Ratios

Total shareholders’ equity increased $3.32 million, or 1%, to $252.52 million at March 31, 2025, from $249.20 million at December 31, 2024, and increased $13.84 million, or 6%, from $238.68 million at March 31, 2024. The quarter’s increase in shareholders’ equity was primarily due to net income of $6.76 million, which was partially offset by the payment of $1.99 million in dividends to shareholders and the repurchase of 61,764 shares of common stock for $1.91 million (an average price of $30.85 per share). There were 65,995 shares available to be repurchased in accordance with the terms of its existing stock repurchase plan at March 31, 2025.

Timberland remains well capitalized with a total risk-based capital ratio of 20.29%, a Tier 1 leverage capital ratio of 12.55%, a tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio (non-GAAP) of 12.36%, and a shareholders’ equity to total assets ratio of 13.07% at March 31, 2025. Timberland’s held to maturity investment securities were $140.95 million at March 31, 2025, with a net unrealized loss of $6.62 million (pre-tax). Although not permitted by U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), including these unrealized losses in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (“AOCI”) would result in a ratio of shareholders’ equity to total assets of 12.83%, compared to 13.07%, as reported.

Asset Quality

Timberland’s non-performing assets to total assets ratio improved to 0.13% at March 31, 2025, compared to 0.16% at December 31, 2024 and 0.19% at March 31, 2024. Net charge-offs totaled less than $1,000 for the current quarter compared to net charge-offs of $242,000 for the preceding quarter and net charge-offs of $3,000 for the comparable quarter one year ago. During the current quarter, provisions for credit losses of $237,000 on loans and $14,000 unfunded commitments were made, which was partially offset by a $5,000 recapture of credit losses on investment securities. The allowance for credit losses (“ACL”) for loans as a percentage of loans receivable was 1.22% at March 31, 2025, compared to 1.21% at December 31, 2024 and 1.22% one year ago.

Total delinquent loans (past due 30 days or more) and non-accrual loans decreased $697,000 or 17%, to $3.32 million at March 31, 2025, from $4.02 million at December 31, 2024 and decreased $879,000, or 21%, from $4.20 million at March 31, 2024. Non-accrual loans decreased $406,000, or 15%, to $2.33 million at March 31, 2025 from $2.73 million at December 31, 2024 and decreased $1.28 million, or 35%, from $3.61 million at March 31, 2024. The quarterly decrease in non-accrual loans was primarily due to decreases in commercial business loans and commercial real estate loans on non-accrual status. Loans graded “Substandard”, however, increased to $23.51 million at March 31, 2025 from $2.12 million at December 31, 2024 and $8.42 million at March 31, 2024. The increase in loans graded “Substandard” was primarily a result of two loans (totaling $21.30 million) to one borrowing relationship being downgraded during the March 31, 2025 quarter. Both of these loans are performing and Timberland remains well collateralized (based on recent appraisals), but the loans were downgraded primarily because the borrower is experiencing a legal issue stemming from an unrelated project.

Non-Accrual Loans
($ in thousands)

	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
	Amount		Quantity	Amount		Quantity	Amount		Quantity
Mortgage loans:
One- to four-family	$	47	1	$	47	1	$	380	3
Commercial		324	3		698	5		1,149	3
Construction – custom and
owner/builder		—	—		—	—		152	1
Total mortgage loans		371	4		745	6		1,681	7

Consumer loans:
Home equity and second
mortgage		575	3		587	3		165	1
Other		—	—		—	—		—	—
Total consumer loans		575	3		587	3		165	1

Commercial business loans		1,381	11		1,401	11		1,759	6
Total loans	$	2,327	18	$	2,733	20	$	3,605	14

Timberland had two properties classified as other real estate owned (“OREO”) at March 31, 2025:

	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
	Amount		Quantity	Amount		Quantity	Amount		Quantity
Other real estate owned:
Commercial	$	221	1	$	221	1	$	—	—
Land		—	1		—	1		—	1
Total mortgage loans	$	221	2	$	221	2	$	—	1

About Timberland Bancorp, Inc.
Timberland Bancorp, Inc., a Washington corporation, is the holding company for Timberland Bank. The Bank opened for business in 1915 and primarily serves consumers and businesses across Grays Harbor, Thurston, Pierce, King, Kitsap and Lewis counties, Washington with a full range of lending and deposit services through its 23 branches (including its main office in Hoquiam).

Disclaimer

Certain matters discussed in this press release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements relate to our financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance or business. Forward-looking statements are not statements of historical fact, are based on certain assumptions and often include the words “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “forecasts,” “intends,” “plans,” “targets,” “potentially,” “probably,” “projects,” “outlook” or similar expressions or future or conditional verbs such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “would” and “could.” Forward-looking statements include statements with respect to our beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, expectations, assumptions and statements about future economic performance. These forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from the results anticipated or implied by our forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to: potential adverse impacts to economic conditions in our local market areas, other markets where the Company has lending relationships, or other aspects of the Company’s business operations or financial markets, including, without limitation, as a result of employment levels, labor shortages and the effects of inflation, a potential recession or slowed economic growth; continuing elevated levels of inflation and the impact of current and future monetary policies of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”) in response thereto; the effects of any federal government shutdown; credit risks of lending activities, including any deterioration in the housing and commercial real estate markets which may lead to increased losses and non-performing loans in our loan portfolio resulting in our ACL not being adequate to cover actual losses and thus requiring us to materially increase our ACL through the provision for credit losses; changes in general economic conditions, either nationally or in our market areas; changes in the levels of general interest rates, and the relative differences between short and long-term interest rates, deposit interest rates, our net interest margin and funding sources; fluctuations in the demand for loans, the number of unsold homes, land and other properties and fluctuations in real estate values in our market areas; secondary market conditions for loans and our ability to sell loans in the secondary market; results of examinations of us by the Federal Reserve and of our bank subsidiary by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banks or other regulatory authorities, including the possibility that any such regulatory authority may, among other things, institute a formal or informal enforcement action against us or our bank subsidiary which could require us to increase our ACL, write-down assets, change our regulatory capital position or affect our ability to borrow funds or maintain or increase deposits or impose additional requirements or restrictions on us, any of which could adversely affect our liquidity and earnings; the impact of bank failures or adverse developments at other banks and related negative press about the banking industry in general on investor and depositor sentiment; legislative or regulatory changes that adversely affect our business including changes in banking, securities and tax law, in regulatory policies and principles, or the interpretation of regulatory capital or other rules; our ability to attract and retain deposits; our ability to control operating costs and expenses; the use of estimates in determining fair value of certain of our assets, which estimates may prove to be incorrect and result in significant declines in valuation; difficulties in reducing risks associated with the loans in our consolidated balance sheet; staffing fluctuations in response to product demand or the implementation of corporate strategies that affect our work force and potential associated charges; disruptions, security breaches, or other adverse events, failures or interruptions in, or attacks on, our information technology systems or on the third-party vendors who perform several of our critical processing functions; our ability to retain key members of our senior management team; costs and effects of litigation, including settlements and judgments; our ability to implement our business strategies; our ability to manage loan delinquency rates; increased competitive pressures among financial services companies; changes in consumer spending, borrowing and savings habits; the availability of resources to address changes in laws, rules, or regulations or to respond to regulatory actions; our ability to pay dividends on our common stock; the quality and composition of our securities portfolio and the impact if any adverse changes in the securities markets, including on market liquidity; inability of key third-party providers to perform their obligations to us; changes in accounting policies and practices, as may be adopted by the financial institution regulatory agencies or the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), including additional guidance and interpretation on accounting issues and details of the implementation of new accounting methods; the economic impact of climate change, severe weather events, natural disasters, pandemics, epidemics and other public health crises, acts of war or terrorism, civil unrest and other external events on our business; other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory, and technological factors affecting our operations, pricing, products and services; and other risks described elsewhere in this press release and in the Company’s other reports filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Any of the forward-looking statements that we make in this press release and in the other public statements we make are based upon management’s beliefs and assumptions at the time they are made. We do not undertake and specifically disclaim any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements included in this press release to reflect the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events or circumstances after the date of such statements or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those contained in such statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking statements discussed in this document might not occur and we caution readers not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. These risks could cause our actual results for fiscal 2025 and beyond to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements by, or on behalf of, us, and could negatively affect the Company’s consolidated financial condition and results of operations as well as its stock price performance.

TIMBERLAND BANCORP INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME			Three Months Ended
($ in thousands, except per share amounts) (unaudited)			March 31,					Dec. 31						March 31,
			2025					2024						2024
	Interest and dividend income
	Loans receivable		$	20,896				$	21,032					$	18,909
	Investment securities			2,003					2,138						2,246
	Dividends from mutual funds, FHLB stock and other investments			82					86						82
	Interest bearing deposits in banks			1,884					2,001						1,919
	Total interest and dividend income			24,865					25,257						23,156

	Interest expense
	Deposits			7,454					8,084						7,301
	Borrowings			198					203						220
	Total interest expense			7,652					8,287						7,521
	Net interest income			17,213					16,970						15,635
	Provision for credit losses – loans			237					52						166
	Prov. for (recapture of) credit losses – investment securities			(5			)		(5		)				3
	Prov. for (recapture of ) credit losses – unfunded commitments			14					(20		)				(88	)
	Net int. income after provision for (recapture of) credit losses			16,967					16,943						15,554

	Non-interest income
	Service charges on deposits			959					999						988
	ATM and debit card interchange transaction fees			1,176					1,267						1,212
	Gain on sales of loans, net			122					43						41
	Bank owned life insurance (“BOLI”) net earnings			165					167						156
	Recoveries on investment securities, net			4					3						2
	Other			261					218						216
	Total non-interest income, net			2,687					2,697						2,615

	Non-interest expense
	Salaries and employee benefits			5,977					6,092						6,024
	Premises and equipment			1,075					950						1,081
	Advertising			189					181						159
	OREO and other repossessed assets, net			9					—						—
	ATM and debit card processing			521					521						601
	Postage and courier			142					121						145
	State and local taxes			335					346						325
	Professional fees			431					346						319
	FDIC insurance			219					210						206
	Loan administration and foreclosure			155					128						134
	Technology and communications			1,121					1,140						1,040
	Deposit operations			319					332						324
	Amortization of core deposit intangible (“CDI”)			45					45						57
	Other, net			656					655						576
	Total non-interest expense, net			11,194					11,067						10,991

	Income before income taxes			8,460					8,573						7,178
	Provision for income taxes			1,705					1,713						1,470
	Net income		$	6,755				$	6,860					$	5,708

	Net income per common share:
	Basic		$	0.85				$	0.86					$	0.71
	Diluted			0.85					0.86						0.70

	Weighted average common shares outstanding:
	Basic			7,937,063					7,958,275						8,081,924
	Diluted			7,968,632					7,999,504						8,121,109

TIMBERLAND BANCORP INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME			Six Months Ended
($ in thousands, except per share amounts) (unaudited)			March 31,											March 31,
			2025											2024
	Interest and dividend income
	Loans receivable		$	41,928										$	37,304
	Investment securities			4,141											4,556
	Dividends from mutual funds, FHLB stock and other investments			168											173
	Interest bearing deposits in banks			3,885											3,618
	Total interest and dividend income			50,122											45,651

	Interest expense
	Deposits			15,538											13,444
	Borrowings			402											568
	Total interest expense			15,940											14,012
	Net interest income			34,182											31,639
	Provision for credit losses – loans			289											545
	Recapture of credit losses – investment securities			(10			)								(7	)
	Recapture of credit losses – unfunded commitments			(7			)								(121	)
	Net int. income after provision for (recapture of) credit losses			33,910											31,222

	Non-interest income
	Service charges on deposits			1,958											2,011
	ATM and debit card interchange transaction fees			2,443											2,476
	Gain on sales of loans, net			165											120
	Bank owned life insurance (“BOLI”) net earnings			331											312
	Recoveries on investment securities, net			7											7
	Other			480											487
	Total non-interest income, net			5,384											5,413

	Non-interest expense
	Salaries and employee benefits			12,068											11,936
	Premises and equipment			2,025											2,054
	Advertising			370											345
	OREO and other repossessed assets, net			9											—
	ATM and debit card processing			1,043											1,216
	Postage and courier			264											271
	State and local taxes			680											644
	Professional fees			777											572
	FDIC insurance			429											416
	Loan administration and foreclosure			283											239
	Technology and communications			2,261											2,014
	Deposit operations			652											644
	Amortization of core deposit intangible (“CDI”)			90											113
	Other, net			1,309											1,151
	Total non-interest expense, net			22,260											21,615

	Income before income taxes			17,034											15,020
	Provision for income taxes			3,419											3,016
	Net income		$	13,615										$	12,004

	Net income per common share:
	Basic		$	1.71										$	1.48
	Diluted			1.71											1.47

	Weighted average common shares outstanding:
	Basic			7,947,786											8,098,155
	Diluted			7,984,238											8,143,701

TIMBERLAND BANCORP INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
($ in thousands, except per share amounts) (unaudited)			March 31,					Dec. 31,				March 31,
			2025					2024				2024
Assets
Cash and due from financial institutions			$		26,010			$	24,538			$	22,310
Interest-bearing deposits in banks					165,201				139,533				158,039
		Total cash and cash equivalents			191,211				164,071				180,349

Certificates of deposit (“CDs”) held for investment, at cost					8,711				7,470				11,204
Investment securities:
		Held to maturity, at amortized cost (net of ACL – investment securities)			140,954				156,105				211,818
		Available for sale, at fair value			84,807				77,080				61,746
Investments in equity securities, at fair value					853				840				839
FHLB stock					2,045				2,037				2,037
Other investments, at cost					3,000				3,000				3,000
Loans held for sale					1,151				411				1,311

Loans receivable					1,437,599				1,429,107				1,375,934
Less: ACL – loans					(17,525	)			(17,288	)			(16,818			)
		Net loans receivable			1,420,074				1,411,819				1,359,116

Premises and equipment, net					21,436				21,617				21,718
OREO and other repossessed assets, net					221				221				—
BOLI					23,942				23,777				23,278
Accrued interest receivable					7,127				7,095				7,108
Goodwill					15,131				15,131				15,131
CDI					361				406				564
Loan servicing rights, net					1,051				1,195				1,717
Operating lease right-of-use assets					1,324				1,400				1,624
Other assets					9,331				15,805				4,674
		Total assets	$		1,932,730				1,909,480			$	1,907,234

Liabilities and shareholders’ equity
Deposits: Non-interest-bearing demand			$		407,811				402,911			$	424,906
Deposits: Interest-bearing					1,243,019				1,227,505				1,213,648
		Total deposits			1,650,830				1,630,416				1,638,554

Operating lease liabilities					1,426				1,501				1,723
FHLB borrowings					20,000				20,000				20,000
Other liabilities and accrued expenses					7,950				8,364				8,278
		Total liabilities			1,680,206				1,660,281				1,668,555

Shareholders’ equity
Common stock, $.01 par value; 50,000,000 shares authorized;
7,903,489 shares issued and outstanding – March 31, 2025
7,954,673 shares issued and outstanding – December 31, 2024
8,023,121shares issued and outstanding – March 31, 2024					28,028				29,593				32,338
Retained earnings					225,166				220,398				207,086
Accumulated other comprehensive loss					(670	)			(792	)			(745			)
		Total shareholders’ equity			252,524				249,199				238,679
		Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$		1,932,730				1,909,480			$	1,907,234

	Three Months Ended
PERFORMANCE RATIOS:	March 31, 2025			Dec. 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Return on average assets (a)		1.43	%		1.41	%		1.22	%
Return on average equity (a)		10.95	%		11.03	%		9.67	%
Net interest margin (a)		3.79	%		3.64	%		3.48	%
Efficiency ratio		56.25	%		56.27	%		60.22	%

	Six Months Ended
	March 31, 2025						March 31, 2024
Return on average assets (a)		1.42	%					1.28	%
Return on average equity (a)		10.99	%					10.18	%
Net interest margin (a)		3.71	%					3.53	%
Efficiency ratio		56.26	%					58.34	%

	Three Months Ended
ASSET QUALITY RATIOS AND DATA: ($ in thousands)	March 31, 2025			Dec. 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Non-accrual loans	$	2,327		$	2,733		$	3,605
Loans past due 90 days and still accruing		—			—			—
Non-performing investment securities		41			45			79
OREO and other repossessed assets		221			221			—
Total non-performing assets (b)	$	2,589		$	2,999		$	3,684

Non-performing assets to total assets (b)		0.13	%		0.16	%		0.19	%
Net charge-offs during quarter	$	—		$	242		$	3
Allowance for credit losses – loans to non-accrual loans		753	%		633	%		467	%
Allowance for credit losses – loans to loans receivable (c)		1.22	%		1.21	%		1.22	%


CAPITAL RATIOS:
Tier 1 leverage capital		12.55	%		12.32	%		12.01	%
Tier 1 risk-based capital		19.04	%		18.69	%		18.08	%
Common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital		19.04	%		18.69	%		18.08	%
Total risk-based capital		20.29	%		19.95	%		19.33	%
Tangible common equity to tangible assets (non-GAAP)		12.36	%		12.34	%		11.79	%

BOOK VALUES:
Book value per common share	$	31.95		$	31.33		$	29.75
Tangible book value per common share (d)		29.99			29.37			27.79

________________________________________________

(a) Annualized
(b) Non-performing assets include non-accrual loans, loans past due 90 days and still accruing, non-performing investment securities and OREO and other repossessed assets.
(c) Does not include loans held for sale and is before the allowance for credit losses.
(d) Tangible common equity divided by common shares outstanding (non-GAAP).

AVERAGE BALANCES, YIELDS, AND RATES – QUARTERLY
($ in thousands)
(unaudited)

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31, 2025					December 31, 2024					March 31, 2024
	Amount			Rate		Amount			Rate		Amount			Rate

Assets
Loans receivable and loans held for sale	$	1,435,999		5.90	%	$	1,438,144		5.80	%	$	1,365,417		5.57	%
Investment securities and FHLB stock (1)		232,532		3.64			247,236		3.57			298,003		3.14

Interest-earning deposits in banks and CDs		172,175		4.44			166,764		4.76			143,121		5.39
Total interest-earning assets		1,840,706		5.48			1,852,144		5.42			1,806,541		5.16
Other assets		77,563					75,534					81,337
Total assets	$	1,918,269				$	1,927,678				$	1,887,878

Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity
NOW checking accounts	$	328,115		1.32	%	$	328,455		1.38	%	$	367,924		1.61	%
Money market accounts		306,137		3.18			324,424		3.42			270,623		3.14
Savings accounts		206,054		0.28			205,650		0.28			214,233		0.23
Certificates of deposit accounts		343,945		3.82			331,785		4.09			295,202		4.16
Brokered CDs		50,104		4.85			46,414		4.98			40,402		5.40
Total interest-bearing deposits		1,234,355		2.45			1,236,728		2.59			1,188,384		2.47
Borrowings		20,000		4.04			20,000		4.03			20,001		4.42
Total interest-bearing liabilities		1,254,355		2.47			1,256,728		2.62			1,208,385		2.50

Non-interest-bearing demand deposits		403,738					414,149					431,826
Other liabilities		10,064					10,146					10,182
Shareholders’ equity		250,112					246,655					237,485
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	1,918,269				$	1,927,678				$	1,887,878

Interest rate spread				3.01	%				2.80	%				2.66	%
Net interest margin (2)				3.79	%				3.64	%				3.48	%
Average interest-earning assets to
average interest-bearing liabilities		146.75	%				147.38	%				149.50	%

_____________________________________
(1) Includes other investments
(2) Net interest margin = annualized net interest income / average interest-earning assets

AVERAGE BALANCES, YIELDS, AND RATES
($ in thousands)
(unaudited)

	For the Six Months Ended
	March 31, 2025					March 31, 2024
	Amount			Rate		Amount			Rate

Assets
Loans receivable and loans held for sale	$	1,437,081		5.85	%	$	1,349,105		5.53	%
Investment securities and FHLB stock (1)		239,966		3.60			307,636		3.08
Interest-earning deposits in banks and CDs		169,444		4.60			134,643		5.37
Total interest-earning assets		1,846,491		5.44			1,791,384		5.10
Other assets		76,535					81,473
Total assets	$	1,923,026				$	1,872,857

Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity
NOW checking accounts	$	328,287		1.35	%	$	372,327		1.56	%
Money market accounts		315,381		3.31			247,656		2.78
Savings accounts		205,849		0.28			217,153		0.23
Certificates of deposit accounts		337,798		3.95			281,842		4.07
Brokered CDs		48,239		4.91			41,570		5.39
Total interest-bearing deposits		1,235,554		2.52			1,160,548		2.32
Borrowings		20,000		4.02			24,427		4.65
Total interest-bearing liabilities		1,255,554		2.55			1,184,975		2.37

Non-interest-bearing demand deposits		409,000					440,976
Other liabilities		10,107					11,035
Shareholders’ equity		248,365					235,871
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	1,923,026				$	1,872,857

Interest rate spread				2.89	%				2.73	%
Net interest margin (2)				3.71	%				3.53	%
Average interest-earning assets to
average interest-bearing liabilities		147.07	%				151.17	%

_____________________________________
(1) Includes other investments
(2) Net interest margin = annualized net interest income / average interest-earning assets

Non-GAAP Financial Measures
In addition to results presented in accordance with GAAP, this press release contains certain non-GAAP financial measures. Timberland believes that certain non-GAAP financial measures provide investors with information useful in understanding the Company’s financial performance; however, readers of this report are urged to review these non-GAAP financial measures in conjunction with GAAP results as reported.

Financial measures that exclude intangible assets are non-GAAP measures. To provide investors with a broader understanding of capital adequacy, Timberland provides non-GAAP financial measures for tangible common equity, along with the GAAP measure. Tangible common equity is calculated as shareholders’ equity less goodwill and CDI. In addition, tangible assets equal total assets less goodwill and CDI.

The following table provides a reconciliation of ending shareholders’ equity (GAAP) to ending tangible shareholders’ equity (non-GAAP) and ending total assets (GAAP) to ending tangible assets (non-GAAP).

($ in thousands)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024

Shareholders’ equity	$	252,524		$	249,199		$	238,679
Less goodwill and CDI		(15,492	)		(15,537	)		(15,695	)
Tangible common equity	$	237,032		$	233,662		$	222,984

Total assets	$	1,932,730		$	1,909,480		$	1,907,234
Less goodwill and CDI		(15,492	)		(15,537	)		(15,695	)
Tangible assets	$	1,917,238		$	1,893,943		$	1,891,539

Contact:	Dean J. Brydon, CEO
	Jonathan A. Fischer, President & COO
	Marci A. Basich, CFO
	(360) 533-4747
	www.timberlandbank.com

The MIL Network –

April 23, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Klobuchar, Coons, Blackburn and Colleagues Reintroduce Bipartisan NO FAKES Act
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chris Coons (D-DE), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Thom Tillis (R-NC), joined by U.S. Representatives Maria Salazar (R-FL) and Madeline Dean (D-PA), reintroduced the bipartisan Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act. This legislation aims to protect Americans’ voice and likeness and combat the proliferation of AI deepfakes.

“Americans from all walks of life are increasingly seeing AI being used to create deepfakes in ads, images, music, and videos without their consent,” said Senator Klobuchar. “We need our laws to be as sophisticated as this quickly advancing technology. Our bipartisan NO FAKES Act will establish rules of the road to protect people from having their voice and likeness replicated through AI without their permission.”

“Nobody—whether they’re Tom Hanks or an 8th grader just trying to be a kid—should worry about someone stealing their voice and likeness,” said Senator Coons. “Incredible technology like AI can help us push the limits of human creativity, but only if we protect Americans from those who would use it to harm our communities.”

“Tennessee is known around the world for its rich music history and is home to an incredibly talented creative community,” said Senator Blackburn. “Artists’ rights to their voice, image, and likeness must be protected under the law, and the NO FAKES Act is an important first step in protecting our creative community against the misuse of generative AI.”

The NO FAKES Act would:
- Create a property right in a person’s AI-generated digital replica;
- Hold individuals or companies liable if they produce an unauthorized digital replica of an individual;
- Establish a notice-and-takedown process so victims of unauthorized deepfakes have an avenue to get online platforms to take down the deepfake;
- Exclude certain digital replicas from coverage based on recognized First Amendment protections;
- Largely preempt State laws addressing digital replicas to create a workable national standard.
This legislation is endorsed by the Recording Industry Association of America; Motion Picture Association; SAG-AFTRA; YouTube; Recording Academy; OpenAI; Warner Music Group; Universal Music Group; Sony Music; The Walt Disney Company; IBM; Vermillio; Hive; Independent Film & Television Alliance; American Bar Association; WME; Creative Artists Agency; Human Artistry Campaign; National Association of Broadcasters; Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO (DPE); the Model Alliance; ASCAP; Nashville Songwriters Association International; the Authors Guild; the National Center on Sexual Exploitation; Television Academy; Enough is Enough; American Association of Independent Music; and more.

Klobuchar and Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN Act, which would criminalize the publication of non-consensual intimate imagery and establish a notice-and-takedown regime to require online platforms to remove these images, unanimously passed the Senate in February 2025 and passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this week.
MIL OSI USA News –
April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Kugler, Transmission of Monetary Policy

Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

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

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

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Pamela Bondi Hosts First Task Force Meeting to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government
Source: US State of California

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

The witnesses included:

Michael Farris: First Amendment Litigator and Founding President of Patrick Henry College
- Farris spoke on behalf of Senior Pastor Gary Hamrick to discuss how Cornerstone Church was under investigation and charged by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for so-called Johnson Amendment violations. Farris is an elder at the church, previously led Alliance Defending Freedom, and served as counsel on this case.
Dr. Scott Hicks: Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Liberty University
- Hicks described how Liberty University and Grand Canyon University were singled out by the Biden Administration for fines due to the schools’ Christian worldview.
Phil Mendes: Navy Seal
- Mendes was relieved of duty during Biden Administration for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine due to religious exemption requests that were denied by the Department of Defense.
“As shown by our victims’ stories today, Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Thanks to President Trump, we have ended those abuses, and we will continue to work closely with every member of this Task Force to protect every American’s right to speak and worship freely.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIL OSI USA News –
April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Pamela Bondi Hosts First Task Force Meeting to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government
Source: United States Attorneys General 13

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

The witnesses included:

Michael Farris: First Amendment Litigator and Founding President of Patrick Henry College
- Farris spoke on behalf of Senior Pastor Gary Hamrick to discuss how Cornerstone Church was under investigation and charged by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for so-called Johnson Amendment violations. Farris is an elder at the church, previously led Alliance Defending Freedom, and served as counsel on this case.
Dr. Scott Hicks: Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Liberty University
- Hicks described how Liberty University and Grand Canyon University were singled out by the Biden Administration for fines due to the schools’ Christian worldview.
Phil Mendes: Navy Seal
- Mendes was relieved of duty during Biden Administration for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine due to religious exemption requests that were denied by the Department of Defense.
“As shown by our victims’ stories today, Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Thanks to President Trump, we have ended those abuses, and we will continue to work closely with every member of this Task Force to protect every American’s right to speak and worship freely.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIL Security OSI –
April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Chinese Nationals Sentenced to Federal Prison for Participating in a Fraudulent Gift Card Conspiracy Involving the Purchase and Export of Apple Products to China

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

CONCORD – Three Chinese nationals were sentenced in federal court for their roles in a sophisticated Chinese gift card fraud conspiracy, Acting U.S. Attorney Jay McCormack announces.

Naxin Wu, 26, a Chinese national unlawfully residing in Nashua, was sentenced by Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty to 33 months in prison and one year of supervised release. Mengying Jiang, 34, a Chinese national residing in Nashua, was sentenced by Chief Judge McCafferty to 60 months in prison and one year of supervised release. Mingdong Chen, 28, a Chinese national unlawfully residing in Brooklyn, New York, was sentenced by Judge Joseph N. Laplante to 24 months in prison and one year of supervised release. Earlier this year, the defendants each pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud. All three defendants face deportation to China after completing their sentences.

“The defendants played a critical role in laundering proceeds of romance and other online scams by purchasing the stolen gift cards and using them to purchase Apple products,” said Acting U.S. Attorney McCormack. “While they may not have committed the initial fraud, the defendants’ actions helped convert stolen funds into tangible goods, enabling a large-scale financial crimes conspiracy. We remain committed to dismantling every link in the fraud supply chain.”

“These individuals were part of a Chinese transnational criminal organization that used a complex scheme to steal and launder millions of dollars through gift card theft. After a sophisticated criminal investigation with our partners, their scheme was uncovered and their crimes brought to light. Now, they’ll serve federal prison sentences and face deportation back to China,” said Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations New England Michael J. Krol.

“The sentences imposed in New Hampshire emphasize the expansive reach of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service when it comes to dismantling criminal organizations. Anytime a criminal uses the U.S. Mail to further their illegal activity, postal inspectors will be there to bring them to justice. I’d like to thank our law enforcement partners involved in this case who, together with postal inspectors, brought these defendants to justice. This collaboration and dedication from law enforcement professionals plays a vital role in protecting the integrity of our communities from those who seek to exploit vulnerable Americans for personal gain,” said Ketty Larco-Ward, Inspector in Charge, U.S. Postal Inspection Service – Boston Division.

According to court documents, organized criminal elements in China acquired well over $100 million in gift cards through multiple fraudulent means. For example, gift card data is obtained by hacking U.S. companies, tampering with physical gift cards, and targeting U.S. citizens through romance and elder fraud schemes. The criminal elements then send the gift card data to multiple cells of Chinese nationals operating in the United States through a Chinese-based messaging platform in exchange for cryptocurrency.

Once U.S.-based cells receive the gift card data, they then spend the gift cards to purchase high-value electronics, principally Apple products. After purchasing the Apple products, cell members consolidate the electronics in warehouses for shipment to China, Hong Kong, or countries in Southeast Asia. The cells primarily operate in states with no sales tax, such as New Hampshire, to maximize their profits.

Wu, Jiang, and Chen were members of one cell in New Hampshire. Wu and Jiang purchased fraudulent gift cards at a discount from their face value. They then either personally used the cards or disseminated them to others, including Chen, to use. Wu was responsible for $1.4 million, Jiang for $3 million, and Chen for $400,000 of fraudulent gift cards.

Homeland Security Investigations, Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Concord Police Department led the investigation. The Merrimack County Attorney’s Office provided valuable assistance. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander S. Chen prosecuted the case.

This effort is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).

###

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Illegal alien sent to federal prison for assaulting law enforcement

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

LAREDO, Texas – A 27-year-old Mexican national unlawfully residing in Laredo has been sentenced for assaulting and inflicting bodily harm on a Border Patrol (BP) agent, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

Guillermo Osto-Navarrete pleaded guilty Feb. 4.

U.S. District Judge Diana Saldaña has now ordered Osto-Navarrete to serve 24 months in federal prison. Not a U.S. citizen, he is expected to face removal proceedings following his imprisonment. At the hearing, the court noted it was a “miracle” that Osto-Navarette did not get someone seriously injured during the high-speed chase, further commenting about how he fought with law enforcement and later ran from the hospital while handcuffed. In imposing the sentence, Judge Saldaña said he needed to be deterred and should not be in the United States.

“Federal, state, and local law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect the citizens of our communities, and violence against them will earn the strongest possible response from the Southern District of Texas,” said Ganjei. “Additionally, the citizens of Laredo are fortunate that Osto-Navarrete did not kill or seriously injure any innocent bystanders or other drivers during his failed escape from law enforcement. He will now pay for the danger he put the police and community in.”

On Oct. 14, 2024, Osto-Navarrete picked up several illegal aliens after they exited and ran from the Rio Grande River. Law enforcement attempted to block his vehicle, but he evaded and sped through a residential area without headlights. After running multiple stop signs at an estimated 60 mph, he broadsided a Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) unit, causing it to spin 180 degrees.

Nearby law enforcement quickly apprehended three individuals who had tried to flee.

A BP agent rushed to assist Osto-Navarrete and check for injuries. As he approached, Osto-Navarrete exited the vehicle and struck him. The agent wrapped his arms around Osto-Navarette to keep him from running away, but he struck the agent’s face and head several times in rapid succession while the agent was standing and after falling to the ground.

Osto-Navarette fled, but law enforcement quickly located him and took him into custody. After receiving treatment at a local hospital, he escaped again on foot, but authorities soon captured him again.

Osto-Navarrete admitted he was paid $50 for picking up and transporting the illegal aliens.

The agent sustained a black eye, bruising to his head and face, scratches to his chin, lacerations on his hands–including a deep cut to one finger–and a scraped knee. The DPS officer driving the unit Osto-Navarrete struck received medical attention for minor injuries.

Osto-Navarrete has been and will remain in custody pending transfer to a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

FBI conducted the investigation with the assistance of BP, DPS and Laredo Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Homero Ramirez prosecuted the case.

This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and Project Safe Neighborhood.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: L.A. Pawn Shop Owner Indicted for Allegedly Conspiring to Sell Stolen Andy Warhol Trial Proof and Lying to the FBI About Its Sale

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

LOS ANGELES – The owner of a pawn shop in the Mid-City area of Los Angeles was indicted today for allegedly conspiring to sell a stolen Andy Warhol print trial proof, which was shipped from the Beverly Hills office of an auction house to Dallas, then lying about it to federal agents.

Glenn Steven Bednarsh, 58, of Farmington, Michigan and formerly of Beverly Hills, is charged in a two-count federal grand jury indictment with conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen goods.

He is expected to be arraigned in the coming weeks in United States District Court in downtown Los Angeles.

According to the indictment, in February 2021, Bednarsh knowingly purchased for $6,000 a stolen Warhol trial proof depicting Russian revolutionary and Soviet Union leader Vladimir Lenin, which is worth an estimated $175,000. Bednarsh allegedly asked a co-conspirator, Brian Alec Light, 58, of Hudson, Ohio, and formerly a resident of downtown Los Angeles, to help him sell the stolen Warhol Lenin trial proof. Light then contacted the Beverly Hills of an auction house based in Dallas about selling the Warhol trial proof.

In March 2021, Bednarsh transported the trial proof to the Beverly Hills office of the auction house, which then shipped it to Dallas. Light e-signed an auction house consignment agreement and called the auction house to state he had dropped off the trial proof and to ask about receiving a cash advance for it.

An employee of the auction house in Dallas reached out to the gallery in West Hollywood for its opinion of the piece, according to court documents. The gallery immediately recognized the piece as stolen, then notified the auction house and the FBI.

Later in March 2021, when FBI agents began inquiring about the stolen Warhol trial proof, Light lied to them by saying he bought it at a Culver City garage sale for $18,000 and provided a fake receipt.

In August and September of 2021, Bednarsh lied to FBI agents by telling them Light asked him to store the Warhol Lenin trial proof for him and that he agreed to do so out of friendship and not for financial gain.

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

Light pleaded guilty in November 2024 to one count of interstate transportation of stolen goods. His sentencing is currently set for May 27, and he faces up to 10 years in federal prison.

The FBI’s Art Crime Team is investigating this matter.

Assistant United States Attorneys Erik M. Silber of the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section and Matthew W. O’Brien of the Environmental Crime and Consumer Protection Section are prosecuting this case.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025

Category: housing

State of play

Target seats

Chances elsewhere

Numbers game

Trump’s US ratings have fallen well below net zero

Australians know little about the ADF’s role

Support for increasing defence spending is mixed

Most still support the US, despite Trump

The climbing Greens vote

Capturing young hearts and minds

Not doing enough

Divided by gender

What is ‘responsible gambling’?

How it all began

Stacking the odds

The blame game

Ideas for the future

A long overdue change

From tin sheds, red brick buildings to weatherboard structures and ex-army Nissen huts, the home base for CFA brigades across Victoria has evolved significantly over the last 80 years.

HSA

Broadband Fund

Recent decisions and ongoing consultations

Conclusion

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS

New smart appliance standards will help consumers save on bills

Notes to editors

Share this page

Updates to this page

In the letter, Durbin also leads his colleagues in a call to return Maryland father wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Kilmar Abrego Garcia

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS