NewzIntel.com

Category: Latin America

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Stands with Law Firm Targeted by Trump Administration

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James and a coalition of 20 other attorneys general today filed an amicus brief supporting the law firm Susman Godfrey against illegal attacks by the Trump administration. President Trump issued Executive Orders imposing severe sanctions against Susman Godfrey in retaliation for doing work disfavored by the Trump administration. Attorney General James and a coalition argue in their amicus brief submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the Executive Order violates the First Amendment, disregards the right to counsel, and undermines constitutional principles like the separation of powers.

    “The Trump administration cannot dictate which clients or issues law firms represent and support,” said Attorney General James. “These vindictive Executive Orders targeting law firms are a gross abuse of power and undermine our democracy and our Constitution. I will continue to use my voice and the force of my office to defend the rule of law and support the law firms bravely challenging these unjust attacks by the Trump administration.”

    President Trump has issued Executive Orders retaliating against law firms whose advocacy, clients, and personnel he dislikes. These orders require federal officials to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at the targeted law firms, to refuse to engage with or hire employees of these firms, and to deny the law firms’ personnel entry to federal buildings. The orders also direct federal contractors to disclose any business they do with the law firms so that agencies can terminate any contract with the firms. 

    Susman Godfrey was named in one of these retaliatory executive orders in early April. Susman obtained temporary injunctive relief earlier this month and is now asking a judge to permanently block the Executive Order against it. When granting the temporary injunctive relief, a federal judge said, “the Executive Order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm. And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.”

    In their amicus brief, the attorneys general argue that a fair and functioning judicial system depends on lawyers being willing to work on controversial cases or represent unpopular clients without fearing retribution by the government. The attorneys general further assert that the orders will harm the residents of their states by making it more difficult for many potential clients – especially those who currently rely on pro bono representation – to obtain legal services and vindicate their rights in court. 

    Today’s briefs are the latest efforts by Attorney General James to support the legal industry against unconstitutional attacks by the Trump administration. Earlier this month, Attorney General James and a coalition of attorneys general submitted amicus briefs in support of Jenner & Block LLP and WilmerHale LLP. In March, Attorney General James filed an amicus brief in support of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing today’s amicus briefs are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel Hall, Professor of Justice and Community Studies & Political Science, Miami University

    Free speech in the U.S. is being curtailed by the Trump administration. Malte Mueller, fStop/Getty Images

    Harvard University took the extraordinary step of suing the Trump administration on April 21, 2025, claiming that the pressure campaign mounted on the school by the president and his Cabinet to force viewpoint diversity on campus violated the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech.

    “Defendants’ actions are unlawful,” Harvard’s lawsuit states. “The First Amendment does not permit the Government to ‘interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance.’”

    Yet in his first term, President Donald J. Trump declared that free speech mattered.

    Trump issued the “Executive Order Restoring Free Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” on March 21, 2019. In it, he expressed the importance of free inquiry and open debate to education and directed federal officials to use the federal government’s funding of higher education to ensure that universities promote free inquiry.

    Channeling free-speech champions Benjamin Franklin and James Madison, Trump wrote that “free inquiry is an essential feature of our Nation’s democracy.”

    As a professor of constitutional, criminal and comparative law, and as a citizen who enjoys his liberty, I agree.

    Free speech is fundamental to human progress. Scientific, medical, technological and social advancements all rely on the free flow of information. Robust discussion and disagreement are equally important to maintaining a healthy constitutional republic.

    In the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

    The First Amendment’s free speech and press clauses protect all forms of expression – oral, print, digital and artistic – from governmental interference or punishment.

    Of the many types of speech, political speech is the most protected.

    On the first day of his second term in office, Trump issued another free speech executive order. It affirms the administration’s commitment to free speech, directs that tax money is not used to abridge free speech and instructs federal employees to “identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.”

    In a vacuum, Trump’s orders appear to bode well for free speech.

    But what is important is free speech reality, not rhetoric. Three months into his second term, where does Trump stand?

    The many interconnected orders, letters, statements and actions of Trump’s White House make an assessment of any positive effects difficult. On the other hand, the Trump administration has clearly violated and chilled free speech on many occasions.

    At his second inauguration, Donald Trump promised to ‘stop all government censorship’ and ‘bring back free speech.’

    Repression and retaliation

    Attempts to silence the president’s adversaries are developing as a pattern.

    Law firms and attorneys who have sued or prosecuted Trump, or represented his adversaries, have been targeted for retribution and concessions. It began with an executive order on March 6, 2025, directed at the U.S.-based global law firm Perkins Coie, which had once represented Trump’s opponent in the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton. A second order was issued on March 14, 2025, against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison because it once employed an attorney who investigated Trump. Subsequently, at least six other prominent law firms were also targeted.

    Several law firms acceded to the president’s demands, agreeing to accept clients without regard to political beliefs, to eliminate DEI practices, and to perform pro bono work valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars for causes Trump supports.

    The firms that didn’t accede to the president’s demands had their security clearances removed, access to federal buildings restricted, and were banned from working for federal agencies. A few of the firms that didn’t relent have won temporary injunctions barring the administration’s actions against them.

    The nonpartisan free speech advocacy organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression decried the orders as threatening the foundations of justice and free speech. In one of several challenges to these orders, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote on March 12, 2025, that Trump’s order appeared motivated by “retaliatory animus” and concluded that it “runs head on into the wall of First Amendment protections.” Two other federal courts reached similar conclusions.

    In the first three months of his second term, Trump withdrew Secret Service protection of several prominent critics who are former federal government officials, including John Bolton, a former Trump national security adviser. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, his top aide, Brian Hook, and former high-level health official Anthony Fauci also lost their security protection.

    It is hard to imagine that these decisions won’t have a profoundly chilling effect on potential critics of the president, especially since the revocations were publicly announced and each individual has been the subject of credible threats resulting from their governmental service.

    Targeting the press

    A similar pattern exists for journalists, where Trump is using his power to punish organizations whose reporting he doesn’t like.

    AP journalists were banned from the White House and Air Force One on Feb. 11, 2025, for refusing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, the new name Trump had ordered for the body of water. On April 9, 2025, this ban was found to violate the First Amendment by a judge nominated by Trump during his first term.

    Denouncing CNN and MSNBC as “illegal” and claiming they are paid political operatives, Trump suggested they should be investigated during a speech at the U.S. Department of Justice.

    Trump effectively closed Voice of America, after 83 years of continuous broadcasting, for being “anti-Trump” and radical in its views. By charter, the broadcaster represents “America, not any single segment of American society,” with “accurate, objective, and comprehensive” news and “a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions” through television, radio, internet, social media and satellite broadcasts to peoples around the world.

    The Federal Communications Commission has initiated regulatory actions against the licenses of several television stations for broadcasts that have been accused by the President of being anti-Trump or biased in favor of Kamala Harris. Early in the process, the outcomes of these actions are to be determined.

    Protesters in Somerville, Mass., on March 26, 2025, demand the release of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish student at Tufts University, whose recent arrest by federal agents is seen as an assault on free speech.
    AP Photo/Michael Casey

    Pressuring universities and students

    Other administration actions, I believe, raise serious free speech issues.

    Harvard isn’t the only university feeling pressure.

    The administration is threatening to withhold federal money from universities as a way to coerce many of them to comply with administration policies in ways that implicate free speech and in some instances violate legal processes for the withholding of federal support.

    Some of the Trump administration’s recent immigration enforcement efforts have targeted international students who are in the U.S. lawfully but who participated in Palestinian rights protests and disagreed with Israel’s actions during the war in Gaza.

    The administration claims that some students whose visas have been revoked were either Hamas supporters or violated criminal laws. The administration has also said that many students are being deported under broad authority the secretary of state has to deport those deemed a danger to national security.

    Democracy and free speech

    In the past decade, the U.S. has fallen in press freedom, rule of law and democratic governance, resulting in the classification of a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Intelligence Unit, a democratic watchdog. Unsurprisingly, there has been a simultaneous rise in public support for authoritarianism. These changes make support for free speech increasingly important.

    On March 4, 2025, Trump declared in a speech before a joint session of Congress that he “stopped all government censorship and brought free speech back to America.”

    The record doesn’t support this claim.

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

    – ref. Trump’s aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it – https://theconversation.com/trumps-aggressive-actions-against-free-speech-speak-a-lot-louder-than-his-words-defending-it-252706

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kaine, Colleagues Demand Trump Rescind Threat to Transfer Incarcerated U.S. Citizens to El Salvador Prison

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, (D-VA) and 25 of his Senate colleagues demanded in a letter to President Donald Trump that he immediately rescind the illegal and dangerous claim that he may transfer incarcerated U.S. citizens to a prison in El Salvador.

    In the letter, the senators also demanded that Trump follow U.S. law, adhere to all applicable court orders, and immediately facilitate the return to the U.S. of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Trump Administration illegally deported Abrego Garcia—a father in Maryland who was legally living in the U.S.—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,” wrote the senators.

    The senators continued, “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.”

    “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,” wrote the senators.

    “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,” the senators concluded. “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.”

    In addition to Kaine, the letter was led by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and 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), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Rev. 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).

    A copy of letter is available here and text is below.

    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,

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Washington state joins coalition of AGs supporting law firm singled out by executive order

    Source: Washington State News

    OLYMPIA — Attorney General Nick Brown has joined 20 other attorneys general in an amicus brief in support of law firm Susman Godfrey, which is challenging an unconstitutional presidential order issued as retribution against the firm for representing clients in the aftermath of the 2020 election and defending the integrity of that election.

    The order, similar to others targeting specific law firms for who they’ve represented, violates the firm’s rights to free speech, due process, and other constitutional protections.

    “The president’s order is illegal — yet again — and a direct attack on the right to legal representation,” Brown said. “The Constitution and America’s defining values of fairness are both at risk under these actions.”

    President Donald Trump has issued five executive orders retaliating against law firms whose advocacy, clients, and staff he dislikes. These orders require federal officials to suspend any active security clearances held by the law firms’ workers, to refuse to engage with or hire employees of these firms, and to deny the law firms’ personnel entry to federal buildings. The orders also direct federal contractors to disclose any business with the law firms so that agencies can terminate any such contracts. Four courts that have reviewed those orders found they are likely unconstitutional.

    Susman Godfrey, a law firm with an office in Seattle, was named in one of these retaliatory executive orders in early April. Susman obtained temporary injunctive relief earlier this month and is now asking a judge to permanently block the executive order against it.

    When granting the temporary injunctive relief, a federal judge said, “The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm. And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.”

    Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown and the other attorneys general note that a fair and functioning judicial system depends on lawyers being willing to work on controversial cases or represent unpopular clients without fearing retribution by the government. The attorneys general say the orders will harm their states’ residents by making it more difficult for many potential clients — especially those who currently rely on pro bono representation — to obtain legal services and vindicate their rights in court.

    The coalition was led by the attorneys general from Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Joining them in filing the briefs were Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

    The brief can be found here. More information about previous amicus briefs in support of other law firms are here and here. State attorneys general also wrote a letter to support the legal community, which can be found here.

    -30-

    Washington’s Attorney General serves the people and the state of Washington. As the state’s largest law firm, the Attorney General’s Office provides legal representation to every state agency, board, and commission in Washington. Additionally, the Office serves the people directly by enforcing consumer protection, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. The Office also prosecutes elder abuse, Medicaid fraud, and handles sexually violent predator cases in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.

    Media Contact:

    Email: press@atg.wa.gov

    Phone: (360) 753-2727

    General contacts: Click here

    Media Resource Guide & Attorney General’s Office FAQ

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Condemns Trump Administration Campaign to Silence Legal Sector, Files Brief in Support of Susman Godfrey

    Source: US State of California

    OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, along with 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in support of Susman Godfrey LLP’s lawsuit seeking to block the Trump Administration from retaliating against the firm and its attorneys. The Trump Administration’s actions against Susman Godfrey are part of a larger campaign by President Trump to silence lawyers and law firms that represent individuals and causes that he does not agree with. In the amicus brief, the attorneys general defend the rule of law and ask the court to permanently halt the Trump Administration’s retaliatory actions.

    “Everybody is entitled to legal access and vigorous representation without fear of retribution. The Trump Administration’s political attack on Susman Godfrey based on the clients and ideas they represent is an attempt to silence people who challenge the President. If allowed to continue, this will have an immediate chilling effect on attorneys nationwide, making it harder for lawyers to provide the critical legal services on which our courts and residents depend,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Along with my fellow attorneys general, I proudly stand in support of Susman Godfrey and all other law firms whose free speech rights are being targeted and strongly condemn President Trump’s effort to silence those he disagrees with.”

    Over the past two months, President Trump has issued an unprecedented series of executive orders imposing severe sanctions on law firms whose advocacy, clients, and lawyers he dislikes. Earlier this month, the Trump Administration issued an executive order targeting Susman Godfrey, which sued Fox News for alleged election-related lies. The order strips the firm of active security clearances and terminates federal contracts with the firm and its clients, among other things. Susman Godfrey sued to halt enforcement of the order targeting their firm, citing violations of free speech and unconstitutional interference with the rights of their clients to select lawyers of their choosing.  

    In the brief, the attorneys general argue that by retaliating against Susman Godfrey and discriminating based on viewpoint, the Trump Administration is violating the First Amendment and ask the court to permanently halt the Trump Administration’s retaliatory actions. The attorneys general make the point that a well-functioning judicial system depends on the willingness of lawyers to take on difficult cases or unpopular clients without retribution by their government. Any attempts to deter lawyers from representing the full spectrum of clients and causes would undermine judicial systems across the country.  

    Attorney General Bonta has vigorously called out President Trump’s assault on the rule of law. Last month, Attorney General Bonta, along with 20 other state attorneys general issued an open letter urging the legal community to stand together in defense of the rule of law in response to President Trump’s recent attacks, which include calls for the impeachment of federal judges and threats of retribution against law firms and attorneys who take or have taken positions in opposition to him or his Administration. Attorney General Bonta also issued a separate statement on the need to speak up and push back when our democratic norms are violated, our legal system undermined, and our laws broken. Attorney General Bonta has filed amicus briefs in support of Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block, law firms that have also been targeted by the Trump Administration over their representation of clients or positions President Trump disagrees with.   

    In filing the brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. 

    A copy of the brief can be found here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Founder and Former CEO of Biscayne Capital Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for $130M Fraud Scheme

    Source: US State of California

    Roberto Gustavo Cortes Ripalda (Cortes), 58, the co-founder, co-owner, and CEO of international advisory firm Biscayne Capital, was sentenced earlier today in Brooklyn, New York to 10 years in prison for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Cortes pleaded guilty to the charge in September 2023. Cortes was also ordered to pay $3.4 million in forfeiture and $103million in restitution to over 110 victims.

    “For more than five years, Roberto Cortes and his co-conspirators ran Biscayne Capital as a Ponzi scheme, lying to investors — including the defendant’s own friends and family members — and ultimately causing more than $155 million in investor losses,” said Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The sentence will hold Cortes accountable for his years of lies and deception. Thank you to our partners for their hard work and collaboration to achieve this result.”   

    “Today’s sentence reflects the seriousness of Roberto Cortes’s criminal conduct in orchestrating a years-long scheme with his co-conspirators to prop up a failing business while defrauding Biscayne Capital investors and clients around the globe,” said U.S. Attorney John J. Durham for the Eastern District of New York. “Using illegal Ponzi payments to their victims, Cortes and his co-conspirators were able to disguise and perpetuate this scheme for years until Biscayne Capital finally collapsed under the defendants’ lies. Today’s sentence demonstrates our Office’s commitment to holding accountable investment professionals who abuse the trust of their clients for personal profit.”

    “Regardless of the complexity of the investigation, IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agents and our law enforcement partners will utilize their skills and unique authorities to hold bad actors like the defendant accountable,” stated IRS-CI Executive Special Agent in Charge Kareem A. Carter.  “This was a brazen scheme of staggering proportions. Mr. Cortes and his co-conspirators prioritized their own greed, stealing $155 million from investors. Today’s sentencing sends a clear message that we remain vigilant and will vigorously pursue those who attempt to enrich themselves through fraudulent means.”

    According to court filings, Cortes and his co-defendant Ernesto Heraclito Weisson Pazmino (Weisson) founded Biscayne Capital in 2005 to support the financing of South Bay, their real estate development business focused on acquiring and demolishing properties to build luxury homes. After South Bay began experiencing financial trouble in 2007, Cortes and Weisson recruited investors to inject funds into South Bay’s operations. Rather than using those investor funds to fund South Bay’s real estate development projects, Cortes, Weisson, and their co-conspirators used the bulk of the funds to pay outstanding interest and principal debt obligations to other investors.

    Cortes and his co-conspirators took numerous steps to perpetuate and conceal the scheme, including distributing investment documents with false and misleading information, deceiving investors about the purpose, risk, return, and security of their investments, and creating and sending fake account statements to unsuspecting clients to conceal the scheme.  By the time the Biscayne Capital/South Bay Ponzi scheme collapsed and Biscayne Capital went into liquidation, Biscayne Capital clients had lost over $155 million.

    IRS-CI investigated the case.

    Bank Integrity Unit Deputy Chief Randall Warden and Trial Attorney Morgan Cohen of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Drew Rolle and Benjamin Weintraub for the Eastern District of New York are prosecuting the case. Trial Attorney Brandon Burkart of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section assisted with the investigation.

    The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided significant assistance in securing the arrest and extradition from Spain and obtaining evidence in this case. The Department of Justice also thanks the Governments of the Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Ecuador, Spain and Switzerland for their valuable support.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Founder and Former CEO of Biscayne Capital Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for $130M Fraud Scheme

    Source: United States Attorneys General 1

    Roberto Gustavo Cortes Ripalda (Cortes), 58, the co-founder, co-owner, and CEO of international advisory firm Biscayne Capital, was sentenced earlier today in Brooklyn, New York to 10 years in prison for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Cortes pleaded guilty to the charge in September 2023. Cortes was also ordered to pay $3.4 million in forfeiture and $103million in restitution to over 110 victims.

    “For more than five years, Roberto Cortes and his co-conspirators ran Biscayne Capital as a Ponzi scheme, lying to investors — including the defendant’s own friends and family members — and ultimately causing more than $155 million in investor losses,” said Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The sentence will hold Cortes accountable for his years of lies and deception. Thank you to our partners for their hard work and collaboration to achieve this result.”   

    “Today’s sentence reflects the seriousness of Roberto Cortes’s criminal conduct in orchestrating a years-long scheme with his co-conspirators to prop up a failing business while defrauding Biscayne Capital investors and clients around the globe,” said U.S. Attorney John J. Durham for the Eastern District of New York. “Using illegal Ponzi payments to their victims, Cortes and his co-conspirators were able to disguise and perpetuate this scheme for years until Biscayne Capital finally collapsed under the defendants’ lies. Today’s sentence demonstrates our Office’s commitment to holding accountable investment professionals who abuse the trust of their clients for personal profit.”

    “Regardless of the complexity of the investigation, IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agents and our law enforcement partners will utilize their skills and unique authorities to hold bad actors like the defendant accountable,” stated IRS-CI Executive Special Agent in Charge Kareem A. Carter.  “This was a brazen scheme of staggering proportions. Mr. Cortes and his co-conspirators prioritized their own greed, stealing $155 million from investors. Today’s sentencing sends a clear message that we remain vigilant and will vigorously pursue those who attempt to enrich themselves through fraudulent means.”

    According to court filings, Cortes and his co-defendant Ernesto Heraclito Weisson Pazmino (Weisson) founded Biscayne Capital in 2005 to support the financing of South Bay, their real estate development business focused on acquiring and demolishing properties to build luxury homes. After South Bay began experiencing financial trouble in 2007, Cortes and Weisson recruited investors to inject funds into South Bay’s operations. Rather than using those investor funds to fund South Bay’s real estate development projects, Cortes, Weisson, and their co-conspirators used the bulk of the funds to pay outstanding interest and principal debt obligations to other investors.

    Cortes and his co-conspirators took numerous steps to perpetuate and conceal the scheme, including distributing investment documents with false and misleading information, deceiving investors about the purpose, risk, return, and security of their investments, and creating and sending fake account statements to unsuspecting clients to conceal the scheme.  By the time the Biscayne Capital/South Bay Ponzi scheme collapsed and Biscayne Capital went into liquidation, Biscayne Capital clients had lost over $155 million.

    IRS-CI investigated the case.

    Bank Integrity Unit Deputy Chief Randall Warden and Trial Attorney Morgan Cohen of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Drew Rolle and Benjamin Weintraub for the Eastern District of New York are prosecuting the case. Trial Attorney Brandon Burkart of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section assisted with the investigation.

    The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided significant assistance in securing the arrest and extradition from Spain and obtaining evidence in this case. The Department of Justice also thanks the Governments of the Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Ecuador, Spain and Switzerland for their valuable support.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Holds Informal Meeting with States Parties to the Convention

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today held an informal meeting with States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

    Opening the meeting, Michal Balcerzak, Committee Chair, said this year was the sixtieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention.  This was a moment of reflection, not only on past achievements, but also on the current and future viability of the treaty body system. The Committee was facing turbulent times, and many challenges were undermining the realisation of human rights and racial equality.

    Mr. Balcerzak called on States parties to renew commitment to fully respect and effectively implement obligations under international human rights law, including the Convention.  Prompt action was needed to end current conflicts, address the root causes of racial discrimination, and prevent further human rights violations targeting people based on their national or ethnic origin and identity.

    Régine Esseneme, Committee Vice-Chair, said the Convention was adopted by the General Assembly in 1965 and entered into force in 1969.  It covered all areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms and had been ratified by 182 countries.  For several years, States parties had submitted fewer reports to the Committee, often choosing to combine reports over longer periods. 

    The discussion with States parties addressed topics including the liquidity crisis facing the Committee and the United Nations treaty body system, cooperation with the Committee, commemoration of the Convention’s sixtieth anniversary, the Committee’s simplified reporting and individual communications procedures, hybrid dialogues, and measures to prevent racial discrimination.

    Speaking in the discussion were Mexico, Finland, Belgium, Bolivia, Spain, Brazil, Venezuela, China and Cuba.

    The programme of work and other documents related to the Committee’s one hundred and fifteenth session can be found here.  Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.

    The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 25 April at 3 p.m. to hold a half-day general discussion on reparations for the injustices from the transatlantic trade of enslaved Africans, their treatment as chattel, and the ongoing harms to and crimes against people of African descent.

    Opening Statements

    MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, said this year was the sixtieth anniversary of the entry into force of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.  This was a moment of reflection, not only on past achievements, but also on the current and future viability of the treaty body system. The Committee was facing turbulent times, and many challenges were undermining the realisation of human rights and racial equality.

    In the last 60 years, there had been progress in the fight against racial discrimination.  However, progress had not occurred at the pace and to the extent needed and expected by marginalised groups and victims of racial discrimination, and today, there were serious risks of backsliding.  The Committee called on States parties to renew commitment to fully respect and effectively implement obligations under international human rights law, including the Convention.  Prompt action was needed to end current conflicts, address the root causes of racial discrimination, and prevent further human rights violations targeting people based on their national or ethnic origin and identity.

    The United Nations treaty body system was faced by an unprecedented crisis marked by acute financial and liquidity constraints.  These challenges struck at the very core of the Committee’s ability to carry out its mandate effectively.  The downsizing of resources had already begun to significantly impair the Committee’s work. Under the Convention, the expenses of the Committee were required to be borne by State parties.  The current situation raised serious concerns about the sustainability of this obligation.  The Committee was facing the real risk of reducing its activities, and, in a worst-case scenario, cancelling sessions due to lack of resources.  This year, the second and third sessions of the Committee were not yet confirmed.  Weakening of the Committee would not only weaken international human rights oversight but also send a troubling signal about the collective will to combat racial discrimination globally. 

    In addition, the Committee was increasingly impacted by a drop in timely reporting by States parties – a trend that undermined its ability to plan and hold dialogue sessions, notably for the years 2026 and 2027.  But despite these challenges, the Committee remained steadfast.  On average, it reviewed 18 State party reports per year, consistently worked to refine its methods of work, and continued to engage in meaningful, forward-looking initiatives in line with its mandate.

    This year marked the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention, which was adopted on 21 December 1965.  To mark this auspicious occasion, the Committee and its Secretariat were working in collaboration with partners on a year-long campaign throughout 2025.  The campaign highlighted the foundational importance of the Convention for the fight against racial discrimination, and focused attention on its continued relevance today.  It would stimulate discussions on effective practices to address structural and emerging challenges in preventing and combatting racial discrimination and aimed to renew the commitment for the effective implementation of the Convention. 

    The Committee encouraged all States parties to the Convention to contribute to the anniversary by taking concrete action to implement the Convention, including jointly with other States and stakeholders, at the local, national, regional or international levels. The Committee would hold a high-level commemorative event, tentatively scheduled to take place on 4 December 2025. The active support of States parties and all stakeholders in the organization of this event was crucial for its success.

    The Committee had adopted general recommendation 37 in 2024 on equality and freedom from racial discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to health.  This general recommendation clarified the obligations undertaken under the Convention regarding the right to health and provided guidance on measures to address concerns in line with the Convention. 

    Currently, the Committee was working with the Committee on Migrant Workers on a joint general recommendation on xenophobia; regional consultations were held last year to inform the drafting. It was also elaborating a general recommendation on reparations, which would provide guidance on the scope and content of the right to reparations under international human rights law, particularly concerning the harms of the forced capture of Africans, the transatlantic transport of those captives, their enslavement as chattel, and the massive and continuing harms suffered by their descendants.

    The Committee called on States parties to provide advice on how to address the unprecedented crisis affecting the treaty body system.

    RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Vice-Chair, said the Convention was adopted by the General Assembly in 1965 and entered into force in 1969.  It covered all areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms and had been ratified by 182 countries.  These States parties had committed to engaging in the Committee’s periodic review process, under which each State party was obliged to submit an initial report after one year of ratification and subsequent periodic reports every two years.  For several years however, States parties had submitted fewer reports to the Committee, often choosing to combine reports over longer periods. 

    Most States had submitted to the Committee’s simplified reporting procedure, but given its resource limitations, the Committee prioritised States with reports overdue by more than 10 years for this procedure.  Currently, 78 States parties had significant delays in the submission of reports.  The Committee sought States’ views on this issue and on methods of fostering collaboration with States parties to ensure that they honoured their commitments under the Convention.

    Discussion with States Parties

    In the ensuing discussion, representatives of States parties said, among other things, that the Convention, the first fundamental human rights treaty, was an essential tool for combatting racial discrimination.  Speakers expressed commitment to fulfilling their obligations under the Convention and eliminating racial discrimination, xenophobia and social exclusion, and to cooperating with the Committee.  They thanked the Committee for its work in eliminating racial discrimination. Cooperating with the Committee gave States the ability to ensure the highest possible implementation of the Convention.

    Many speakers said they would join in the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention, which offered an opportunity for renewing commitments under the Convention and addressing modern challenges related to racial discrimination, including hate speech, discrimination and xenophobic practices.  They expressed concern about the United Nations’ liquidity crisis, which impacted the Committee’s work.

    Speakers presented measures to prevent racial discrimination and promote racial equality; recognise the status and promote the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their participation in policy development; and participate in the Committee’s reporting procedure and follow-up on the recommendations of the Committee.

    Some speakers proposed that the Committee held hybrid meetings with States when necessary to promote the participation of civil servants with specific knowledge and civil society in States with limited resources.  One speaker called for the hybrid meeting tools used by the United Nations to guarantee the equal participation of all States.  Some speakers called on the Committee to strengthen its cooperation with regional mechanisms and other international bodies, including the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect.

    One speaker said that individual communications needed to be handled effectively.  How did the Committee monitor the implementation of its decision on individual communications?

    Some speakers noted that the Committee had decided to extend the simplified reporting procedure to all States parties, but at the same time requested many States to continue using the regular reporting procedure as their reports were not overdue by 10 years. Why had the Committee decided to do this?  The simplified reporting procedure would ease States’ reporting burden.  Without this procedure, future report submissions could be delayed, they said.  Other speakers, however, said that there were disadvantages to the simplified procedure, expressing support for the regular reporting procedure.  One speaker said that efforts to simplify reporting procedures needed to be balanced with efforts to establish a predictable reporting calendar.

    One speaker expressed concern regarding unilateral coercive measures and human rights violations against migrants, including their illegal deportation to other States.  Another speaker raised the issue of trans-Atlantic slavery, expressing support for a new United Nations instrument on the rights of people of African descent.

    Statements and Responses by Committee Experts

    MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, thanked States for the proposals they had put forward.  He said that the Committee offered the possibility of hybrid dialogues, which were not currently shortened compared to regular dialogues.  The Committee regretted that it did not have the possibility to hold hybrid meetings with other stakeholders.

    The simplified reporting procedure was a crucial issue.  There was a problem with this procedure in that it was not, in fact, simple from the perspective of the Committee and its secretariat.  If the Committee had more capacity to prepare lists of issues prior to reporting, it would have done so.

    The Chair encouraged States parties to engage in events to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention, information on which was available online.  He also called for further dialogue between the Committee and regional bodies.

    NOUREDDIN AMIR, Committee Expert, said that Committee Experts were elected by States every two years on a rolling basis.  They sought to achieve States’ aspirations to better fulfil their human rights obligations. The Committee was committed to combatting racism and injustice, which was everywhere.  It needed to promote discussions between belligerents in the wars that were currently raging.  Women and children were being killed in Palestine.  States needed to take responsibility for these issues, stop criminals, and seek justice for those whose voices were not heard.  The International Court of Justice needed to be able to condemn States that carried out forbidden acts against international law.

    STAMATIA STAVRINAKI, Committee Expert, said that the Committee’s individual communications procedure had not yet reached its full potential, as around one-third of States parties to the Convention had not accepted the procedure.  Last year, the Committee adopted decisions on 48 complaints and found violations in 27 of them.  The Committee advocated for this procedure, which created an opportunity to remedy harms caused by racial discrimination and to prevent future violations.  States parties could deploy junior professionals to support the Working Group on individual communications.  The Committee invited States to accept the individual communications procedure, which would reenforce their efforts to combat racial discrimination effectively.

    FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert, said that the Committee had strengthened its relationship with regional human rights mechanisms, contacting relevant regional bodies regarding their assessment of follow-up efforts to the Committee’s concluding observations.  The concluding observations contained recommendations for improving the implementation of the Convention, which were to be implemented within one year. States parties were required to submit follow-up reports on the implementation of these recommendations, but only one-third of States parties submitted reports, which often did not demonstrate sufficient implementation of the recommendations.  The Committee called on all States to submit these reports.

    VERENE ALBERTHA SHEPHERD, Committee Vice-Chair, expressed pleasure that several States parties from the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean region were attending the meeting. She was the only Expert on the Committee from this region.  She called on these States to promote the appointment of more Experts from the region. It was regrettable that some countries had difficulty in using hybrid tools offered for participation in dialogue, and that some non-governmental organizations could not attend meetings with the Committee.  The Committee would address these issues.

    Ms. Shepherd said that a second International Decade for People of African Descent had been established by the General Assembly.  She called on all States to participate in commemorations of the Decade.  The Committee used an intersectional lens when addressing racial discrimination to address issues such as gender.  In closing, she called on States to financially support the Committee to address its liquidity crisis.

    GAY MCDOUGALL, Committee Vice-Chair, said that the Committee had issued general recommendation 25 on gender, in which it committed to taking an intersectional approach to gender.  The Committee was also committed to assessing the relationship between racial discrimination and economic marginalisation. It was assessing opportunities for decent work for ethnic minorities, as well as access to education and other social services.

    The Committee was concerned by its shrinking resources and capacity to do its work.  It was in the worst situation of any treaty body in terms of resources.  Although it had one of the most ratified treaties, the Committee received among the lowest number of reports.  Why was this?

    RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Vice-Chair, said the legal basis for the presentation of reports was article nine, paragraph one of the Convention.  The purpose of the simplified reporting procedure was to encourage States to submit reports.  However, it had not led to an increase in the number of reports that the Committee received. The Committee was affected by a lack of human and financial resources.  The simplified reporting procedure was not simple for the Committee; it was thus the exception and not the rule.  States needed to respect their reporting obligations under the Convention.

    CHINSUNG CHUNG, Committee Expert, said the Committee and all nine treaty bodies had inter-State communications procedures.  The Committee had received and considered three inter-State communications, and amicable solutions to two of these complaints had been found.  A third communication had been received from the State of Palestine against Israel in 2018.  The Committee had issued six recommendations in relation to this communication.  What steps could the Committee take to ensure that its recommendations would be implemented? Ms. Chung encouraged States to cooperate with the inter-State communications procedure.

    IBRAHIMA GUISSE, Committee Expert, said that the Committee had set up an early warning mechanism to prevent existing issues from becoming conflicts.  The mechanism could intervene if there was a lack of legislation or mechanisms to prevent racial discrimination, or to react to discriminatory statements or actions.  The Committee had recently adopted decisions under this procedure related to Sudan and the State of Palestine, which had been cited by the International Court of Justice.  Most conflicts in the world stemmed from racial or religious issues.  The Committee could be a major force to prevent such crises, but it needed the support of States in this regard.

    BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert, commended the efforts of States parties to engage in dialogue with the Committee.  Some States had not come before the Committee for more than 20 years.  The simplified procedure was set up to assist such States. The Committee also had the power to examine States parties in the absence of a report if necessary and it had done so in the past.  It called on all States to help victims protected by the Convention and to engage in dialogue with the Committee.  States also needed to cooperate with civil society in preparation for dialogues. Some members of civil society who had cooperated with the Committee had been subjected to reprisals; the United Nations had no tolerance for this.

    PELA BOKER-WILSON, Committee Expert, said that reviews of some States parties showed a lack of collection of disaggregated data that allowed for a comparison of population groups. This entailed moving away from traditional data collection practices.  States parties were encouraged to collect data on sex, age, ethnicity, migration status, disability, religion and other distinctions.

    GÜN KUT, Committee Expert, thanked representatives of States parties for engaging with the Committee and expressing support for the Committee’s work.  The Committee was sensitive to States’ questions, demands and criticisms.  The success of the Committee depended on States parties’ will and contributions. The Committee needed regularity in the submission of reports and sufficient follow-up to the Committee’s recommendations, including through follow-up and periodic reports.  The Committee sought to improve its work, but this depended on securing sufficient meeting time and support for the Committee’s secretariat.  States needed to commit to sending reports on time and supporting the financial situation of treaty bodies.

    MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert, called on States to support the functioning of the Committee.

    YEUNG KAM JOHN YEUNG SIK YUEN, Committee Expert, said many States parties had not taken steps to criminalise hate speech.  Was this done deliberately to protect politicians?  When the Committee issued a decision on an individual communication, it left it to States parties involved to implement it.  The Committee took up implementation of these decisions in dialogues with States parties.

    Closing Remarks

    MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, thanked States parties for attending the meeting.  The Committee would do its best to address the issues raised in the dialogue.  It would work efficiently with States and ensure that it did not disappoint victims of racial discrimination.  The Chair called on States to encourage the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention across the world.  The Committee looked forward to further engagement with States in future.

    ___________

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

    CERD25.003E

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Commend Ukraine’s Presence Despite the Prevailing Circumstances, Raise Questions on the Treatment of Ukraine’s Indigenous Peoples and the Roma Population

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined twenty-fourth to twenty-sixth periodic reports of Ukraine.  Committee Experts congratulated the State party for appearing before the Committee despite prevailing circumstances, while raising questions on the treatment of Ukraine’s indigenous peoples and the Roma population. 

    A Committee Expert congratulated the Ukrainian delegation for making a laudable effort to assess the implementation of the Convention in the country, despite prevailing circumstances. Ukraine should be praised for this effort. 

    Chinsung Chung, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee noted that the State party adopted the law on indigenous peoples in 2021.  However, according to information before the Committee, the law only recognised Crimean Tatars, Karaims and Krymchaks as indigenous peoples in Ukraine, while excluding other groups, such as Hutsuls, Lemkos and Gagauz peoples.  Could the delegation provide clarifications on the law on indigenous peoples and how it aligned with international standards? What measures were in place to preserve and promote the identity, language and culture of all indigenous people under the jurisdiction of the State party?

    Ms. Chung also said that according to the representative of the Office of the Ombudsman of Ukraine, around 100,000 Roma became refugees, and around the same number of Ukrainian Roma became internally displaced persons.  Were accurate statistics available?  Did the State party find durable solutions for internally displaced Roma and take measures to ensure that they benefitted from assistance?  What were the State’s plans to include Roma people in recovery and reconstruction programmes?

    The delegation said in 2021, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted the law on indigenous peoples in Ukraine, which was developed through extensive consultations with indigenous groups and civil society, and represented the aspirations of these groups.  In addition, a draft law was developed on the status of the Crimean Tartar people which would be registered in Parliament in the near future. 

    Officially, Ukraine recognised three indigenous groups of peoples, including Crimean Tartars, Karaims and Krymchaks.  The Lemkos people were not considered a national minority group, but rather a cultural group.  The public broadcaster of Ukraine produced programmes for national minorities in their national languages, across broadcast, radio and digital formats. 

    Mr. Lossovskyi said in 2021, the Ukrainian Government approved the Roma strategy, and every two years action plans were prepared for its implementation.  The Roma community was a young community, one of the youngest among the national minorities in Ukraine.  It would be beneficial to use their innovation and abilities in the process of renovating Ukraine when the war was over.  The State was working on providing the Roma with more education. There were many grants provided to Roma for studying in universities. 

     

    Introducing the report, Ihor Lossovskyi, Deputy Head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience, said during the reporting period from 2014 to 2019, fundamental tragic changes took place in Ukraine, in particular the beginning of the Russian aggression.  At the height of the Russian invasion, in April 2022, Ukraine applied for membership in the European Union, and in June 2022, it received candidate status along with seven relevant recommendations in all spheres of human activity, including recommendation no. 7 on completion of the reform of legislation in the field of national minorities and interethnic relations. 

    To implement these recommendations, Ukraine developed and approved three laws, including the new law on national minorities (communities) of Ukraine, as well as 16 subordinate regulatory legal acts (bylaws) approved by the Government.

    In concluding remarks, Ibrahima Guisse, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for the dialogue held, particularly given the context.  War was ended through negotiation and diplomacy, not capitulation. It was hoped this would happen with Ukraine.  The fact that Ukraine was here before the Committee was an example of the State’s willingness to cooperate.

    In his concluding remarks, Mr. Lossovskyi thanked the Committee for their time and interest in the situation in Ukraine.  The Committee’s recommendations were very much appreciated. 

    The delegation of Ukraine consisted of representatives of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience; the Coordination Centre for Legal Aid Provision; the State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine; and the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Ukraine after the conclusion of its one hundred and fifteenth session on 9 May 2025.  The programme of work and other documents related to the session can be found here.  Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.

    The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 25 April at 3.p.m for a half day general discussion on reparations for the injustices from the transatlantic trade of enslaved Africans, their treatment as chattel, and the ongoing harms to and crimes against people of African descent.

    Report

    The Committee has before it the combined twenty-fourth to twenty-sixth periodic reports of Ukraine (CERD/C/UKR/24-26).

    Presentation of Report

    IHOR LOSSOVSKYI, Deputy Head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience, said during the reporting period from 2014 to 2019, fundamental tragic changes took place in Ukraine, in particular the beginning of the Russian aggression, Russia’s brazen destruction of international law, the occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, the occupation by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and terrorist organizations supported by it of certain parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as the financing by the Russian Federation of terrorist organizations of the occupation administrations. 

    Due to these circumstances, collecting information in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine was difficult. As a result of the temporary occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation, and the aggression of the Russian Federation in eastern Ukraine, ensuring the rights of minorities in these areas, especially Crimea, had sharply deteriorated.  Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and those who adhered to pro-Ukrainian views, were subject to discrimination in Crimea. 

    During the reporting period, important changes also took place in the religious sphere in Ukraine.  On 15 December 2018, the Unification Council was held, at which representatives of the three Orthodox Churches of Ukraine united into a single church structure, which was called the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine”, and the Metropolitan Epiphany of Kyiv and All Ukraine was elected as its primate.  As of the beginning of 2021, this church jurisdiction had 7,097 religious organizations on the territory of Ukraine, handled by 4,537 clergy. 

    The principles of preventing and combatting discrimination were defined by the 2012 law on the principles of preventing and combatting discrimination in Ukraine.  In May 2014, amendments were made to the law, which improved the legislative definition of discrimination.  In 2019, the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience was established to deal with State policy in the field of national minorities and interethnic relations, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion. 

    At the height of the Russian invasion, in April 2022, Ukraine applied for membership in the European Union, and in June 2022, it received candidate status along with seven relevant recommendations in all spheres of human activity, including recommendation no. 7 on completion of the reform of legislation in the field of national minorities and interethnic relations.  To implement these recommendations, Ukraine developed and approved three laws, including the new law on national minorities (communities) of Ukraine, as well as 16 subordinate regulatory legal acts (bylaws) approved by the Government. 

    The first stages of the negotiation process with the European Commission regarding Ukraine’s membership in the European Union took place, in particular, the screening of Ukrainian legislation for its compliance with European legislation.  The screening was provided under four subsections on judiciary and fundamental rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of religion; racism, xenophobia, hate speech; racial and ethnic discrimination, including Roma; and rights of national minorities. 

    Based on the results, the European Commission prepared a positive report on the state of Ukrainian legislation and its compliance with European legislation in October 2024.  The next stage of the negotiation process was the preparation of strategic documents, including an action plan to ensure the rights of national minorities in Ukraine, which were in the final stage of preparation. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    IBRAHIMA GUISSE, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, welcomed that Ukraine had a diverse and high-level delegation.  Ukraine’s presence before the Committee despite the difficult context in the country highlighted the country’s commitment to appear before the treaty bodies. Mr. Guisse then paid tribute to Pope Francis who had been a man of peace. 

    During the period under review, Ukraine had experienced deep upheavals, including the large-scale invasion in 2022, which had given rise to large-scale destruction, human loss and mass displacement. According to information before the Committee, the last census conducted in 2001 showed that the main minority groups included Russians, Belarusians, Moldovans, Crimean Tatars and Bulgarians. Ukraine also has smaller populations of Poles, Romanians, Armenians, Hungarians, Roma and other nationalities.  A subsequent census was supposed to be conducted in 2011, which was postponed until 2020, and had not taken place until now. 

    Other data was also not provided, and the Committee emphasised that the lack of statistics limited the ability to evaluate the enjoyment of different groups of their economic, social and cultural rights.  Were there plans to conduct the census based on the principle of self-identification? What were the measures planned to collect data on the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the different groups under the jurisdiction of the State party? 

    The Committee noted that the legal framework, particularly on principles of preventing and combatting discrimination in Ukraine, did not prohibit discrimination based on all grounds listed in the Convention, particularly national origin and descent.  Were there plans to amend and align the national legislation framework with article 1 of the Convention?  What measures were taken to ensure that the legislative framework prohibited intersecting forms of discrimination? 

    Could the delegation inform the Committee on the implementation of the national human rights strategy for 2015–2020 in 2015 and its action plan?  Was there a timeframe for developing and adopting a strategy on combatting racial discrimination?

    Could the delegation provide information on the mandate and activities of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience?  What were the measures to ensure the consultation and participation of groups vulnerable to racial discrimination in the work of the State Service?  Was the State party planning to establish a central mechanism to coordinate and monitor the implementation of measures designed to combat racial discrimination?

     

    The Committee was concerned that the legislative framework, including the Criminal Code, did not include a definition of all forms of discrimination, or a specific definition of hate speech or sanction for hate speech and crimes.  What measures were being undertaken to review and amend the legislative framework to prohibit all forms of racial discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes in accordance with the Convention? 

    Was the State party planning to amend its Criminal Code, particularly article 161, to remove the requirements and restrictive approach as recommended by the Committee in 2016?  What was the status of the draft law no. 5488 before the Parliament?  How were its provisions in line with the Convention?   

    Could information be provided on the legislative framework on combatting racial discrimination in political discourse, as well as information on complaints received, investigations initiated, and imposed sanctions in this field?  The Committee noted that the law on media included provisions on discrimination and incitement to hatred.  Could clarifications on the law and how its provisions aligned with the Convention be provided?  Could the delegation inform the Committee about measures taken to combat hate speech in the media and over the Internet?  Was there a designated entity to monitor hate speech or avenues to submit complaints by victims? 

    Responses by the Delegation 

    IHOR LOSSOVSKYI, Deputy Head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience, said unfortunately, the last census of Ukraine had taken place in 2001, which was 24 years ago.  There were several reasons for this, including two Ukrainian political revolutions during this time and the beginning of the war with Russia in 2014. The next census had been planned for 2023, but this had been postponed due to the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation in 2022.  It was impossible in current circumstances to hold another census. 

    Significant work in combatting racial discrimination had been undertaken in the past three to four years.  The State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience was established in 2019 and began its work in 2020. The institute directly dealt with issues of national minorities and ethnic policies and consisted of around 40 people. 

    Over the past couple of years, three laws had been adopted by the parliament, including the new law on national minority communities of Ukraine.  This new law was revolutionary, as it described the ethnic policy for Ukraine and prescribed tasks for the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience. According to the law, all those who considered themselves to be national minorities would be recognised by the State as such.  Ukraine had 130 national minorities, and the State took responsibility for all these communities. 

    There was a lack of strict definitions in Ukrainian laws around hate speech and hate crimes.  Ukrainian institutions were working hard to integrate these into Ukrainian legislation.  There was an interagency working group dealing with issues of discrimination, hate speech and hate crime. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    IBRAHIMA GUISSE, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, appreciated the answers given, noting the circumstances within the country.

    CHINSUNG CHUNG, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked for more details on the interagency working group to be provided?  Could more information on the national human rights institution be provided? 

    A Committee Expert said Ukraine’s non-compliance with article 4 was an ongoing issue.  It was strongly recommended that the State follow up on this. 

    Another Expert asked how effective the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience had been in protecting minority rights in Ukraine?  What was the level of participation of national minorities in consultations on State decisions?  Had there been any improvements based on these discussions? 

    A Committee Expert said the situation in Ukraine was incomprehensible.  What could be done about hate speech?  Did Russian people hate Ukrainian people?  Personally, the Expert did not feel this was the case. How could this explain why not everyone opposed the war which continued to take more lives?  While there was hatred, men would continue to wage war. 

     

    FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-Up Rapporteur, expressed gratitude to the State party for responding to the Committee’s request in the one-year time frame, however, many questions by the Committee were not addressed, nor were they provided in the current State report.  Could the State party provide the Committee with the previously requested information in paragraph 16 of the concluding observations? 

    Responses by the Delegation 

    IHOR LOSSOVSKYI, Deputy Head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience, said the questions about the war were philosophical.  This was an existential war for the Ukrainian nation. According to the Russian dictator, Ukrainians did not exist and needed to be re-educated.  To stop the war, the Russian dictator should provide a decree to forces to stop the fight and withdraw from the territory of Ukraine. 

    The Commissioner of Human Rights had a special department focusing on discrimination.  After the screening exercise with the European Union, Ukraine understood there were some gaps in its legislation, particularly when it came to definitions.  Many new laws and bylaws had been approved to fill these gaps, and this was a key focus of the State Service for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience. Communication with national minorities was a key step in this regard. 

    Around seven million Ukrainians had left Ukraine as refugees or moved around Ukraine as internally displaced persons. Many people treated the Roma community differently.  The national action plan for the Roma strategy to 2030 was evaluated every two years. Every year, many different roundtables and conferences were organised by the State on the Roma community. 

    Two forums had been organised for the different minorities to discuss any issues they had and how to address them. A forum was organised in Kiev with Polish national minorities, and another one with Greek national minorities. There was a strategy on the development of the Crimea Tartare language.  This year, work had also been finished on the new spelling of the Crimean Tartare language. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    CHINSUNG CHUNG, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked about concrete cases of racially motivated violence and racial profiling, and the measures taken to respond to these cases?  What measures had been taken for increasing public awareness-raising campaigns and other measures to counter incitement to hatred and hate crimes?  The Committee would also like to receive information on measures to prevent discriminatory violence by the police and other law enforcement officers; measures to ensure accountability for incidents of discriminatory violence; and data on these kinds of incidents?

    The Committee was concerned about racist hate speech and discriminatory statements in the public discourse, including by public and political figures and in the media.  How did these victims address their cases, and how effectively were these cases treated?  How many complaints had been received in the last five years, and what was the number of investigations initiated, cases considered before courts, and sanctions imposed on perpetrators?  Could detailed information be provided on complaints registered with the courts, or any other national institution, including the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, concerning acts of racial discrimination, racist hate speech and racist hate crimes?

    According to information before the Committee, there were gaps in the implementation of the legal framework, including the lack of specialisation among law enforcement officials and lack of operational standards to handle, register and investigate complaints of racial discrimination and hate crimes.  What measures were being taken to address these concerns, particularly to enhance the capacity of law enforcement officials in handling and investigating complaints related to racial discrimination and hate speech? 

    Information before the Committee indicated that there was a lack of awareness on the rights of victims of racial discrimination and fear of approaching law enforcement officials on this topic.  What measures were being taken to address these issues?  Could a reason be provided for the low rate of complaints at the National Human Rights Commission?  What measures were being taken to enable victims to make complaints more effectively? 

    The Committee welcomed the adoption of amendments in 2024 on the law on free legal aid to allow victims of hate crimes on specific grounds to benefit from secondary legal aid.  However, the information before the Committee indicated that the victims were only entitled to the legal aid at the secondary stage and not to initiate a complaint.  In addition, the implementation of the amendment was postponed until one year after the martial law was abolished.  Could the delegation provide information on these two concerns? 

    Could disaggregated data be provided on complaints by ethnic origin such as by Roma, Jews, Africans and other minorities, as well as by national origin and gender?  Had the complaints changed during the armed conflict, in terms of quantity, nature and results?  What measures were being taken to promote human rights education, including on racial discrimination, in university programmes and teacher training?

    What measures were being taken to raise awareness of the public, civil servants, and law enforcement officials in order to combat societal prejudice against certain minority groups, including the Roma?

    Could accurate statistics of ethnic minorities, including Roma, be provided?  The Committee remained concerned at the persistence of discrimination, stereotypes and prejudices against Roma, including reports of physical attacks and killings. 

    Recent research also demonstrated that the level of antigypsyism in Ukraine was still very high.  According to the social cohesion study, 35 per cent of the Ukrainian population did not want Roma to be in their community at all. What measures had the Government of Ukraine taken to fight antigypsyism? 

    Could data on the education conditions of Roma be provided?  What measures had been taken for improving the situation of education for Roma children? Were they educated in their mother tongue without discrimination?

    The Committee noted the various measures taken by the State party to improve the situation of Roma, including the strategy for the protection and integration of the Roma national minority to 2020 and its action plan.  Could information on the progress and results of strategies and programmes directed at the Roma be provided, particularly the allocated resources to ensure the effective implementation of the strategy and action plan and monitoring of its implementation?  How were members of the Roma ethnic minorities involved in the implementation and monitoring of these policies?  Had the Government consulted with Roma communities when planning and implementing such integration measures, including at the local level?  How were the low levels of funding for these plans being addressed? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the issues affecting the Roma community were a problem, not just for Ukraine but for all European countries.  Prejudices still existed, however, during the war, many Roma men had served in the Ukrainian armed forces and in some cases sacrificed their lives, which had changed the attitude of Ukrainians towards Roma people.  A unity and diversity programme was implemented last year, which was a Ukrainian national cultural programme, with training for Ukrainian police officers. 

    The lack of documents in Roma communities was an issue but this was being addressed through regular visits to regions where the Roma community lived.  Thousands of Roma people had been provided with new documents.

    In 2023, around 60 consultations were organised with different national minority groups.  Permanent consultations and meetings were held with Roma communities. The consultations included members of all relevant ministries.  The next meeting had been planned for the end of April.  April 8 was International Roma Day and a large event had been organised in Kiev, including a roundtable and an all-day conference with the participation of ambassadors and the diplomatic corps.  On the same day, several regions also organised International Roma Day celebrations with different events. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert said the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations were lacking.  How were the stakeholders in the consultations selected? The Expert expressed hope that the war would end soon with a fair and sustainable solution.  It was important to remember that the unity towards Roma people should be sustained after the war, and that the stereotypes did not return. 

    FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-Up Rapporteur, said the Committee’s recommendations regarding measures taken to conduct training to raise awareness on the amendments to article 161 of the Criminal Code had not been addressed, and urged the State party to provide this information. 

    Another Expert asked what existing mechanisms were in place to receive complaints from victims of hate crimes? Were they user friendly?

    A Committee Expert asked whether the education system in the State party allowed for the type of education help to prevent hate crimes and racial intolerance for children?  Were there any significant numbers of people of African descent in the State party?  Would Ukraine support the Second Decade for People of African Descent? 

    IBRAHIMA GUISSE, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked if Ukraine’s desire to align itself with the European Union’s legislation on hate speech was to address hate speech, or to bring its legislation into line with that of the European Union? 

    An Expert asked if the outcome of today’s dialogue would be brought to the attention of the media?

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said if the Committee approved, Ukraine would provide information to the media about the meeting. Regardless of the ethnicity or culture of any citizen, they could contact the police and make a complaint. There were special school curricula on tolerance and education.  There should be more education in schools, from the youngest level possible. 

    There was an African community in Ukraine; it was not very big but its members were consulted on many issues. The African community had never informed the Government about any issues when dealing with the Ukrainian community. 

    The legal aid system of Ukraine provided several services, including primary and secondary legal aid and access to alternative dispute resolutions.  Regular targeted information campaigns were conducted on the right to legal aid, to provide empowerment for vulnerable groups and build trust in the legal aid system in Ukraine.  There had been only 91 cases of requests for legal aid during the past three years.  There were 500 legal aid centres across Ukraine, as well as an online service. 

    Six months ago, the Government adopted the list of the languages of the national minorities of Ukraine which were under threat of disappearance, and this included the Roma language. Currently, there was a special working group of experts who were familiar with these languages working on initiatives in this regard.

    In a brief comment at the end of the first meeting, MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, said the dialogue was public and it was up to Ukraine if it wished to produce information on the discussion. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    IBRAHIMA GUISSE, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked if measures were planned to assess and review the law on national minorities (communities) of Ukraine that aimed to eliminate all discriminatory provisions?  What measures had been taken to consult and ensure the participation of all ethnic and national minority groups in the process of developing and drafting the law and its amendments? 

    While noting the measures taken by the State party to protect Crimean Tatars, in particular those who fled Crimea after 2014, the Committee remained concerned about reports that Crimean Tatars in regions under the authority of the State party faced difficulties in accessing employment, social services and education, and did not receive assistance. What mechanisms had been developed to ensure consultations with ethnic minority groups? 

    Did the State party have information concerning the National Council for Interethnic Harmony?  What measures had been taken by the State party to support women belonging to ethnic or national minority groups in exercising their political rights, including participation in public affairs and raising awareness on their rights and the vital impact of their participation?  What measures were being taken to mitigate the impact of the ongoing conflict on the participation of women in politics?   

     

    According to information received, legislative amendments relating to religious organizations entered into force on 23 September 2024, invoking “national security” as a ground for restricting freedom of religion or belief and freedom of religious association. However, this was not considered a permissible grounds for restriction of freedom of religion under the Convention. What were the measures restricting freedom of religion and belief and their impact on the ethno-religious communities concerned?  Information received referred to practices tending to prohibit the activities of religious organizations, specifically the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church. Could information be provided on the necessity and proportionality of such punitive measures?

    The situation of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and stateless persons in Ukraine had been significantly impacted by recent legal and practical developments, particularly since the introduction of martial law in February 2022.  The current legal framework and its implementation presented several challenges that were inconsistent with the Convention. 

    The refugee status determination process in Ukraine did not align with international standards, leading to inconsistent application of legal interpretations and time limits for lodging asylum applications.  This often resulted in the rejection of asylum claims.  New practices had restricted access to asylum and statelessness determination procedures, especially for individuals with ties to the Russian Federation and Belarus.  The State Migration Service often issued oral refusals for asylum applications without official decisions, citing martial law as a reason.  This practice had been recognised by courts as illegal, yet it persisted, leaving applicants in legal limbo.

    How would Ukraine address the inconsistencies in the asylum procedures to ensure alignment with international standards and the Convention?  What legal amendments were introduced under martial law and what was their impact on the rights of refugees and stateless persons?  What procedural safeguards were in place to protect individuals from forcible deportation?  What steps were being taken to improve access to the asylum and statelessness determination procedures, particularly for individuals with ties to the Russian Federation and Belarus? 

    How was the Government addressing the challenges posed by the suspension of diplomatic relations with Russia in verifying nationality in statelessness determination procedures?  What plans did the Ukrainian Government have to develop an integration strategy for refugees and improve reception conditions for asylum seekers?  What steps were being taken to address the unlawful practice of issuing verbal refusals for asylum applications and ensure that applicants received official decisions?

    The Government of Ukraine had made significant strides in addressing statelessness since 2020, including the introduction of a statelessness determination procedure. Despite these efforts, several challenges remained, particularly in the implementation of the procedure and the accessibility of necessary documentation for applicants, which was further exacerbated by the conflict. 

    On 22 January 2024, draft law no. 11469, titled “on amendments to certain laws of Ukraine on ensuring the right to acquire and preserve Ukrainian citizenship” was registered in the Ukrainian Parliament.  The draft law, if passed, could result in the loss of Ukrainian citizenship for residents in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, who often had to obtain Russian passports to access basic services, employment, and social benefits. How did the Ukrainian Government plan to address the potential risk of stripping Ukrainian citizenship from residents of occupied territories who acquired Russian citizenship under duress or due to essential needs, such as access to basic services and employment?

    MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, said Kiev had been under attack the night before and there had been casualties.  This was a serious and sad situation.  The Committee understood the situation and was very concerned about these tragic events. 

    Responses by the Delegation

    IHOR LOSSOVSKYI, Deputy Head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience, said many members of the delegation had barely slept the night before. Russia had launched missiles from the Black Sea and inside Russia and had bombed Kiev.  Up to now, there were 10 citizens who had been killed and 100 wounded, including children.  Every day, there were peaceful victims of this tragic and bloody war.  The delegation in Ukraine had lost contact with the Committee at the beginning of the session and missed some questions.

    Regarding the law on ethnic minorities, several meetings had been organised with national minorities during the development of the law, predominantly online due to the war.  In December 2022, Parliament adopted the law. At the request of some national minority organizations, the State used the term “communities” instead of minorities. The law encompassed all groups of ethnic peoples, which was around 130 according to the most recent census. 

    Ukraine did not have many new asylum seekers as the situation in the country was not sustainable for a peaceful life. 

    The Ombudsman’s Office was referred to as the Parliamentary Commission of Human Rights.  The independence of this Office was guaranteed, ensuring it could function without undue influence from any external entities.  This enabled the Office to effectively address human rights and issues of non-discrimination.  Its annual report outlined steps taken to combat discrimination. It was a large institution with around 500 employees.  There were branches located across 24 regions of Ukraine.  In 2024, there were 454 complaints received by the Office.  The Office monitored all issues of non-discrimination.  All reports of the Office were public and could be found online.   

    Questions by Committee Experts

    IBRAHIMA GUISSE, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, expressed sorrow at the recent shocking events which had wracked the Ukrainian capital.  What was the impact of martial law on asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons? 

    CHINSUNG CHUNG, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked about the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons belonging to minority groups, as well as the situation of elderly people belonging to these groups?  What was the situation of migrant workers, particularly in this situation of armed conflict?

    A Committee Expert asked how far Ukraine had gone in implementing the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on a case versus Ukraine?   

    Another Committee Expert congratulated the Ukrainian delegation for making a laudable effort to assess the implementation of the Convention in Ukraine, despite prevailing circumstances. Ukraine should be praised for this effort.  The Expert was concerned about allegations of racism at the Ukrainian Polish border. Had there been any follow-up on such reports?  How many cases had been brought to court? 

    There had been allegations of racism in sport, including with a Brazilian footballer who was banned for one game after reacting to crowds calling him monkey.  How had this case been handled?  Ukraine should be congratulated for adopting the law on stateless in 2021.  How many individuals had benefitted from the enforcement of that law?  How did the State party plan to provide Roma with national documents? 

    Another Expert said African nationals had been facing discrimination at the borders. 

    What measures were being taken by the State party to ensure the protection, safety and security of all persons living in its jurisdiction? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    IHOR LOSSOVSKYI, Deputy Head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience, said Ukrainian legislation underscored equal rights for men and women. Half of the ministers of the Government were women.  Many women in Ukrainian society occupied high-level positions.  Women from Roma communities were among the most vulnerable. The State had organised several events, including roundtables, which assisted Roma women to find their place in society. 

    Due to the war, Ukraine no longer had many migrant workers.  It was hoped that this would change after the war.  The country would need many workers for innovation and to help rebuild Ukraine. It was hoped workers from many countries would come to Ukraine after the war and help rebuild the hundreds of cities which had been destroyed or partially destroyed. 

    Mr. Lossovskyi said he had not heard of cases of discrimination on the border between Ukraine and Poland.  The case of discrimination regarding the Brazilian football player was an awful occurrence which was not typical for Ukraine. There had been a police investigation, but he could not recall the exact outcome. 

    The delegation said the aggression by the Russian federation had led to a huge influx across Ukraine’s borders. The Government took all accounts of discriminatory treatment very seriously.  Despite difficult conditions, the Government had managed to keep all checkpoints on the borders open. 

    Mr. Lossovskyi said in 2022, a pilot project was launched to provide documents to Roma people in a more effective way.  This was organised in a region where the majority of Roma people lived.  Every year, the State continued this work and made several visits to these places. 

    The delegation said the draft law 5488 was being considered before parliament.  It was hoped the law would be adopted during the current session of Parliament.  The draft law provided for the term “intolerance” and addressed issues under this topic.  All law enforcement agencies were currently working together to introduce the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code.  Police officers had completed specialised human rights training.  Outreach activities, including in schools, were carried out to combat negative stereotypes on the Roma population. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    CHINSUNG CHUNG, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee believed in the necessity of investigating and documenting all human rights violations and abuses committed in the context of the ongoing armed conflict and invasion initiated by the Russian Federation against the State party on 24 February 2022.  What measures had been taken to ensure prompt and impartial investigations?  Could the delegation provide information on investigations and prosecutions into allegations of human rights violations and abuses during the armed conflict with the Russian Federation?

     

    On 11 October 2018, the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Istanbul-based Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephaly to a new church, the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine”.  This led to tensions with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  The Church was formerly linked to the Russian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch in Moscow, but stated that it severed those ties in May 2022, following the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation. 

    It was reported that on 23 September 2024 in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine, new legal provisions regarding religious organizations entered into force, prohibiting the activities of foreign religious organizations based in a State responsible for armed aggression against Ukraine or occupation of its territory, and specifically prohibiting the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church. Could detailed explanations be provided on this and on measures to ensure the respect of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion?

    According to media reports in January 2025, the State party announced the capturing in Russia of two soldiers from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and indicated that they were detained and provided with medical care.  Could the delegation provide information on the situation of these two prisoners of war? What were the legal measures taken against them?  Were there more prisoners of war captured by the State party from other nationalities, including mercenaries? 

    The Committee noted that the State party adopted the law on indigenous peoples in 2021.  However, according to information before the Committee, the law only recognised Crimean Tatars, Karaims and Krymchaks as indigenous peoples in Ukraine, while excluding other groups, such as Hutsuls, Lemkos and Gagauz peoples.  Could the delegation provide clarifications on the law on indigenous peoples and how it aligned with international standards?

    Were there plans to assess and review the law?  What was the situation of the Hutsuls, Lemkos and Gagauz peoples?  What measures were in place to preserve and promote the identity, language and culture of all indigenous people under the jurisdiction of the State party?  Could information be provided on the situation of internally displaced Crimean Tatars, and measures to ensure their access to education, housing, employment, healthcare services and humanitarian assistance?  Was the State party taking measures in consultation with the Crimean Tatar community to find durable solutions for an appropriate settlement of Crimean Tatars in Ukraine?

    The Committee was concerned that during the war, persons belonging to minorities, such as Roma, had difficulties in registering as internally displaced persons and having access to social assistance.  According to the representative of the Office of the Ombudsman of Ukraine, around 100,000 Roma became refugees, and around the same number of Ukrainian Roma became internally displaced persons.  Were accurate statistics available on the Roma?  Did the State party find durable solutions for internally displaced Roma and take measures to ensure that they benefitted from assistance?  What were the State’s plans to include Roma people in recovery and reconstruction programmes?

    What efforts were being made to restore linkages between displaced children and their families?  What efforts were being made to ensure access to education and basic services for displaced children?

    Ukraine’s inadequate response to hate crimes against migrants, African and Asian students and other foreigners had previously attracted international criticism.  What was the situation of non-citizens, particularly migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and people of African and/or Asian descent during the armed conflict?  Could the delegation provide clarification on the situation of detained undocumented migrants and non-citizens?  Could the delegation also please provide information on measures to ensure their access to education, housing, employment, healthcare services and humanitarian assistance?

    Responses by the Delegation

    IHOR LOSSOVSKYI, Deputy Head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience, said Ukraine did not refer to what was going on in Ukraine as conflict. This was a bloody, existential, colonial war with Russia, not simply a conflict.  In 2018, the Ukrainian Church received independence from the Patriarchal Eastern Christianity Church based in Istanbul, Türkiye.  This was a revolutionary decision, as Ukraine was a big country and did not have an orthodox church.  Now there was an independent church of Ukraine, like all other Christian Orthodox countries.  No other activities of other churches were forbidden in Ukraine.  The only restrictions were for the Russian Orthodox Church, which had restricted activity on the territory of Ukraine. This was because it was an accompaniment of the Russian aggression which had destroyed the country and killed hundreds of thousands of people. 

    Ukraine provided the international standard for prisoners of war in their prison facilities, which were regularly visited by the Ukrainian Ombudsman.  In 2021, Ukraine adopted the law on indigenous peoples and consulted with many minorities on this law.  Indigenous peoples were defined as those who lived on the territory of Ukraine and did not have a mother country.  The Lemkos people were not considered a national minority group, but rather a cultural group. 

    In 2021, the Ukrainian Government approved the Roma strategy, and every two years action plans were prepared for its implementation.  The Roma community was a young community, one of the youngest among the national minorities in Ukraine.  It would be beneficial to use their innovation and abilities in the process of renovating Ukraine when the war was over.  The State was working on providing the Roma with more education.  There were many grants provided to Roma for studying in universities. 

    The delegation said in 2021, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted the law on indigenous people in Ukraine, which was developed through extensive consultations with indigenous groups and civil society, and represented the aspirations of these groups.  In addition, a draft law was developed on the status of the Crimean Tartar people which would be registered in Parliament in the near future. 

    To ensure prisoners of war were not tortured, relevant legislation and policies had been developed.  Three legislative acts had been produced to regulate these affairs. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    CHINSUNG CHUNG, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked if there were representative bodies of minorities inside the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine?  How did the State party ensure consultations with all indigenous peoples under the framework of this law? 

    Another Expert said 10 to 20 per cent of Ukrainian Roma did not have identity documents?  Was there a provision for determining statelessness in the act on statelessness?  Did the Roma community benefit from universal birth registration? 

    A Committee Expert asked how many of the ethnic and national minorities participated in the relevant bodies in the Government?  How many Roma, indigenous, or migrant women had been hired or granted responsibility positions, or were integrated in the responsibility of the work? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    IHOR LOSSOVSKYI, Deputy Head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience, said when the law on indigenous peoples was adopted, several bylaws were prepared for the implementation of the law.  According to one of the bylaws, Crimean Tatars regularly consulted with the Government.  Only during the population census could the Government request information about the ethnic groups.  Sometimes women with high-ranking positions did not disclose their ethnicity.  It was up to people to declare this. 

    The delegation said due to the Russian full-scale invasion, there were problems preparing full statistical information on ethnic minorities.  The legal aid system in Ukraine had provided legal assistance to more than 1,000 Roma people over the past three years.  Most of these related to the processing of identity documents.  Secondary legal aid had been provided for 27,000 internally displaced people over the past three years, due to the full-scale invasion. 

    Officially, Ukraine recognised three indigenous groups of peoples, including Crimean Tartars, Karaims and Krymchaks.  Crimean Tartars were represented by an executive body; the spiritual administration of Ukraine represented the Karaim people; and there was no official information regarding a body for the Krymchaks, although they had the full rights to establish such a body under law. 

    Currently, there was no definition of hate speech under Ukrainian law.  The Government of Ukraine had prepared a draft roadmap covering this issue. In Ukraine, a working group made up of State authorities and public organizations was working on a definition of hate speech and establishing administrative and criminal liability depending on the severity of the crime. 

    The public broadcaster of Ukraine continued to create a single information space for minorities.  The broadcaster produced programmes for national minorities in their national languages, across broadcast, radio and digital formats.  The State bodies would do their best to cover all the information needs of the national minorities in Ukraine. 

    Closing Remarks

    FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-Up Rapporteur, said the Committee would send Ukraine concluding observations after the dialogue, with specific recommendations to be enacted within a period of one year. 

    IBRAHIMA GUISSE, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for the dialogue held, particularly given the context.  War was ended through negotiation and diplomacy, not capitulation.  It was hoped this would happen with Ukraine. The fact that Ukraine was here before the Committee was an example of the State’s willingness to cooperate. Ukraine was also meeting with the Committee against Torture at the same time, which may have weakened Ukraine’s ability to provide comprehensive answers. 

    IHOR LOSSOVSKYI, Deputy Head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience, thanked the Committee members for their time and interest in the situation in Ukraine.  The Committee’s recommendations were very much appreciated. 

    MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chair, said racial discrimination was about ethnic and national origin.  The Committee was concerned when ethnic minorities were denied their identity.  This led to wars.  It was now the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention, and the first composition of the Committee had included an expert of Ukrainian origin.

    ___________

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CERD25.002E

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: April 24th, 2025 Heinrich Fights Against Trump-Musk Administration’s Tax Cuts for Billionaires, with Tax Cuts for New Mexican Workers Legislation

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich
    WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich joined U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and 42 democratic senators in introducing the Tax Cut for Workers Act to give millions of hardworking Americans a much-needed tax break.  
    The existing Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – the Worker Tax Cut – has been delivering tax relief for millions of workers for decades. But it’s just not enough. This legislation would cut taxes for working class Americans without children, who currently receive a much smaller EITC than workers with children. This expansion would include over 111,000 New Mexicans by nearly tripling the average tax break many of these Americans receive from the existing EITC. It also extends eligibility for the tax cut to workers under the age of 25 and over the age of 64.
    “Under this administration, we are seeing incredible tax breaks for the rich like Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Here’s an idea: let’s cut taxes for the middle class instead,” said Heinrich. “Through the Tax Cuts for Workers Act, I am fighting back. I will never stop advocating for the hardworking families New Mexico struggling with rising costs. Because it’s time our economy works for the people who build it — not just those who bankroll it.”
    In addition to Heinrich, Cortez Masto, and Bennet, the follow cosponsors include Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
    Read the full bill here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Three Members of an International Money Laundering Organization Charged with Laundering Millions of Dollars in Drug Proceeds

    Source: US State of Vermont

    A federal grand jury in Florence, South Carolina, returned an indictment on April 22, charging Nasir Ullah, 28, and Naim Ullah, 32, both of Sumter, South Carolina, and Puquan Huang, 49, of Buford, Georgia, with conspiring to launder millions of dollars of proceeds derived from drug trafficking.

    “As alleged in the indictment, the defendants laundered tens of millions of dollars in drug proceeds from the United States through China and the Middle East, enabling a continuous flow of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into our country from Mexico,” said Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Dismantling transnational criminal organizations and Chinese Money Laundering Organizations that support them is a critical priority for the Department. Alongside DEA and our local law enforcement partners, we will continue to prosecute the financial networks that fuel illegal drug trade and profit from the sale of deadly substances.”

    “We are committed to dismantling criminal organizations that seek to profit through the distribution of dangerous drugs like cocaine and fentanyl across South Carolina and beyond,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Brook B. Andrews for the District of South Carolina. “This $30 million money laundering operation, which has international ties, was conducted in multiple communities in our state. We will continue to work tirelessly with our law enforcement partners to trace these illicit funds, disrupt these networks, and hold those involved accountable for the harm they present.”

    “Cases like this exemplify the value of partnerships,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Jae W. Chung of the DEA Atlanta Division. “The volume of dangerous drugs, including deadly fentanyl, impacts our communities beyond comprehension. This investigation and subsequent arrests demonstrate DEA’s commitment to protecting our community by destroying these drug trafficking and money laundering organizations.”

    According to court documents, unsealed today, Ullah, Naim Ullah, and Huang allegedly worked for a money laundering organization that laundered at least $30 million in proceeds related to the distribution of illegal drugs, including cocaine and fentanyl, which were unlawfully imported into the United States, typically through Mexico. Ullah, Naim Ullah, Huang, and their co-conspirators allegedly traveled throughout the United States to collect drug proceeds. They communicated with co-conspirators in China to arrange for the laundering of these proceeds through transactions designed to conceal the illegal source of the proceeds, including disguising the source of the drug proceeds by moving money through the shipment of electronic goods to China and the Middle East.

    Ullah, Naim Ullah, and Huang are charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering. If convicted, they each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

    The DEA’s Charleston, South Carolina Resident Office is investigating the case, with assistance from the DEA’s Special Operations Division, Bilateral Investigations Unit; DEA’s Office of Special Intelligence, Document and Media Exploitation Unit; DEA’s offices in Columbia, South Carolina and Atlanta; the FBI’s offices in Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina; the U.S. Air Force, Office of Special Investigations; the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division; the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office; the South Carolina Highway Patrol; the Fort Mill Police Department; the York County Sheriff’s Office; the North Charleston Police Department; the Mount Pleasant Police Department; and the Richland County Sheriff’s Department.

    Trial Attorneys Mary K. Daly and Jasmin Salehi Fashami of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Everett E. McMillian for the District of South Carolina are prosecuting the case.

    The Third and Fifth Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s Offices of South Carolina provided assistance in this case.

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Banking: Guatemala and Peru notify mutually agreed solution in agriculture dispute

    Source: WTO

    Headline: Guatemala and Peru notify mutually agreed solution in agriculture dispute

    Further information is available in document WT/DS457/19.
    Mutually agreed solution
    At any stage during the dispute settlement process, parties can settle the dispute by finding a “mutually agreed solution”. Solutions mutually acceptable to the parties to the dispute must also be consistent with the relevant WTO agreement and must not nullify or impair benefits accruing under the agreement to any other member. Parties are required to notify the Dispute Settlement Body and relevant councils and committees of any mutually agreed solution they have reached.

    Share

    MIL OSI Global Banks –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Three Members of an International Money Laundering Organization Charged with Laundering Millions of Dollars in Drug Proceeds

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in Florence, South Carolina returned an indictment on Tuesday, April 22, charging Nasir Ullah, 28, and Naim Ullah, 32, both of Sumter, South Carolina, and Puquan Huang, 49, of Buford, Georgia, with conspiring to launder millions of dollars of proceeds derived from drug trafficking.

    “As alleged in the indictment, the defendants laundered tens of millions of dollars in drug proceeds from the United States through China and the Middle East, enabling a continuous flow of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into our country from Mexico,” said Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Dismantling transnational criminal organizations and Chinese Money Laundering Organizations that support them is a critical priority for the Department. Alongside DEA and our local law enforcement partners, we will continue to prosecute the financial networks that fuel illegal drug trade and profit from the sale of deadly substances.”

    “We are committed to dismantling criminal organizations that seek to profit through the distribution of dangerous drugs like cocaine and fentanyl across South Carolina and beyond,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Brook B. Andrews for the District of South Carolina. “This $30 million money laundering operation, which has international ties, was conducted in multiple communities in our state. We will continue to work tirelessly with our law enforcement partners to trace these illicit funds, disrupt these networks, and hold those involved accountable for the harm they present.”

    “Cases like this exemplify the value of partnerships,” said Jae W. Chung, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Atlanta Division. “The volume of dangerous drugs, including deadly fentanyl, impacts our communities beyond comprehension. This investigation and subsequent arrests demonstrate DEA’s commitment to protecting our community by destroying these drug trafficking and money laundering organizations.”

    According to court documents, unsealed today, Ullah, Ullah, and Huang allegedly worked for a money laundering organization that laundered at least $30 million in proceeds related to the distribution of illegal drugs, including cocaine and fentanyl, which were unlawfully imported into the United States, typically through Mexico. Ullah, Ullah, Huang, and their co-conspirators allegedly traveled throughout the United States to collect drug proceeds. They communicated with co-conspirators in China to arrange for the laundering of these proceeds through transactions designed to conceal the illegal source of the proceeds, including disguising the source of the drug proceeds by moving money through the shipment of electronic goods to China and the Middle East.

    Ullah, Ullah, and Huang are charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering. If convicted, they each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

    The DEA’s Charleston, South Carolina Resident Office is investigating the case, with assistance from the DEA’s Special Operations Division, Bilateral Investigations Unit; DEA’s Office of Special Intelligence, Document and Media Exploitation Unit; DEA’s offices in Columbia, South Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia; the FBI’s offices in Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina; the U.S. Air Force, Office of Special Investigations; the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division; the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office; the South Carolina Highway Patrol; the Fort Mill Police Department; the York County Sheriff’s Office; the North Charleston Police Department; the Mount Pleasant Police Department; and the Richland County Sheriff’s Department.

    Trial Attorneys Mary K. Daly and Jasmin Salehi Fashami of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Everett E. McMillian for the District of South Carolina are prosecuting the case.

    The Third and Fifth Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s Offices of South Carolina provided assistance in this case.

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

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Syria, Haiti & other topics – Daily Press Briefing (24 April 2025) | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    Noon Briefing by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General.

    Highlights:

    – Syria
    – Briefings Tomorrow
    – Secretary-General
    – Deputy Secretary-General
    – Occupied Palestinian Territory
    – U.N.I.F.I.L.
    – Yemen
    – Democratic Republic of the Congo
    – Haitian Migrants
    – Haiti
    – Ukraine
    – Myanmar
    – Immunization Week
    – International Days

    SYRIA
    Tomorrow at 8 a.m., the new three-starred Syrian flag will be raised, next to the flags of the other 193 Member States and the two permanent observers. If you have any questions about media coverage, please ask the Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit (MALU). They will facilitate that. And just to stay on Syria, Geir Pedersen will be here to brief the Council tomorrow and he will be speaking to you at the stakeout afterwards.

    BRIEFINGS TOMORROW
    Tomorrow at 11:00 a.m., there will be a hybrid press briefing by Ambassador Jürg Lauber, the President of the Human Rights Council.
    And our Noon Briefing guest will be Ulrika Richardson, the Humanitarian Coordinator for Haiti, who also serves as the Deputy Special Representative and Resident Coordinator for Haiti. She will brief us virtually on Haiti.

    SECRETARY-GENERAL
    This evening, the Secretary-General will be traveling this evening to Rome, where on Saturday he will attend the funeral of Pope Francis at St. Peter’s Basilica.
    This afternoon, the Secretary-General will sign the Book of Condolences for the Pope at the Observer Mission of the Holy See.
    On Tuesday, the UN flag will fly at half-mast to honour the passing of the late Pontiff.

    DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL
    Our Deputy Secretary-General, Amina Mohammed, continues her visit to Washington, D.C., for the World Bank/IMF Annual Spring Meetings.
    This morning, she took part in a Women Lead Breakfast with over 50 female leaders, which was hosted by the World Bank Managing Directors. Amina Mohammed highlighted women’s labour and economic participation as one of the most powerful forces driving inclusive and sustainable development, and she called for women’s leadership to be placed at the centre of decision-making.
    Later, she participated in the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting, where she underscored the importance of advancing reforms to the international financial architecture to make it more inclusive and responsive.
    This afternoon, she will deliver remarks at the 111th meeting of the World Bank/IMF Development Committee and continue her engagements with senior government officials and other key stakeholders. She will be on her way back later today.

    Full Highlights: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/noon-briefing-highlight?date%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=24%20April%202025

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VIPt0O88YQ

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Luján: President Trump’s Reckless Economic Agenda Threatens New Mexicans’ Livelihoods

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Senator for New Mexico Ben Ray Luján
    Prices Are Still Rising for New Mexico Families, Consumer Sentiment at Historic Low  
    Santa Fe, N.M. – Today, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) released the following statement after a YouGov/Economist Poll showed that President Trump’s approval rating on the economy has fallen significantly since the beginning of his term:

    “In less than 100 days, President Trump’s reckless economic agenda has New Mexicans on edge and worried about their livelihoods. This President promised lower costs on day one of his presidency, yet we aren’t seeing costs going down for Americans across the country. Instead, we are seeing a reckless trade war, an attack on Americans’ retirement accounts and pocketbooks causing widespread economic uncertainty. President Trump’s chaotic and erratic economic policy decisions have the many worried, and this latest poll shows that the American people have lost confidence in the President’s economic agenda.”
    As President Trump continues his reckless trade war, consumer sentiment fell for the fourth consecutive month in April, plunging 11 percent from March. Consumer sentiment has now lost more than 30 percent since December 2024. At 50.8, U.S. consumer confidence is at its second-lowest level on record going back to 1952.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Citizen Of Mexico Indicted On Illegal Reentry, Aggravated Identity Theft, and Document Fraud

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    WILLIAMSPORT – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Herminio Lopez-Gervacio, age 50, a citizen of Mexico, illegally residing in Loganton, Pennsylvania, was indicted on April 23, 2025, by a federal grand jury for illegal reentry into the United States by a previously deported alien, possession of a fraudulent document, and aggravated identity theft.

    According to Acting United States Attorney John C. Gurganus, the indictment alleges that on or about February 17, 2025, Lopez-Gervacio was encountered in Clinton County after previously being removed from the United States.  The indictment also alleges that Lopez-Gervacio had been removed from the United States on May 5, 2011, through El Paso, Texas, and reentered without first obtaining legal permission to do so.

    This case was investigated by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Removal Operations.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Robin Zenzinger is prosecuting the case.

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America (https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1393746/dl?inline) 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).

    The maximum penalty under federal law for the offense of aggravated identity theft is 2 years mandatory minimum and a fine.  A sentence for this offense may also include a period of supervised release following imprisonment.  A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

    Indictments are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

    # # #

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senators Lankford, Hassan Reintroduce Bill to Disrupt Cartel Operations by Increasing Southbound Border Inspections

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Oklahoma James Lankford
    OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – US Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH), both members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, reintroduced legislation to increase inspections of traffic going from the U.S. to Mexico, which would help combat the flow of illicit firearms and money that fuel drug cartels. 
    “With border crossings at a record low, the results speak for themselves. President Trump’s leadership is making America safer; the southern border is much more secure than it was a year ago,” Lankford said. “But US Customs and Border Protection still doesn’t have the resources they need to stop gun smuggling to the criminal cartels in Mexico. We need to ensure border law enforcement has the personnel and technology to crack down on criminal activity that puts Americans at risk.”
    “Dismantling drug cartels requires cutting off the flow of illegal firearms and cartel money moving from the U.S. into Mexico, which help give cartels the resources to continue to operate and flood our communities with deadly drugs,” said Senator Hassan. “This bipartisan legislation significantly enhances our southbound inspection capabilities, which will help disrupt cartel operations and reduce the trafficking of fentanyl, which has devastated communities across New Hampshire and nationwide.” 
    Specifically, the Enhancing Southbound Inspections to Combat Cartels Act would: 
    Require that at least 10 percent of southbound vehicles are inspected, to the extent practicable 
    Authorize at least 100 additional Homeland Security Investigations agents to investigate the smuggling of guns and money from the U.S. into Mexico
    Authorize at least 100 additional Homeland Security Investigations agents to investigate drug smuggling, human trafficking, child trafficking, and unauthorized entries from Mexico into the U.S.
    Authorize 50 additional x-ray inspection systems for southbound inspections  

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Tackling drug trafficking in America – E-000632/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    Boosting EU cooperation with countries in Latin America and the Caribbean in the fight against organised crime is a priority of the Commission[1]. It is also a priority of the EU cooperation with Mexico.

    The EU closely monitors Mexico’s security strategy and remains committed to supporting Mexico in security and drug trafficking efforts through programmes like the Europe Latin America Programme of Assistance against Transnational Organised Crime[2] and the Cooperation Program between Latin America, the Caribbean and the EU on drug policy[3].

    The Commission ensures effective fund management through strict monitoring, evaluation, and financial controls, involving the Court of Auditors and the European Anti-Fraud Office.

    The EU applies a constructive engagement policy while safeguarding financial interests, using the early detection and exclusion system as per Article 138 of the Financial Regulation[4].

    EU support in Mexico funds civil society organisations focused on democratic, social, and economic development. Assistance also extends to inclusive and green reforms via Member States and United Nations agencies, emphasising capacity building, best practice exchanges, and policy support.

    Key intervention areas include decent work, green transport, migration, health, public finance reform, in the framework of the Global Gateway strategy[5].

    Civil society plays a crucial role in Mexico’s development, achieving successes in migration, human rights, transparency, and public accountability. This participatory approach strengthens reforms and the rule of law.

    The EU also actively cooperated with the United States and other partners in the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.

    • [1] A ction 15 of the communication on the EU roadmap to fight drug trafficking and organised crime, COM(2023) 641 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0641
    • [2] https://elpaccto.eu/en/
    • [3] https://copolad.eu/en/
    • [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202402509
    • [5] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/stronger-europe-world/global-gateway_en

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Brazilian National Pleads Guilty to Selling Firearms Without a License and Conspiracy

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    BOSTON – A Brazilian national, who was living in Massachusetts, pleaded guilty on April 18, 2025 in federal court in Boston to conspiracy and dealing firearms without a license.  

    Gideoni De Oliveira Moutinho, 32, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to engage in the business of dealing firearms without a license and one count of engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license. U.S. District Court Judge Leo T. Sorokin scheduled sentencing for May 22, 2025. De Oliveira Moutinho was arrested and charged on Sept. 17, 2024.

    Between Jan. 2, 2024 and Aug. 30, 2024, De Oliveira Moutinho sold seven firearms on different six dates in exchange for cash. In February 2024, he also conspired with another to secure the sale of one of these firearms.    

    The charge of engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license and conspiracy to engage in the same each provide for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000. The defendant is subject to deportation upon completion of any sentence imposed. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.

    United States Attorney Leah B. Foley; James M. Ferguson, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Boston Field Division; Michael J. Krol, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in New England; and Patricia H. Hyde, Field Office Director, Boston, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations made the announcement today. Valuable assistance was provided by the Massachusetts State Police and the Weymouth and Malden Police Departments. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael J. Crowley and John J. Reynolds of the Organized Crime & Gang Unit are prosecuting the case.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Three Fugitives Arrested in San Juan and Carolina, PR

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – Three individuals who were fugitives since December 2024 were arrested today in the municipalities of San Juan and Carolina, PR, on criminal charges related to their alleged participation on drug trafficking and violent crimes associated to a drug trafficking organization that operated in San Juan, Carolina, and other areas nearby, from in or about 2021 through December 2024, when the arrest operation took place. The three fugitives had been charged in the case of United States v. Victor J. Pérez-Fernández, a.k.a. “La Cone/Vitu/Vitikin/Enano,” et al., Case No. 24-453 (MAJ).

    Defendants [10] Gerald O. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, a.k.a. “Patrón;” [18] Ángel L. Sanjurjo, a.k.a. “Vaca;” and [33] Ramsell Maldonado-Tatis, a.k.a. “R” were arrested by FBI special agents, Puerto Rico Police Bureau and the Carolina Municipal Police Department. They are charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances; possession and distribution of heroin, cocaine base (crack), cocaine, marijuana, and fentanyl; and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant Maldonado-Tatis is also facing one count for possession of a machine gun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

    “As alleged in the indictment, these individuals were engaged in violent crime and spread deadly drugs through our communities,” said U.S. Attorney Muldrow.  “Today’s arrests make clear that this Office will work tirelessly to keep the law-abiding residents of Puerto Rico safe and hold accountable those who bring violence to our streets.”

    “The arrests carried out this morning reaffirm our unwavering commitment to dismantling criminal organizations. The message is clear: if you’re part of a violent criminal enterprise, the FBI will work relentlessly to find you and bring you to justice,” said Devin J. Kowalski, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s San Juan Field Office. “The residents of Puerto Rico deserve safe communities, and through close collaboration with our local and federal partners, we will continue to bring fugitives to justice and restore peace where it is most needed.”

    According to the charging documents, the drug trafficking organization distributed heroin, fentanyl, crack, cocaine, marijuana, Tramadol, and Clonazepam within 1,000 feet of the Sabana Abajo Public Housing Project (PHP), the Luis Lloréns Torres PHP, the Los Mirtos PHP, the Lagos de Blasina PHP, the La Esmeralda PHP, the El Coral PHP, the Monte Hatillo PHP, and other areas near those locations, all for significant financial gain and profit. The drug trafficking organizations that operated in and around these areas (known as The Alliance) reached an agreement to conduct their drug trafficking operations as allies, which they referred to as “La Paz” (The Peace). At that time, each housing project organization was controlled by their own leadership and structure. As part of The Alliance, there would not be war between these organizations and members would be able to rely on each other for protection, drugs, and weapons.

    Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) and Chief of the Gang Section Alberto López-Rocafort; Deputy Chief of the Gang Section, AUSA Teresa Zapata-Valladares; and AUSAs Laura Díaz-González, R. Vance Eaton, and Joseph Russell are prosecuting the case.

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (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 –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: The first 100 days of a growing global health and humanitarian emergency News Apr 24, 2025

    Source: Doctors Without Borders –

    Three months since the Trump administration first suspended all international assistance pending review, the US has terminated much of its funding for global health and humanitarian programs, dismantled the federal government architecture for oversight of these activities, and fired many of the key staff responsible for implementation. 

    Patients around the world are scrambling to understand how they can continue treatment, medical providers are struggling to maintain essential services, and aid groups are sounding the alarm about exploding needs in countries with existing emergencies.

    US assistance has been a lifeline for millions of people–while yanking this support will lead to more preventable deaths and untold suffering around the world. We can’t accept this dangerous new normal. 

    Avril Benoît, CEO of MSF USA

    “These sudden cuts by the Trump administration are a human-made disaster for the millions of people struggling to survive amid wars, disease outbreaks, and other emergencies,” said Avril Benoît, CEO of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in the United States. “We are an emergency response organization, but we have never seen anything like this massive disruption to global health and humanitarian programs. The risks are catastrophic, especially since people who rely on foreign assistance are already among the most vulnerable in the world.”

    “It all started three weeks ago, when I took [my son] to a doctor in the village and he gave him medicine to stop the diarrhea, yet his condition didn’t improve,” says Rawda, whose son Mohammed was finally referred to a field hospital for treatment. | Yemen 2024 © Mario Fawaz/MSF

    People are already feeling the consequences of US aid cuts

    The US has long been the leading supporter of global health and humanitarian programs, responsible for around 40 percent of all related funding. These US investments have helped improve the health and well-being of communities around the globe—and totaled less than 1 percent of the annual federal budget.

    Abruptly ending this huge proportion of support is already having devastating consequences for people who rely on aid, including those at risk of malnutrition and infectious diseases, and those who are trapped in humanitarian crises around the world. These major cuts to US funding and staffing are part of a broader policy agenda that has far-reaching impacts for people whose access to care is already limited by persecution and discrimination, such as refugees and migrants, civilians caught in conflict, LGBTQI+ people, and anyone who can become pregnant.

    We can’t accept this dangerous new normal. We urge the administration and Congress to maintain commitments to support critical global health and humanitarian aid.

    Avril Benoît, CEO of MSF USA

    The status of even the much-reduced number of remaining US-funded programs is highly uncertain. The administration now plans to extend the initial 90-day review period for foreign aid, which was due to conclude on April 20, by an additional 30 days, according to an internal email from the State Department obtained by the media.

    MSF does not accept US government funding, so we are not directly affected by these sweeping changes to international assistance as most other aid organizations are. We remain committed to providing medical care and humanitarian support in more than 70 countries across the world. However, no organization can do this work alone. We work closely with other health and humanitarian organizations to deliver vital services, and many of our activities involve programs that have been disrupted due to funding cuts. It will be much more difficult and costly to provide care when so many ministries of health have been affected globally and there are fewer community partners overall. We will also be facing fewer places to refer patients for specialized services, as well as shortages and stockouts due to hamstrung supply chains.

    Six-month-old Sohaib, who suffers from malnutrition and chickenpox, and his mother traveled four hours from their village to Herat Regional Hospital for care. | Afghanistan 2024 © Mahab Azizi

    Amid ongoing chaos and confusion, our teams are already witnessing some of the life-threatening consequences of the administration’s actions to date. Most recently, the US administration canceled nearly all humanitarian assistance programs in Yemen and Afghanistan, two countries facing some of the most severe humanitarian needs in the world. After years of conflict and compounding crises, an estimated 19.5 million people in Yemen—over half the population—are dependent on aid. The decision to punish civilian populations caught in these two conflicts undermines the principles of humanitarian assistance. 

    Across the world, MSF teams have witnessed US-funded organizations reducing or canceling other vital activities–including vaccination campaigns, protection and care for people caught in areas of conflict, sexual and reproductive health services, the provision of clean water, and adequate sanitation services.

    “It’s shocking to see the US abandon its leadership role in advancing global health and humanitarian efforts,” Benoît said. “US assistance has been a lifeline for millions of people–while yanking this support will lead to more preventable deaths and untold suffering around the world. We can’t accept this dangerous new normal. We urge the administration and Congress to maintain commitments to support critical global health and humanitarian aid.”

    An MSF team member disinfects people entering and exiting MSF’s cholera treatment center with chlorinated water, reducing the risk of spreading cholera through contaminated soil. | South Sudan 2024 © Paula Casado Aguirregabiria

    Snapshot: How US aid cuts are impacting people worldwide

    Malnutrition

    US funding cuts are severely impacting people in areas of Somalia affected by chronic drought, food insecurity, and displacement due to conflict. In the Baidoa and Mudug regions, the scaling down of operations by aid organizations—driven by US funding cuts and a broader lack of humanitarian aid—is making a shortage of health services and nutrition programs even more critical. For example, the closure of maternal and child health clinics and a therapeutic feeding center in Baidoa cut off monthly care to hundreds of malnourished children. MSF nutrition programs in Baidoa have reported an increase in severe acute malnutrition admissions since the funding cuts. The MSF-supported Bay Regional Hospital has received patients traveling as far as 120 miles for care due to facility closures elsewhere.

    HIV

    Cuts to PEPFAR and USAID have led to suspensions and closures of HIV programs in countries including South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe—threatening the lives of people receiving antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. South Africa’s pioneering Treatment Action Campaign—which helped transform the country’s response to HIV/AIDS—has had to drastically reduce its community-led monitoring system that helps ensure that people stay on treatment. The monitoring is now only happening at a small scale at clinics. 

    In MSF’s program in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, there has been a 70 percent increase in pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) tablet distribution from January to March compared to the previous quarter, as well as an increase of 30 percent in consultations for health services, including for HIV—highlighting the growing demand as USAID funding cuts reduce access to other HIV prevention services.

    Inside the pediatric ward at MSF’s cholera treatment center in Assosa. | South Sudan 2024 © Paula Casado Aguirregabiria

    Outbreaks

    In the border regions across South Sudan and Ethiopia, MSF teams are responding to a rampant cholera outbreak amid escalating violence—while other organizations have scaled down their presence. According to our teams, a number of organizations, including Save the Children, have suspended mobile clinic activities in South Sudan’s Akobo County due to US aid cuts. Save the Children reported earlier this month that at least five children and three adults with cholera died while making the long, hot trek to seek treatment in this part of South Sudan. With the withdrawal of these organizations, local health authorities are now facing significant limitations in their ability to respond effectively to the outbreak. MSF has warned that the disruption of mobile services, combined with the reduced capacity of other actors to support oral vaccination campaigns, increases the risk of preventable deaths and the continued spread of this highly infectious disease.

    MSF Japan General Director Shinjiro Murata speaks with a Rohingya family with the help of a medical interpreter after an MSF health promotion session for Rohingya women in Cox’s Bazar. | Bangladesh 2022 © Elizabeth Costa/MSF

    Sexual and reproductive health care

    MSF teams in more than 20 countries have reported concerns with disrupted or suspended sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programs, which MSF relies on for referrals for medical emergencies, supplies, and technical partnerships. These include contexts with already high levels of maternal and infant mortality. In Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh—home to one of the world’s largest refugee camps—MSF teams report that other implementers are not able to provide SRH supplies, like emergency birth kits and contraceptives. Referrals for medical emergencies, like post-abortion care, have also been disrupted, increasing urgent needs for SRH care in the region.

    Migration

    Essential protection services—including shelters for women and children, legal aid, and support for survivors of violence—have been shuttered or severely reduced as needs increase due to changes in US immigration policy. For patients and MSF teams in areas like Danlí, San Pedro Sula, Tapachula, and Mexico City, referral networks have all but disappeared. This has left many migrants without safe places to sleep, access to food, or legal and psychosocial support.

    Access to clean water

    In the initial weeks following the aid freeze, our teams saw several organizations stop the distribution of drinking water for displaced people in conflict-affected areas, including in Sudan’s Darfur region, Ethiopia’s Tigray region, and Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince. 

    In response to the crisis in Port-au-Prince, in March, MSF stepped in to run a water distribution system via tanker trucks to provide for more than 13,000 people living in four camps for communities displaced by violent clashes between armed groups and police. This was in addition to our regular activities focused on providing medical care for victims of violence. Ensuring access to clean drinking water is essential for health and preventing the spread of waterborne diseases like cholera.

    André Keli and Stallone Deke, MSF logistician and driver in Kisangani, ensure the final packaging of vaccines before they are loaded for shipment to Bondo, Bas-Uélé. | DR Congo 2021 © Pacom Bagula/MSF

    Vaccination

    The reported decision by the US to cut funding to Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, could have disastrous consequences for children across the globe. The organization estimated that the loss of US support is projected to deny approximately 75 million children routine vaccinations in the next five years, with more than 1.2 million children potentially dying as a result. Worldwide, more than half of the vaccines MSF uses come from local ministries of health and are procured through Gavi. We could see the impacts in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where MSF vaccinates more children than anywhere else in the world. In 2023 alone, MSF vaccinated more than 2 million people in DRC against diseases like measles and cholera.

    Narges Naderi, an MSF pharmacist, reviews a child patient’s prescription in the pediatric pharmacy at Mazar-i-Sharif Regional Hospital. | Afghanistan 2024 © Tasal Allahyar

    Mental health

    In Ethiopia’s Kule refugee camp, where MSF teams run a health center for more than 50,000 South Sudanese refugees, a US-funded organization abruptly halted mental health and social services for survivors of sexual violence and withdrew their staff. MSF teams provide other medical care but cannot currently cover the mental health and social services these patients need.

    Non-communicable diseases

    In Zimbabwe, US funding cuts have forced a local provider to stop its community outreach activities to identify women to be screened for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in Zimbabwe, even though it is preventable. Many women and girls—especially in rural areas—cannot afford or do not have access to diagnosis and treatment, which makes outreach, screening, and prevention activities vital.

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Press Briefing Transcript: Managing Director’s Global Policy Agenda, Spring Meetings 2025

    Source: International Monetary Fund

    April 24, 2025

    Speaker: Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, IMF

    Moderator: Julie Kozack, Director, Communications Department, IMF

    Ms. Kozack: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this IMF press briefing. I am Julie Kozack, Director of the Communications Department. Thank you so very much for joining us this morning and, as usual, we are going to begin with some opening remarks from our Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, after which we will turn to your questions. Without further ado, Kristalina, over to you.

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you, Julie. And a very warm welcome to all the journalists who got up early to be with us on this beautiful Thursday morning, and also to those who are online. Great to have you with us.

    As you saw earlier this week in our latest World Economic Outlook, we have significantly downgraded our projections for global growth. Major trade policy shifts have spiked uncertainty off the charts, accompanied by tighter financial conditions and higher market volatility. Simply put, the world economy is facing a new and major test, and it faces it with policy buffers depleted by the shocks of recent years. That puts countries in a difficult position. It also creates urgency for action to strengthen the economies for a world of rapid change.

    Today, I want to zoom in on how countries can actually do it. This is the main question we are getting from our members in every single meeting I have had this week. In my Global Policy Agenda, let me, for the audience, remind you that it is a very nicely crafted document. In parentheses this year we have very informative charts, and I hope you will look into those as well. In it, we focus on both the immediate challenges and our medium-term directions. I emphasize three overarching priorities. First and most urgent, for countries to work constructively to resolve trade tensions as swiftly as possible, preserving openness and removing uncertainty. A trade policy settlement among the main players is essential, and we are urging them to do it swiftly because uncertainty is very costly. I cannot stress this strongly enough.

    Without certainty, businesses do not invest, households prefer to save rather than to spend, and this further weakens prospects for already weakened growth.

    Countries also need to address the imbalances that fuel many of the tensions we see. Among major economies, some countries like China need to act to boost private consumption and embrace a shift to services. Others, like the United States, need to reduce fiscal deficits. And in Europe, it is time to complete the Single Market, Banking Union, Capital Markets Union, removing internal barriers to intra-EU trade. Get it done. All countries should seize this moment to lower their trade barriers, both tariff and nontariff.

    The second overarching priority, countries must act to safeguard economic and financial stability. The best way to do that is to get their own house in order. On fiscal policy, most countries need to rebuild buffers and ensure debt sustainability, although some may see shocks that warrant temporary and targeted fiscal support.

    We urge countries to define credible adjustment paths, gradual in most cases, protecting key investments, maximizing spending efficiency, and making space for longer term needs.

    Tradeoffs will be tough for all, but they will be toughest for low-income countries, which face both tight financial conditions and global growth slowdown and falling aid flows. To help ease the tradeoffs there, domestic resource mobilization must be part of the mix. We cannot have countries with a tax to GDP below 15 percent where it is difficult to sustain the functioning of the state. For central banks, the times when countries marched in lockstep is over. Different countries will face different conditions. Inflation pressures in some countries are easing. In others, pressures are yet to abate.

    What is our advice? Watch the data, watch inflation expectations. Central banks will need to strike a delicate balance between supporting growth and containing inflation. To do so, they must not only adjust policy interest rates but also rely on credibility to anchor expectations. Central bank independence is critical for credibility, protect it.

    Open economies, including many emerging markets, are exposed to the trade shocks and tighter financial conditions. They must preserve exchange rate flexibility as a shock absorber.

    In the event of unwarranted currency market volatility, these countries can find policy guidance in the IMF’s integrated policy framework.

    My third and final overarching priority, double down on growth oriented reforms to lift productivity. Even before the latest shock, we were living in a low growth, high debt world, sounding the alarm on weak medium-term growth for quite some time. You heard me saying that many times. Now is the time for long needed but often delayed reforms that can create a good business environment, put entrepreneurship in the front seat, reform labor markets, create conditions for innovation and in a world of rapid technological advancements, give countries a chance to catch the benefits of these advancements for their people.

    The IMF, of course, as always, will be there for our members. We are focusing on what we do best, helping them secure economic and financial stability, resolve or, even better, prevent balance of payments problems, and put in place strong policies and institutions to underpin vibrant economies.

    We will help countries with surveillance, with diagnostics, with policy advice and, when necessary, by providing financial support.

    As part of crisis resolution, we must ensure that the Global Financial Safety Net is strong. We will look for ways to further strengthen our collaboration with regional financing arrangements, and with [major] swap-providing central banks. When we have a cohesive, effective, and efficient Global Financial Safety Net, this will deliver confidence to our members in this more shock prone world.

    We will continue to foster cooperative policy solutions for promoting a healthy rebalancing of the world economy to help countries address debt vulnerabilities. Here, I want to acknowledge the important work of the Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable. This week, we agreed to publish a playbook that provides guidance for predictable and faster debt restructuring processes. And I was very pleased to see [the] support of all traditional, nontraditional creditors, private sector, and debtor countries to have that predictability.

    Finally, we will reiterate the need for continued cooperation in a multipolar world. The shared objective for all must be a better balanced and more resilient world economy.

    Before I wrap it up, I want to recognize Secretary Bessent’s remarks yesterday in which he laid out the U.S. administration’s vision for the Bretton Woods Institutions. The United States is our largest shareholder. And even more, the United States is the home of my colleagues and me. So, of course, we greatly value the voice of the United States. I very much appreciate Secretary Bessent’s reiteration of the U.S.’s commitment to the Fund and its role. He raised a number of issues and priorities for the institution that I look forward to discussing with the U.S. authorities and the membership as a whole. We will have opportunities to do so here, and we will also have opportunities to continue with our Executive Board as we carry out important policy reviews–the Comprehensive Surveillance Review, it will set our surveillance priorities for the next five years, and the Review of Program Design and Conditionality, which will carefully consider how our lending can best help countries address the low growth challenge and durably resolve balance of payments weaknesses. So, we have a way to go, and we are laser focused on it.

    Are there cyclists in this room, people who bike, bikers? As bikers would pay, ‘pedalare,’ step on the pedal. With that, I am very happy to take your questions.

    Ms. Kozack: Thank you very much, Kristalina. We will now turn to your questions. I see you have hands up already. Very good. Please just give your name and outlet when called on. I am going to start right here, woman right in the front row here.

    Questioner: Thanks very much for the opportunity to ask you—to put a question to you. You mentioned Secretary Bessent’s remarks yesterday. He accused the IMF and the World Bank of mission creep and specifically the IMF on mission creep in areas such as climate change, gender policies and also social issues. Do you think there is a role in the future for the IMF in areas such as climate, gender, and social issues?       

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you for your question. So, what do we do here? We concentrate on macroeconomic and financial stability for growth and employment. We have 191 members. They face different challenges. They face different types of risks to their balance of payment. And what we do is to analyze what these risks and what the Fund in our mandate and what we do on the fiscal side, on the monetary policy side, on the financial sector side, what can we do to help them be more resilient to shocks. So, when we have, for example, Caribbean countries that are wiped out by extreme weather events regularly, naturally they are very concerned about that, and they say how can we be more resilient to these shocks? Again, we focus on balance of payment. What are the risks and what can be done to protect the balance of payments in these countries.

    I want to say that I actually agree with the Secretary on one thing. It is a very complicated world, a world of massive challenges of all kinds. We are a small institution. We are 4,000 people. Not very well-known, but a very fiscally disciplined institution. Our budget today in real terms is what it was 20 years ago. So, yes, we have to focus. And that is exactly why we engage with the membership, so we can make best use of the staff of the Fund. I really like to run a tight ship. Yes.

    Ms. Kozack: I can attest to that. Let us go here, the gentleman in the third row, blue shirt.

    Questioner: Just to follow-up on Claire’s question. Does Secretary Bessent’s prescriptions here for the Fund, will it cause you to sort of rethink some of the lending programs like the RSF and the RST? And then secondly, a lot of economists in the private sector have sort of a more pessimistic view, especially when you look at sort of the prospects for U.S. recession. You are not predicting that. Some of the Ministers here that we have been interviewing feel that the Fund is being too conservative. Can you just sort of explain the differences between yourselves and the private sector?

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you very much. Actually, in the paper that I just flagged to you, we have a slide that shows Fund lending. You need a magnifying glass to see the share of the Resilience and Sustainability Trust in this lending. It is really small, but as I was explaining in the answer to the previous question, for countries that are highly vulnerable to extreme weather events, having policy advice strictly on the macro side, there is a bit of confusion. People think that we have climate experts. We do not. That is not our job. Our job is to say, OK, if you are Dominica and a hurricane can wipe out the equivalent of 200 percent of your GDP, what are reasonable policies to put in place, or to be more specific, because we have a program with Barbados, if you are Barbados natural disasters are highly damaging to your economy, what are the policy measures you can put in place. In the case of Barbados, we came up with creating an additional buffer for them that would actually prevent a balance of payments shock from derailing the economic development of the country. So, of course, we are a membership institution. What our members decide, this is what we do. We periodically review all of our instruments. At this point, we have the function of the Fund on balance of payments support defined with a number of instruments being deployed.

    To your second question, I am going to do this illustration. My glass, when you look at it, it is more than 60 percent full. This is where we are. This is what it is. How can I call it empty? I cannot. When we look at the data, what we see is that for the United States, recession risks have increased now to 37 percent, but we are not yet—we do not see either in the labor market or indicators for the functioning of the economy such a dramatic block of economic activities that would drag growth in the United States all the way to below zero.

    So, as you remember, I mean, this is something that people may not appreciate enough. Our earlier projections for a very vibrant U.S. economy were for 2.7 percent growth for this year. We have downgraded the United States—actually this is the largest of our downgrades—by 0.9 percent, to 1.8 percent for this year. But we see enough that carries the United States forward. And, of course, we recognize that there is work underway to resolve trade disputes and reduce uncertainty. I want to reiterate my message. Uncertainty is really bad for business, so the sooner this cloud that is hanging over our heads is lifted, the better for prospects for growth.

    For the world economy, as you know we are—you saw it in the WEO, we are also projecting an increase in recession risk from 17 to 30 percent. But again—and by the way, there we talk about growth falling below 2 percent, not below zero, so there is a lot that is carrying the world economy—actually the real economy is functioning in a way that we are seeing no predominant risk. Is there risk? Yes. But it is in our, we used to say, downside scenario and not in what is our—the scenario we anchor our projections.

    This being said—and I am sorry I am dwelling on that. It is a very important question. I get it from delegations when we talk about our projections a lot. This being said, countries can—they are not passive observers. They can act. And one thing that is amazing in these meetings is how much that sense of urgency to act is penetrating our membership. And I do hope that Ministers will go back and say, OK, tough reform, I have postponed it, postpone no more.

    Ms. Kozack: We are going to this side of the room. I am going to go all the way to the end. There is a woman in the third row at the end in a brown suit.

    Questioner: My question is many emerging markets, particularly in Asia, are feeling the pinch of escalating trade tensions and global uncertainties. So, from the IMF’s perspective, how has China and ASEAN countries been affected so far and is there any policy recommendations in the near term that are available from the IMF to navigate these countries through this thank you.

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you for your question. Indeed, Asia is a continent that is quite significantly impacted because economies that rely a lot on exports, when tariffs are announced, feel the pinch more. When we look at China, we have downgraded growth projections for China from 4.6 to 4 percent. We would have downgraded it much more—we actually would have had not .06 but 1.3 percent downgrade if it was not for the policy accommodation that China is already putting in place. It helps. And that is the first piece of advice. If you have policy space, now is a good time to use it. With regard to China, we are emphasizing four points. First, rebalance your economy towards domestic consumption more.

    Second, to help with this, bring to an end the turmoil in the property sector. And, of course, add social protection for people so they do not feel compelled to save rather than spend.

    Third, lift up services, a warm embrace from healthcare to education to basically the service sector, vis-à-vis the goods consumption. And four—and the fourth is very important. Get the government to pull back from too much intervention in the economy. Let the private sector function to its full capacity.

    We are currently working on a paper, and that is in consultation, collaboration with the Chinese authorities, to document in details what are the ways in which the government may be supporting businesses and by doing so shifting the competitive position of these businesses. And this will be one of our contributions to China.

    I am particularly concerned about ASEAN. Why? Because ASEAN, very open economies. They find themselves in a very tough spot with announced tariffs quite significant across the board in ASEAN countries.

    ASEAN has done really well to build resilience over the last years. Their growth has been quite sound. They have prudently brought inflation down. They have disciplined fiscal policy. It helps. This is our number one advice to ASEAN. You have some policy space in monetary policy, in fiscal policy. Carefully and prudently use it, of course, being mindful that if you deplete it entirely and there is another shock, that would be a problem.

    We have been working with ASEAN on their external sector, especially forex. We have integrated the policy framework. It allows good thinking around how to apply the exchange rate flexibility, how to look at this from the perspective of sudden exogenous shocks. I am very pleased to see that ASEAN is doing something that other regions are doing, strengthening economic cooperation, policy coordination, and intra-ASEAN trade. Currently the ASEAN countries trade only 21 percent among themselves. Well, they sure can go up.

    And I think that we will see not only in ASEAN, we will see it in other places, Gulf Cooperation Council, Central Asia, the African continent with the Continental Free Trade Agreement, more being done to compensate, if global trade is going down, then regional trade can be a compensator and actually inject growth energy.

    I want to finish by saying that ASEAN has been remarkably prudent over the last years to build resilience. And that puts them in a good position to have the reputation to deploy their policy space if needed.

    Ms. Kozack: OK. I am going to stay on this side of the room. I will go to the gentleman in the second row with the red tie.

    Questioner: You said these present tensions could disproportionately impact low-income countries, and I am glad you mentioned the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement because my question is on Africa. You met with the Nigerian delegation earlier this week. What is the strategy or your advice for the African continent? As you have noted in the past, Africa is not a country. It is a continent. Egypt cut rates for the first time in five years seven days ago. Prior to that, Ghana hiked its interest rate for the first time in almost three years. In these tough times, what is your advice for the continent?

    Ms. Georgieva: Well, we have seen over the last years the African continent having some of the fastest growing economies, but we also have seen low-income countries primarily, and among them fragile conflict affected countries, falling further behind. And now this is a shock for the continent. The direct impact of tariffs on most of Africa, not on all of Africa, but on most of Africa is relatively small, but the indirect impact is quite significant. Slowing global growth means that all other things equal, they will see a downgrade. And actually, we have downgraded growth prospects for the continent.

    For the oil producers like Nigeria, falling oil prices creates additional pressure on their budgets. On the other hand, for the oil importers, this is a breath of fresh air. In other words, as you indicated in your question, different countries face different challenges. If I were to come with some basic recommendations that apply to Africa, I would say—and actually they apply to Nigeria, they apply to Egypt, they apply to Ghana, they apply to Coté d’Ivoire. First, continue on a path of strengthening your fundamentals. There is still a lot that can be done on the fiscal side to have strength. As I was talking about ASEAN, to have buffers for a moment of shock. And do not use any excuses, oh, it is difficult, we cannot really go for more tax because, yes, you can. There is a lot that can be done to broaden the tax base and a lot that can be done to reduce tax evasion and tax avoidance.

    Using technology as some countries are doing to chase the tax dollar when there is the foundation for that is a very good thing to do.

    Second, on the monetary policy side, we know more as I said in the opening—we are no more in a place when you can look at the book of the Central Bank Governor of the neighboring country and say, oh, they are doing this, I will do the same, because you have to really assess domestic resource mobilization, what is your inflationary pressures and do the right thing for your country.

    But above all, make it so that the image of the whole continent changes because now everybody suffers from wrongdoing, from corruption or from conflict in one country. It throws a shadow on the rest of the continent.

    Finally, like with ASEAN, deepen interregional trade and cooperation. Remove the obstacles to it. Sometimes there are infrastructure obstacles. The World Bank is working on reducing that infrastructure obstacle to growth and trade.

    Africa has so much to offer the world. Obviously, they have the minerals, the natural disasters, and the young population. I think a more unified, more collaborative continent can go a long, long way to [becoming] an economic powerhouse.

    Ms. Kozack: I will go to this side of the room. I am going to have the woman in the red jacket, third row.

    Questioner: Ms. Georgieva, you have been very complementary of the economic reform that the Argentinian government is implementing. You have said that Argentina is an example of a country that has made great strides through structural reforms and fiscal discipline. I would like to ask you about the challenges that now the new program is facing right now, and above all what are the risks that Argentina can face in these times of global uncertainty? Thank you.

    Ms. Georgieva: Argentina has demonstrated that this time it is different. This time there is decisiveness to put the economy on a soundtrack from high deficit to surplus, from double-digit inflation to inflation that in February dipped under 3 percent, from poverty over 50 percent to now around 37 percent. Still very high but going down. The state is stepping out from where it does not belong to allow more dynamism in the private sector. Actually, if you are interested, today we will have the global debate, and Federico is going to be one of the speakers to talk about smart regulation, how you make the economy more vibrant by not being an obstacle to private initiative.

    We saw that when the program was announced, the immediate impact on markets was positive because, among other things, you ask about risks. One risk for Argentina would be if it is alone in this macroeconomic stabilization, now the country is not alone. We are there. The World Bank is there. The InterAmerican Bank is stepping up. What are the risks? And I am sorry, and there is a very important opportunity for Argentina in a world hungry for what Argentina produces, both in agriculture and in minerals, mining, gas, lithium. What are the risks?

    First, external. A worsening global environment of all other things equal, it would impact Argentina negatively. Domestic resource mobilization, the country is going to go to elections, as you know, in October. And it is very important that they do not derail the will for change. So far, we do not see that. We do not see that risk materializing, but I would urge Argentina, stay the course.

    Ms. Kozack: All right. Let us go right here in the front, end of the first row.

    Questioner: Managing Director, we had a lot of news this week, for example, mixed signals on tariffs on China, commentary on the position of the Fed Chair, and of course now the U.S. support of the IMF. How would you sum up the mood of the meetings of your members this week, please? 

    Ms. Georgieva: The membership is anxious because we were just about to step on a road to more stability after multiple shocks. We were projecting 3.3 percent growth. And actually, we were worried that this is not strong enough. And here we are, growth prospects weakened. The membership is also recognizing—and I hear it time and again—that it is very important to have a rules based global economy in which there is predictability of planning for action, both for governments and for the private sector. I actually hear a lot of support from the membership for the Fund because we have actually, the same way Argentina earned the Fund to support it, we have earned the support of the members by being there for them.

    Where the expectations are for the outcome of the meetings is to get more consistency in how all countries are going to go about pursuing their interests, which is legitimate. Of course, every country has to think about its own people but doing it so in a way that enlarges the global pie. It does not shrink it.

    Ms. Kozack: We have time for one last question. I am going to go over here.

    Ms. Georgieva: I am sorry. What I would say is the worry I hear more often is actually not even the tariffs. It is uncertainty. Let us have clarity. And that is why we are—with my apologies to the audience—so repetitive to say we need to bring uncertainty down.

    Ms. Kozack: We have time for one last question, the woman in the burgundy suit.

    Questioner:  I wanted to ask you about the MENA region. How concerned are you with all of this turmoil around the dollar and its effect on the MENA region, especially that many countries there are exporters of intermediate goods that go into major industries and many of them are exporters of energy and what is happening to the dollar is definitely of effect. And you have mentioned uncertainty many times today in this press conference. So, this uncertainty, how will it affect the countries in our region that are trying to get out of a lot of geopolitical uncertainty with the help of the IMF and special programs, such as Egypt? So, will this make the IMF revisit some of those programs amid all of this turmoil?

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you very much. The MENA region actually got quite a downgrade. It is still doing better this year than last year, but we were projecting that growth would go to 4 percent and now we downgraded it to 2.6. A little bit like Africa, most of the impact is indirect. While countries in the MENA region, of course, trade with the United States, but most of them do not have very high exposure. And where it bites is slowing down of the global economy. And MENA has many oil exporters. The price of oil is going down.

    The dollar has historically, it goes up, it goes down. It is not a new thing. So, if you have an oil exporter and you get your revenues in dollars, when the dollar weakens, that creates a bit of a problem for your fiscal position. But if you are an oil exporter, this is a gift because then you can deal more easily with the challenges you face.

    My take for the MENA region is a very diverse region, like the African continent. You have the Gulf Cooperation Council. I have a lot of praise to offer because they have been pursuing reforms and diversification of the economies. Most countries have done really well. So now they see oil growth down, but non-oil economies are still doing quite well.

    We have the more kind of middle-income countries that are faced with difficulties impacted by regional conflicts like Jordan, like Egypt. And there we have been engaged, we have been providing support, as you know. We have countries like Morocco that have done really well to get their house in order, to have sound fiscal monetary policy and the only country in the region that is eligible for Flexible Credit Line from the IMF. And then we have countries like Sudan or Syria that are severely impacted by conflicts.

    I was very pleased that the attention of our membership, despite difficulties at home, across-the-board on low-income countries and conflict affected states, has sharpened. There is a recognition that what happens there impacts the rest of the world.

    We had a Syria meeting during the week of the meetings. The first time in more than 20 years, the Central Bank Governor and the Minister of Finance from Syria are here at the meetings. Our intention is to first and foremost help them rebuild institutions so they can plug themselves in the world economy.

    You are asking me whether we are revisiting program assumptions. Of course, we will be carefully watching what is happening. Then I had a meeting with the Prime Minister of Jordan. We are not talking about amending the program for Jordan right now, but we are talking about the importance of the Fund as an anchor of stability and how we can exercise this role.

    Ms. Kozack: Thank you very much, Managing Director, and thank you very much to all of our journalists who have joined us today. I am bringing this press conference to an end. As always, the transcript will be made available on our website, and I want to wish all of you a very wonderful rest of your day. Thank you very much.

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you very much. Have a good rest of your day.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Wafa Amr

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

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Five People Indicted for Trafficking Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, and Marijuana in Western Tennessee

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Jackson, TN – Five people have been indicted in the Western District of Tennessee and are facing federal charges for their involvement in an organized drug trafficking scheme in the Western District of Tennessee according to recently unsealed indictments. The charges are the culmination of a two-year long investigation by FBI’s Transnational Organized Crime Task Force and the Drug Enforcement Administration in conjunction with the Selmer Police Department, McNairy County Sheriff’s Office, Adamsville Police Department, Bolivar Police Department, and Jackson Police Department.  Joseph C. Murphy, Jr., Interim United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee, announced the unsealing of the indictments today.

    According to court documents, between April 2023 and March 2025, the defendants worked together and with others to distribute fentanyl, methamphetamine, and marijuana throughout West Tennessee. The investigation revealed the drug trafficking organization is linked to and worked in conjunction with the Sinaloa cartel in furtherance of the distribution efforts within McNairy County and Memphis, Tennessee.  The Sinaloa cartel, also known as Cártel de Sinaloa, is a transnational organization based in Sinaloa, Mexico and was designated on February 20, 2025 as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.  Cártel de Sinaloa is one of the world’s most powerful drug cartels and is one of the largest producers and traffickers of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine into the United States.

    During the investigation, agents seized 10 kilograms of cocaine, over 16 pounds of methamphetamine, 30,000 fentanyl pills, approximately 40 pounds of marijuana, approximately $21,000 in cash, and a firearm. The indictment is in conjunction with the initiative “Operation Take Back America.”

    On March 20, 2025, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging all five individuals with Conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; four of the individuals with Conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine; and three of the individuals with conspiracy to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana. Two of the defendants were charged with multiple individual counts of distribution of cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. One defendant was charged with being an illegal alien and unlawfully in the United States and knowing possession of a firearm.

    Those individuals named in the indictment are:

    • Juan Palomino, 36, of Selmer, TN
    • Joaquin Elizalde, 44, of Selmer, TN
    • Javier Varela, 41, of Byhalia, MS
    • Luis Lizarraga, 36, of Memphis, TN
    • David Asua, 46, of Memphis, TN

    “These defendants took part in a conspiracy that exposed our communities to significant amounts of Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, and Marijuana,” said Special Agent in Charge Joseph E. Carrico of the FBI Nashville Field Office. “The FBI and our law enforcement partners remain committed to identifying, disrupting, and dismantling any criminal enterprise that risks the wellbeing of our citizens.”

    McNairy County Sheriff Guy Buck stated “We are extremely proud of the outcomes of this investigation and would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Federal, State, and Local Agencies that played a vital role in its success. This case highlights how even small, tight-knit communities are directly impacted by the influence of drug cartels and the international drug trade. As Sheriff, I want to emphasize that no one is above the law, and we will ensure that every individual involved is held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

    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 (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).

    This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Christie Hopper and Greg Allen.  It was investigated by FBI’s Transnational Organized Crime Task Force, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Selmer Police Department, the McNairy County Sheriff’s Office, the Adamsville Police Department, the Bolivar Police Department, and the Jackson Police Department.  The investigation was furthered by assistance from the FBI – Denver Division.

    The charges and allegations contained in the indictment are merely accusations of criminal conduct, not evidence.  The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted through due process of law.

    ###

    For more information, please contact the media relations team at USATNW.Media@usdoj.gov. Follow the U.S. Attorney’s Office on Facebook or on X at @WDTNNews for office news and updates.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: CalAmp Delivers Strong Financial Performance in 2024

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CARLSBAD, Calif., April 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — CalAmp, a leading telematics company providing products and solutions that help organizations worldwide monitor, track, and protect vital assets, today announced strong results for calendar year 2024. The results underscore a transformative year marked by financial strength, strategic leadership hires, product innovation, and global expansion.

    “We are proud of the strides we made in 2024—financially, operationally, and strategically,” said Chris Adams, President and CEO of CalAmp. “Our refreshed leadership team is taking a customer first approach, with a focus on delivering innovative solutions and world-class customer service.”

    CalAmp delivered robust business results in 2024, including the following milestones:

    • Surpassed a total of 2.7 million subscribers across its business units
    • Generated revenue of $197 million and EBITDA of $12.7 million
    • Delivered strong positive free cash flow with >100% EBITDA conversion
    • Ended the year with a solid cash position of $72 million and positive net cash on the balance sheet following the elimination of $230 million of debt

    CalAmp’s technology solutions processed and analyzed over one trillion data points (3.5 billion a day) during 2024, reinforcing the company’s position as a powerhouse in connected intelligence. The flagship Here Comes the Bus® app served over 1.7 million parents, strengthening CalAmp’s leadership in student safety and family engagement.

    To further accelerate its rapidly growing Connected Car Solutions business unit, CalAmp expanded its global footprint with the opening of a new LoJack® France office, building on the trusted LoJack brand to better serve European markets.

    To enhance its market leadership and drive further growth, CalAmp strategically organized its operations into four core business units: Edge Devices, Telematics Solutions, Connected Car Solutions, and Student Safety. The company hired and promoted accomplished leaders to bolster each of these divisions:

    • Tom Ayers, a former VP at onsemi and Sony Electronics, hired to lead Edge Devices;
    • Paul Washicko, previously General Manager of SaaS at CalAmp, returned to lead Telematics Solutions;
    • Maurizio Iperti promoted to President of Connected Car Solutions, overseeing all regions, including Europe, the United Kingdom, and Mexico;
    • Thomas Polan, a co-founder of the Synovia K-12 solution acquired by CalAmp in 2019, rejoined as Deputy GM of Student Safety.

    These key management appointments align with CalAmp’s commitment to operational excellence and market expansion, reinforcing its ability to scale in key growth sectors.

    As CalAmp enters 2025, the company is well-positioned to build on its momentum, drive innovation, and deepen its partnerships across mobility, safety, and asset intelligence.

    About CalAmp

    CalAmp provides flexible solutions to help organizations worldwide monitor, track, and protect their vital assets. Our unique device-enabled software and cloud platform enables commercial and government organizations worldwide to improve efficiency, safety, visibility, and compliance while accommodating the unique ways they do business. With over 10 million active edge devices and 220+ approved or pending patents, CalAmp is the telematics leader organizations turn to for innovation and dependability. For more information, visit calamp.com, or LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube or CalAmp Blog.

    CalAmp, LoJack, TRACKER, Here Comes The Bus, Bus Guardian, CalAmp Vision, CrashBoxx and associated logos are among the trademarks of CalAmp and/or its affiliates in the United States, certain other countries and/or the EU. Spireon acquired the LoJack® U.S. Stolen Vehicle Recovery (SVR) business from CalAmp and holds an exclusive license to the LoJack mark in the United States and Canada. Any other trademarks or trade names mentioned are the property of their respective owners.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICE Boston removes alien fugitive wanted for aggravated murder, desecration of corpse in Brazil

    Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    BOSTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed a Brazilian fugitive convicted in her native country for aggravated first-degree murder, desecration of a corpse and theft of motor vehicle. Officers with ICE Boston removed Lenaria Aparecida Pereira Sandoval from the United States to Brazil, March 27, and turned her over to Brazilian authorities.

    “Lenaria Aparecida Pereira Sandoval committed some horrifying crimes in her native country and then attempted to evade justice by hiding out in our Massachusetts community,” said ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston acting Field Office Director Patricia H. Hyde. “Now she will be forced to face justice for the crimes she committed. We will not allow New England to become a refuge for the world’s bad actors. ICE Boston will continue to prioritize public safety by arresting and removing criminal alien offenders from our neighborhoods.”

    Sandoval lawfully entered the United States Dec. 27, 2015, at Orlando, Florida; however, she violated the terms of her lawful admission.

    On Sept. 21, 2021, a Brazilian court convicted Sandoval in absentia for aggravated first-degree murder, desecration of a corpse and theft of a motor vehicle. The court then sentenced Sandoval to 17 years in prison. Later that day, Brazilian authorities issued a warrant for Sandoval’s arrest.

    Officers with ICE Boston arrested Sandoval Feb. 27, 2023, and served her with an arrest warrant and a notice to appear before a Department of Justice immigration judge.

    On Aug. 27, 2024, an immigration Judge ordered Sandoval removed.

    Members of the public can report crimes and suspicious activity by dialing 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) or completing the online tip form.

    Learn more about ICE’s mission to increase public safety in our communities on X: @EROBoston.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Spring Meetings 2025 Press Briefing Transcript: Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four (G24)

    Source: International Monetary Fund

    April 24, 2025

    SPEAKERS:

    Chair: Pablo Quirno, Secretary of Finance, Ministry of Economy of Argentina

    First Vice‑Chair:  Olawale Edun, Federal Minister of Finance of Nigeria

    Second Vice‑Chair: Jameel Ahmad, Governor, State Bank of Pakistan

    Director: Iyabo Masha, G‑24 Secretariat

    MODERATOR:

    Pavis Devahasadin, Communications Officer, IMF

    Mr. Devahasadin: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pavis Devahasadin, Communication Officer from the IMF’s Communication Department. I would like to welcome everyone here in this room and our online audience to the press conference on the Intergovernmental Group of 24 on International Monetary Affairs and Development or G‑24.

    Before we begin, I would like to remind you that we have simultaneous translation in English, French and Spanish. It is my honor to introduce the distinguished panel at this table, the Chair of the Ministry of the G‑24 at the center is Mr. Pablo Quirno, Secretary of Finance of Argentina. To his right is Mr. Vice Chair, Mr. Olawale Edun, Nigeria’s Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy. To the left of Mr. Chair is Second‑Vice Chair Mr. Jameel Ahmad, Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan. Of course, at the other end of the table is Director of G‑24 Secretariat Ms. Iyabo Masha. Without further ado, may I invite Mr. Quirno to give some remarks. Mr. Chair, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Quirno (Argentina): Thank you, Pavis. Dear members of the press, I would like to extend a warm welcome to each and every one of you as we gather for this press conference. You have at your disposal our comprehensive communiqué and press release encapsulating the discussions held today. Allow me to briefly highlight the key takeaways.

    We are witnessing a major transition in how the global economy works and processes of change such as these always involve intervals of great volatility and uncertainty. Our communiqué reflects that the recent economic developments have driven uncertainty to elevated levels. In this context, emerging market and developing economies face additional challenges stemming from both external conditions and domestic factors.

    On the external front, many EMDEs continue to face elevated public debt levels and rising debt servicing burdens. The prevailing environment of still tight global financial conditions is exacerbating these challenges, constraining fiscal space, and forcing difficult tradeoffs between repaying creditors and investing in critical areas for productivity, growth and development. These also represent a risk to macroeconomic stability, as debt maturities and rising debt service payments hinder fiscal consolidation plans, which are necessary to tackle domestic imbalances, maintain price stability, and foster a stable macroeconomic environment for investment and growth.

    On the domestic front, weak fiscal fundamentals are at the core of macroeconomic instability, while many of us face longstanding structural policy challenges that hold back productivity and competitiveness.

    The building up of external and fiscal imbalances amid public spending pressures that exceed revenues and with constrained access to international financial markets further erodes macroeconomic stability.

    Furthermore, domestic environments perceived as unsafe for investment dominated by overly complex legislation and inefficient and burdensome tax systems add to macroeconomic instability to further discourage much‑needed private capital inflows.

    As stated in the communiqué, domestic policymaking is the first line of defense. The best way to enhance short‑term domestic responsiveness, as well as medium‑term growth capacity is through solid macroeconomic frameworks combined with clear rules that foster a predictable environment for private investment.

    Pivoting to our fiscal consolidation to set debt on a sustainable path and rebuild buffers while advancing with productivity‑enhancing‑market reoriented structural reforms must remain priorities for the domestic policymaking. Whereas doing so while maintaining social cohesion and protecting the most vulnerable can be challenging, it can be achieved with careful policy calibration.

    But as these measures may take some time to deliver, mobilizing sufficient international support is also crucial to help countries meet their financing needs while they navigate the waters towards a healthier economy. The Bretton Woods Institutions remain crucial, necessitating decisive actions to fortify the Global Financial Safety Net and broaden development finance. The IMF’s role as a centerpiece of the Global Financial Safety Net is vital in addressing multilateral challenges and supporting vulnerable countries. We appreciate the IMF’s recent reforms to better support EMDEs, such as the recent review of the charges and surcharges policies.

    However, countries with limited access to affordable short‑term and crisis‑related liquidity continue to face vulnerabilities. It is essential to address liquidity pressures and strengthen crisis prevention and response capabilities, including enhancing existing financial safety nets. Surveillance and internal and external stability should be intensified, including on spillover effects from systematically important countries. The World Bank has made progress in implementing the Evolution Program, but further progress is required in operationalizing key aspects of the framework of financial incentives and reducing IBRD loan pricing. Faster implementation of the remaining G‑20 Independent Experts Groups Recommendations on MDB reforms is needed, including mitigating currency risks through local currency lending and domestic capital market reforms, de‑risking private‑sector investment, and increasing capital within the WBG and across the MDB system.

    Swift progress on the 2025 shareholding review is necessary to address misalignments, strengthen voice and representation, enhance IBRD legitimacy, and ensure equitable voting power.

    In sum, the path to sharp growth and a steady growing economy is multifaceted. We must do our part and commit to strengthen fiscal and monetary frameworks, build robust institutions, and embrace structural reforms that promote competitiveness, productivity gains, and job creation, but at the same time we need global financial institutions that recognize domestic efforts and are willing and well‑prepared to step up for these countries. Thank you, and with these remarks, I am now ready to entertain your questions.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we begin the Q&A section, I kindly ask that all questions remain within the scope of the G‑24’s mandate and responsibilities. Other questions outside of its purview, of course, should be raised during the regional press conferences that are going to be taking place in the coming days. And please kindly identify yourself, your organization, your news outlet, and specify to whom your questions would like to be addressing. With that, any questions? Yes, sir.

    QUESTION: Good morning to everybody. Mr. Quirno, you just said that the Bretton Woods Institutions are crucial. Does any of you feel that their role, their functioning is endangered currently? Thank you for answering this question.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you.

    Mr. Quirno: I think globally we are facing a period of volatility and uncertainty. As such, the Bretton Woods Institutions are crucial in providing the safety net and the channels of communication that remain open among the different countries that participate in those institutions. And I think the role is very, very important. And we do not see them—I mean, we are always rebalancing their role and their task, and it is something that is a process that we do constantly. At the end of the day, the role is vital. It is very important, and we do not see them at risk as you put it.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Minister Edun.

    Mr. Edun (Nigeria): Thank you. I agree with the Chair that there is nothing that we have heard that says that the Bretton Woods Institutions stands ready to do anything other than on the one hand, provide safety net. On the other hand, continue to provide development finance. If anything, this time of heightened global uncertainty, what we have heard from them is that they stand ready and are very much willing and capable to help countries to navigate this particular time and to continue to encourage good policymaking, to encourage resilience, building of resilience, building of buffers and effectively staying the course for those who are actually on a path that will take them further along the road to growth development and reduction of poverty.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Governor Ahmad or Ms. Masha, would you like to add anything?

    Mr. Ahmad: No, it is OK. I think we fully agree with the views expressed by the Chair and the Vice. I think the increased uncertainty and the prevailing situation, it has become much more important for the Bretton Woods Institutions to continue to play their role and particularly as the financial safety net providers and also as the development partners. I think they have a role which will continue to be there, and they will be contributing in the performance of the road previously—that they have been doing previously, so I fully agree.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Ms. Masha?

    Ms. Masha (G-24 Secretariat): Yes. We believe that the organizations are very useful, and the usefulness is very much appreciated, and so we do not have any uncertainty about their continued relevance. And we do hope that whatever actions countries are taking, the advanced economies are taking, they will factor into their decision the very good usefulness of these organizations. Thank you.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Going back to the floor. Any question? Right here, lady with the glasses.

    QUESTION: My question is for Mr. Jameel Ahmad. What steps is the State Bank of Pakistan taking? Is it engaging with other central banks to mitigate risks, particularly in the G‑24 framework? Thank you.

    Mr. Ahmad: I think as initially said that if there is any specific questions pertaining to the State Bank, we can discuss that during the separate conferences, which we have, but for the time being, since we are in the G-24 platform, we are coordinating with other central banks, and we discussed all these issues during the yesterday’s Deputies Meeting as well as today’s meeting also of the G-24. These are the issues faced by the G-24 members and have been thoroughly discussed and the stance has been agreed upon. This is what is contained in the communiqué which is being issued today.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Going back to the floor, maybe in the midsection I saw some hands. I will start with you in the black. Thank you. We are going to make our way back. Yes.

    QUESTION: So, I have a couple questions for everyone here. First of all, how concerned are your members from the fallout from tariffs and what are they trying to do to try to mitigate the impacts? Also, are you planning to work more closely with each other, for instance, increasing trade with each other? And lastly, specifically, are you planning on working more closely with China, for instance?

    Mr. Devahasadin: Just to add to that, I got an advanced question Sri Lanka. In the light of reciprocal tariff currently in place, what strategy is the G‑24 considering as a working group to alleviate the pressure on emerging economies? So that is related to your question as well. Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Quirno: Thank you. Thank you for the questions. I think that it is important to understand that the G‑24 is a very diverse group of countries, and everyone, each of us has its own peculiarities, strengths, and weaknesses in the midst of the current trade situation. So, what I would say is that the fallout of this uncertainty that we are facing creates more volatility. And as emerging market countries and developing countries, what you face is a situation in which, in addition to the trade tensions, you have a situation on the capital markets and the capital flows, things that are based on the uncertainty. What happens is flows are expecting a solution. As one of the members said today, we can deal with good news. We can deal with bad news. We need to know what to do under uncertainty. You know, as we are going through this process of trade negotiations globally and as definitions are set, then we will know how to react. In the meantime, as we said in the communiqué and as we said in my opening remarks, the first line of defense, the thing that is within our country’s contro, is around the domestic agenda. We need to bring resilience into our own economies in such a way that we have a fiscal path that is credible, that we have sound monetary policies as well that back that fiscal consolidation program, because at the end of the day that is what investors are looking at.

    Investors are looking at the different countries’ situation and see how they can cope with this level of uncertainties. We have faced different levels, different crises in the past — globally, the pandemic being the last one. And we have, as a collective number of countries, been able to achieve a level of resilience that is very good. I mean, that resilience is being tested once again. That is why we also need to work in conjunction among the different countries, not only G‑24 but in a global context to address the situation. But I think the homework also needs to be consolidated at home in order to then continue moving forward. And as such, we are also obviously fostering our trade relationships among the different countries. We are doing it among the G‑24, among G‑20, so there are various areas of cooperation and consolidation there as well.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Any perspective from Ms. Masha in terms of coordination, collaboration across nations?

    Ms. Masha: Well, I think the Chair has pointed out some of those issues regarding macroeconomic stability, that is when these shocks manifest, there’s need for fiscal policies, sound monetary policies. But more along that line, it also provides opportunities for countries to pivot towards a different development pathway. Maybe going into sectors that are going to satisfy domestic demand will make them less prone to external shocks and diversifying their markets, the different markets, so they can better cope with the future tariff or trade policies. Thank you.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Going back to the floor, I see hands right there all the way in the back, the lady in beige. We will come back to the front.

    QUESTION: Thank you for taking our questions. A question for everyone, sort of piggybacking off of my colleague’s question on tariffs. How does the G‑24 weigh the inflationary risks versus risks of recession from the current tariff environment? And then one for the Argentina Secretary, you spoke about debt maturities and rising debt payments, more than 4 billion in debt many coming due for Argentina in July right after an ambitious reserve target accumulation from the IMF. How does Argentina plan to confront those payments and is there a target that it is looking back to return to capital markets? Thank you.

    Mr. Quirno: In terms of the first question related to inflationary pressures and related to the trade situation, we had this morning the World Economic Outlook conference in which we had details on that perspective, but I think also it is very early to tell on how this is going to at the end of the day be moving forward. We are not in the business—at least I am not in the business of projecting inflation in my own country. It is very difficult to try to project inflationary pressures on a global basis, but I think it is—as I said before, we are living in uncertain times. We expect that trade negotiations that are currently underway reach a good point that is satisfactory to everyone involved, and that will normalize trade flows from that perspective onwards. In terms of Argentina—I mean, despite the fact that it is a common theme throughout the G‑24—what we are trying to do in Argentina for the last 15 months is basically gain our credibility back. And as such, we have elected a very conservative and unorthodox approach to the problems that Argentina had. And one of the problems that Argentina had was on the fiscal front. And we have done a tremendous fiscal consolidation. We put our house in order, on the monetary front as well. And that track record is one that will put us in a path to regaining market access eventually.

    Having said that, from my perspective, as the CFO of the country, what I can say is that we work at it very conservatively. I am not assuming that Argentina will be able to re‑access markets at a given time. But we have certainty that the maturities are coming due. That is why we have worked in the past in showing our willingness to pay. We have honored all our commitments. We have now a new IMF program, which has started to work very well, as expected. And in addition to that, because of that conservative, look, we have already accumulated reserves. The Treasury has bought a significant amount of dollars that it has at the central bank to honor those obligations. So, we do not expect to—we cannot speculate about when Argentina will be able to re‑access international markets. When those will happen, when that situation happens, we will address it. But in the meantime, we still work as if we have no access, and we have to pay down our obligations as we did in this last 15 months.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you, I see three remaining hands. I will come back to the front with the lady in the brown jacket first and then I go to that side of the room. I see two hands. Please keep your questions short. We have limited time. Thank you.

    QUESTION: Hi. My question is regarding—we have seen the U.S. called back on some of the financings that it gives to developing economies, so in terms of financing the sustainable development goals, as well as climate action, could you talk about some of the challenges there?

    Mr. Devahasadin: Are your questions related to climate so we can collect them both? Anyone on climate here.

    Mr. Quirno: We face several challenges and as such, for that, many countries rely on the World Bank and the IMF, to basically be able to develop tools to finance that development, finance climate action, to finance infrastructure, and as such, we are at a period in which you have to—countries have to balance that in turn with their own macroeconomic situation in that respect. We need to—we have many of our countries in the G‑24 have significant natural resources that need to be developed. Those are the ones that are part of the transition energy, for example. And those are situations in which you cannot access private financing. The role of development financing in terms of climate, in terms of energy transition, et cetera, is very important. But those are challenges that are on the table that we need to address, and we are addressing together as a group and as an individual country as well.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Go back to the floor. Gentleman back here and we can go all the way back to you, sir.

    QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions. You brought back fiscal discipline to Argentina, but can you quantify the harmful effects on the lives of the citizens? That is what want to talk about, the strikes, the protests, the fact that people do not have money in their pockets. Secondly, you also talked about building resilience, how do we build resilience where most of the countries in the G‑24 have one similar problem, a lot of visionless leadership, definitely, and a lot of poverty. Our arms are already tied behind our hands economically. How do you expect us to build resilience?  We are just led to the slaughter slap.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Can I go all the way back to the back, the gentleman in the back, please?

    QUESTION: Thank you for taking my question. I wanted to touch on debt restructuring. In October you called on the reform of the Common Framework, and I am curious to know more about what sort of reform moves you have seen since then and also what types of reforms the G‑24 would like to see to the Common Framework. Thank you.

    Mr. Quirno: To the first question, I hate to make reference to Argentina, but the question was directly addressed to that situation. Argentina was facing a very dire situation—55 percent poverty rate before this administration took office. We have worked very, very strongly to do a couple of things that basically went straight to address that situation by having done our fiscal consolidation. We basically reduced 5 percentage points of GDP deficit in a month, something that has not been done probably anywhere else in the world so far. But we did it because we knew that we had no alternative. And at the end of the day, what happened is that the myth is that by doing such an adjustment, you would enter into a deep recession. Argentina rebounded out of its recession that was two and a half years long two months after that fiscal consolidation.

    Since then, real wages have increased for 10 months straight. Poverty levels have been reduced from 54 percent to 38 percent in about a year. And economic activity has increased 6 percent December 2024 from December 2023 when we took over. It can be done. That is the message. You know, there is preoccupations before, during such a big adjustment as we did, but it pays out. It takes the political will to do it. Everyone knows what needs to be done on the fiscal and monetary fronts. The books have been written about it. What happens is you need the political willingness to attack the problem because that may hurt politicians when they make those decisions. We have a very strong leadership in President Milei — the one that has said we need to go in this. What he has said is we need to take care of the most vulnerable. We doubled in real terms, while being able to achieve our financial surplus. We were able to double in real terms the assistance to the most vulnerable. And that is something that basically shows the amount of corruption and intermediation that was on the social plans that the national government was spending on. So now those funds have been redirected. It is funny that we doubled the expenditures in real terms, but the amount that people received more than tripled. We spent 100, and we are now spending 200 in real terms. People got 60. They received 60, and then they are receiving 200. That is a big—very big realization from the most vulnerable population that they have been robbed for years. Because by maintaining fiscal consolidation, by maintaining a financial surplus, we were still able to double the assistance to the most vulnerable.

    Mr. Devahasadin: We go to Ms. Masha on debt restructuring because you spoke about it last time.

    Ms. Masha: Debt restructuring?

    Mr. Devahasadin: The Common Framework. Yes, the progress on that.

    Ms. Masha: I want to add a little to what the Chair said in response to the question before I go to the Common Framework.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Yes.

    Ms. Masha: That is just to say that the G‑24 member countries, we have some of the largest economies in the world as members of G‑24, and the good thing is that the growth, the size of their economy, most of them over the past two or three decades, China, India and Brazil. So that takes a lot of vision. That takes a lot of implementations of the right policies. So, it is not quite a visionless leadership, but they have had to take policies that enable the countries to achieve what they have been able to achieve over such a short period of time.

    On the Common Framework — where we are on the Common Framework is that some countries have used it. Some have found it beneficial. The only complaint—well, some of the complaints we have heard about is that the process takes a very long time. And during that long time, they are not able to access the market, or they have to take some difficult decisions when they do not know how it is going to play out. And we also made that position known. The second, the other issue is we need more participation of the private market, maybe of also multilateral development banks, and also to have some precise idea of how it will play out. Some middle‑income countries have been asked to be a part of it. That is not really in discussion now, but all in all, countries have benefited from it, but there could be more benefit. Thank you.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Mr. Chair, you would like to add anything?

    Mr. Quirno (Argentina): No.

    Mr. Devahasadin: We are out of time. Unfortunately, Minister Edun had another obligation. If you have any follow‑up question, send it to press@G24.org. That was in the advisory, how to contact the G‑24. The communiqué should have been posted on IMF.org and the transcript of this press conference will be made available later. Thank you very much for joining this press conference and have a good rest of your day. Thank you.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Pavis Devahasadin

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

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Spring Meetings 2025 Press Briefing Transcript: Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four (G24)

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    April 24, 2025

    SPEAKERS:

    Chair: Pablo Quirno, Secretary of Finance, Ministry of Economy of Argentina

    First Vice‑Chair:  Olawale Edun, Federal Minister of Finance of Nigeria

    Second Vice‑Chair: Jameel Ahmad, Governor, State Bank of Pakistan

    Director: Iyabo Masha, G‑24 Secretariat

    MODERATOR:

    Pavis Devahasadin, Communications Officer, IMF

    Mr. Devahasadin: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pavis Devahasadin, Communication Officer from the IMF’s Communication Department. I would like to welcome everyone here in this room and our online audience to the press conference on the Intergovernmental Group of 24 on International Monetary Affairs and Development or G‑24.

    Before we begin, I would like to remind you that we have simultaneous translation in English, French and Spanish. It is my honor to introduce the distinguished panel at this table, the Chair of the Ministry of the G‑24 at the center is Mr. Pablo Quirno, Secretary of Finance of Argentina. To his right is Mr. Vice Chair, Mr. Olawale Edun, Nigeria’s Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy. To the left of Mr. Chair is Second‑Vice Chair Mr. Jameel Ahmad, Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan. Of course, at the other end of the table is Director of G‑24 Secretariat Ms. Iyabo Masha. Without further ado, may I invite Mr. Quirno to give some remarks. Mr. Chair, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Quirno (Argentina): Thank you, Pavis. Dear members of the press, I would like to extend a warm welcome to each and every one of you as we gather for this press conference. You have at your disposal our comprehensive communiqué and press release encapsulating the discussions held today. Allow me to briefly highlight the key takeaways.

    We are witnessing a major transition in how the global economy works and processes of change such as these always involve intervals of great volatility and uncertainty. Our communiqué reflects that the recent economic developments have driven uncertainty to elevated levels. In this context, emerging market and developing economies face additional challenges stemming from both external conditions and domestic factors.

    On the external front, many EMDEs continue to face elevated public debt levels and rising debt servicing burdens. The prevailing environment of still tight global financial conditions is exacerbating these challenges, constraining fiscal space, and forcing difficult tradeoffs between repaying creditors and investing in critical areas for productivity, growth and development. These also represent a risk to macroeconomic stability, as debt maturities and rising debt service payments hinder fiscal consolidation plans, which are necessary to tackle domestic imbalances, maintain price stability, and foster a stable macroeconomic environment for investment and growth.

    On the domestic front, weak fiscal fundamentals are at the core of macroeconomic instability, while many of us face longstanding structural policy challenges that hold back productivity and competitiveness.

    The building up of external and fiscal imbalances amid public spending pressures that exceed revenues and with constrained access to international financial markets further erodes macroeconomic stability.

    Furthermore, domestic environments perceived as unsafe for investment dominated by overly complex legislation and inefficient and burdensome tax systems add to macroeconomic instability to further discourage much‑needed private capital inflows.

    As stated in the communiqué, domestic policymaking is the first line of defense. The best way to enhance short‑term domestic responsiveness, as well as medium‑term growth capacity is through solid macroeconomic frameworks combined with clear rules that foster a predictable environment for private investment.

    Pivoting to our fiscal consolidation to set debt on a sustainable path and rebuild buffers while advancing with productivity‑enhancing‑market reoriented structural reforms must remain priorities for the domestic policymaking. Whereas doing so while maintaining social cohesion and protecting the most vulnerable can be challenging, it can be achieved with careful policy calibration.

    But as these measures may take some time to deliver, mobilizing sufficient international support is also crucial to help countries meet their financing needs while they navigate the waters towards a healthier economy. The Bretton Woods Institutions remain crucial, necessitating decisive actions to fortify the Global Financial Safety Net and broaden development finance. The IMF’s role as a centerpiece of the Global Financial Safety Net is vital in addressing multilateral challenges and supporting vulnerable countries. We appreciate the IMF’s recent reforms to better support EMDEs, such as the recent review of the charges and surcharges policies.

    However, countries with limited access to affordable short‑term and crisis‑related liquidity continue to face vulnerabilities. It is essential to address liquidity pressures and strengthen crisis prevention and response capabilities, including enhancing existing financial safety nets. Surveillance and internal and external stability should be intensified, including on spillover effects from systematically important countries. The World Bank has made progress in implementing the Evolution Program, but further progress is required in operationalizing key aspects of the framework of financial incentives and reducing IBRD loan pricing. Faster implementation of the remaining G‑20 Independent Experts Groups Recommendations on MDB reforms is needed, including mitigating currency risks through local currency lending and domestic capital market reforms, de‑risking private‑sector investment, and increasing capital within the WBG and across the MDB system.

    Swift progress on the 2025 shareholding review is necessary to address misalignments, strengthen voice and representation, enhance IBRD legitimacy, and ensure equitable voting power.

    In sum, the path to sharp growth and a steady growing economy is multifaceted. We must do our part and commit to strengthen fiscal and monetary frameworks, build robust institutions, and embrace structural reforms that promote competitiveness, productivity gains, and job creation, but at the same time we need global financial institutions that recognize domestic efforts and are willing and well‑prepared to step up for these countries. Thank you, and with these remarks, I am now ready to entertain your questions.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we begin the Q&A section, I kindly ask that all questions remain within the scope of the G‑24’s mandate and responsibilities. Other questions outside of its purview, of course, should be raised during the regional press conferences that are going to be taking place in the coming days. And please kindly identify yourself, your organization, your news outlet, and specify to whom your questions would like to be addressing. With that, any questions? Yes, sir.

    QUESTION: Good morning to everybody. Mr. Quirno, you just said that the Bretton Woods Institutions are crucial. Does any of you feel that their role, their functioning is endangered currently? Thank you for answering this question.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you.

    Mr. Quirno: I think globally we are facing a period of volatility and uncertainty. As such, the Bretton Woods Institutions are crucial in providing the safety net and the channels of communication that remain open among the different countries that participate in those institutions. And I think the role is very, very important. And we do not see them—I mean, we are always rebalancing their role and their task, and it is something that is a process that we do constantly. At the end of the day, the role is vital. It is very important, and we do not see them at risk as you put it.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Minister Edun.

    Mr. Edun (Nigeria): Thank you. I agree with the Chair that there is nothing that we have heard that says that the Bretton Woods Institutions stands ready to do anything other than on the one hand, provide safety net. On the other hand, continue to provide development finance. If anything, this time of heightened global uncertainty, what we have heard from them is that they stand ready and are very much willing and capable to help countries to navigate this particular time and to continue to encourage good policymaking, to encourage resilience, building of resilience, building of buffers and effectively staying the course for those who are actually on a path that will take them further along the road to growth development and reduction of poverty.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Governor Ahmad or Ms. Masha, would you like to add anything?

    Mr. Ahmad: No, it is OK. I think we fully agree with the views expressed by the Chair and the Vice. I think the increased uncertainty and the prevailing situation, it has become much more important for the Bretton Woods Institutions to continue to play their role and particularly as the financial safety net providers and also as the development partners. I think they have a role which will continue to be there, and they will be contributing in the performance of the road previously—that they have been doing previously, so I fully agree.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Ms. Masha?

    Ms. Masha (G-24 Secretariat): Yes. We believe that the organizations are very useful, and the usefulness is very much appreciated, and so we do not have any uncertainty about their continued relevance. And we do hope that whatever actions countries are taking, the advanced economies are taking, they will factor into their decision the very good usefulness of these organizations. Thank you.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Going back to the floor. Any question? Right here, lady with the glasses.

    QUESTION: My question is for Mr. Jameel Ahmad. What steps is the State Bank of Pakistan taking? Is it engaging with other central banks to mitigate risks, particularly in the G‑24 framework? Thank you.

    Mr. Ahmad: I think as initially said that if there is any specific questions pertaining to the State Bank, we can discuss that during the separate conferences, which we have, but for the time being, since we are in the G-24 platform, we are coordinating with other central banks, and we discussed all these issues during the yesterday’s Deputies Meeting as well as today’s meeting also of the G-24. These are the issues faced by the G-24 members and have been thoroughly discussed and the stance has been agreed upon. This is what is contained in the communiqué which is being issued today.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Going back to the floor, maybe in the midsection I saw some hands. I will start with you in the black. Thank you. We are going to make our way back. Yes.

    QUESTION: So, I have a couple questions for everyone here. First of all, how concerned are your members from the fallout from tariffs and what are they trying to do to try to mitigate the impacts? Also, are you planning to work more closely with each other, for instance, increasing trade with each other? And lastly, specifically, are you planning on working more closely with China, for instance?

    Mr. Devahasadin: Just to add to that, I got an advanced question Sri Lanka. In the light of reciprocal tariff currently in place, what strategy is the G‑24 considering as a working group to alleviate the pressure on emerging economies? So that is related to your question as well. Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Quirno: Thank you. Thank you for the questions. I think that it is important to understand that the G‑24 is a very diverse group of countries, and everyone, each of us has its own peculiarities, strengths, and weaknesses in the midst of the current trade situation. So, what I would say is that the fallout of this uncertainty that we are facing creates more volatility. And as emerging market countries and developing countries, what you face is a situation in which, in addition to the trade tensions, you have a situation on the capital markets and the capital flows, things that are based on the uncertainty. What happens is flows are expecting a solution. As one of the members said today, we can deal with good news. We can deal with bad news. We need to know what to do under uncertainty. You know, as we are going through this process of trade negotiations globally and as definitions are set, then we will know how to react. In the meantime, as we said in the communiqué and as we said in my opening remarks, the first line of defense, the thing that is within our country’s contro, is around the domestic agenda. We need to bring resilience into our own economies in such a way that we have a fiscal path that is credible, that we have sound monetary policies as well that back that fiscal consolidation program, because at the end of the day that is what investors are looking at.

    Investors are looking at the different countries’ situation and see how they can cope with this level of uncertainties. We have faced different levels, different crises in the past — globally, the pandemic being the last one. And we have, as a collective number of countries, been able to achieve a level of resilience that is very good. I mean, that resilience is being tested once again. That is why we also need to work in conjunction among the different countries, not only G‑24 but in a global context to address the situation. But I think the homework also needs to be consolidated at home in order to then continue moving forward. And as such, we are also obviously fostering our trade relationships among the different countries. We are doing it among the G‑24, among G‑20, so there are various areas of cooperation and consolidation there as well.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Any perspective from Ms. Masha in terms of coordination, collaboration across nations?

    Ms. Masha: Well, I think the Chair has pointed out some of those issues regarding macroeconomic stability, that is when these shocks manifest, there’s need for fiscal policies, sound monetary policies. But more along that line, it also provides opportunities for countries to pivot towards a different development pathway. Maybe going into sectors that are going to satisfy domestic demand will make them less prone to external shocks and diversifying their markets, the different markets, so they can better cope with the future tariff or trade policies. Thank you.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Going back to the floor, I see hands right there all the way in the back, the lady in beige. We will come back to the front.

    QUESTION: Thank you for taking our questions. A question for everyone, sort of piggybacking off of my colleague’s question on tariffs. How does the G‑24 weigh the inflationary risks versus risks of recession from the current tariff environment? And then one for the Argentina Secretary, you spoke about debt maturities and rising debt payments, more than 4 billion in debt many coming due for Argentina in July right after an ambitious reserve target accumulation from the IMF. How does Argentina plan to confront those payments and is there a target that it is looking back to return to capital markets? Thank you.

    Mr. Quirno: In terms of the first question related to inflationary pressures and related to the trade situation, we had this morning the World Economic Outlook conference in which we had details on that perspective, but I think also it is very early to tell on how this is going to at the end of the day be moving forward. We are not in the business—at least I am not in the business of projecting inflation in my own country. It is very difficult to try to project inflationary pressures on a global basis, but I think it is—as I said before, we are living in uncertain times. We expect that trade negotiations that are currently underway reach a good point that is satisfactory to everyone involved, and that will normalize trade flows from that perspective onwards. In terms of Argentina—I mean, despite the fact that it is a common theme throughout the G‑24—what we are trying to do in Argentina for the last 15 months is basically gain our credibility back. And as such, we have elected a very conservative and unorthodox approach to the problems that Argentina had. And one of the problems that Argentina had was on the fiscal front. And we have done a tremendous fiscal consolidation. We put our house in order, on the monetary front as well. And that track record is one that will put us in a path to regaining market access eventually.

    Having said that, from my perspective, as the CFO of the country, what I can say is that we work at it very conservatively. I am not assuming that Argentina will be able to re‑access markets at a given time. But we have certainty that the maturities are coming due. That is why we have worked in the past in showing our willingness to pay. We have honored all our commitments. We have now a new IMF program, which has started to work very well, as expected. And in addition to that, because of that conservative, look, we have already accumulated reserves. The Treasury has bought a significant amount of dollars that it has at the central bank to honor those obligations. So, we do not expect to—we cannot speculate about when Argentina will be able to re‑access international markets. When those will happen, when that situation happens, we will address it. But in the meantime, we still work as if we have no access, and we have to pay down our obligations as we did in this last 15 months.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you, I see three remaining hands. I will come back to the front with the lady in the brown jacket first and then I go to that side of the room. I see two hands. Please keep your questions short. We have limited time. Thank you.

    QUESTION: Hi. My question is regarding—we have seen the U.S. called back on some of the financings that it gives to developing economies, so in terms of financing the sustainable development goals, as well as climate action, could you talk about some of the challenges there?

    Mr. Devahasadin: Are your questions related to climate so we can collect them both? Anyone on climate here.

    Mr. Quirno: We face several challenges and as such, for that, many countries rely on the World Bank and the IMF, to basically be able to develop tools to finance that development, finance climate action, to finance infrastructure, and as such, we are at a period in which you have to—countries have to balance that in turn with their own macroeconomic situation in that respect. We need to—we have many of our countries in the G‑24 have significant natural resources that need to be developed. Those are the ones that are part of the transition energy, for example. And those are situations in which you cannot access private financing. The role of development financing in terms of climate, in terms of energy transition, et cetera, is very important. But those are challenges that are on the table that we need to address, and we are addressing together as a group and as an individual country as well.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Go back to the floor. Gentleman back here and we can go all the way back to you, sir.

    QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions. You brought back fiscal discipline to Argentina, but can you quantify the harmful effects on the lives of the citizens? That is what want to talk about, the strikes, the protests, the fact that people do not have money in their pockets. Secondly, you also talked about building resilience, how do we build resilience where most of the countries in the G‑24 have one similar problem, a lot of visionless leadership, definitely, and a lot of poverty. Our arms are already tied behind our hands economically. How do you expect us to build resilience?  We are just led to the slaughter slap.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Thank you. Can I go all the way back to the back, the gentleman in the back, please?

    QUESTION: Thank you for taking my question. I wanted to touch on debt restructuring. In October you called on the reform of the Common Framework, and I am curious to know more about what sort of reform moves you have seen since then and also what types of reforms the G‑24 would like to see to the Common Framework. Thank you.

    Mr. Quirno: To the first question, I hate to make reference to Argentina, but the question was directly addressed to that situation. Argentina was facing a very dire situation—55 percent poverty rate before this administration took office. We have worked very, very strongly to do a couple of things that basically went straight to address that situation by having done our fiscal consolidation. We basically reduced 5 percentage points of GDP deficit in a month, something that has not been done probably anywhere else in the world so far. But we did it because we knew that we had no alternative. And at the end of the day, what happened is that the myth is that by doing such an adjustment, you would enter into a deep recession. Argentina rebounded out of its recession that was two and a half years long two months after that fiscal consolidation.

    Since then, real wages have increased for 10 months straight. Poverty levels have been reduced from 54 percent to 38 percent in about a year. And economic activity has increased 6 percent December 2024 from December 2023 when we took over. It can be done. That is the message. You know, there is preoccupations before, during such a big adjustment as we did, but it pays out. It takes the political will to do it. Everyone knows what needs to be done on the fiscal and monetary fronts. The books have been written about it. What happens is you need the political willingness to attack the problem because that may hurt politicians when they make those decisions. We have a very strong leadership in President Milei — the one that has said we need to go in this. What he has said is we need to take care of the most vulnerable. We doubled in real terms, while being able to achieve our financial surplus. We were able to double in real terms the assistance to the most vulnerable. And that is something that basically shows the amount of corruption and intermediation that was on the social plans that the national government was spending on. So now those funds have been redirected. It is funny that we doubled the expenditures in real terms, but the amount that people received more than tripled. We spent 100, and we are now spending 200 in real terms. People got 60. They received 60, and then they are receiving 200. That is a big—very big realization from the most vulnerable population that they have been robbed for years. Because by maintaining fiscal consolidation, by maintaining a financial surplus, we were still able to double the assistance to the most vulnerable.

    Mr. Devahasadin: We go to Ms. Masha on debt restructuring because you spoke about it last time.

    Ms. Masha: Debt restructuring?

    Mr. Devahasadin: The Common Framework. Yes, the progress on that.

    Ms. Masha: I want to add a little to what the Chair said in response to the question before I go to the Common Framework.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Yes.

    Ms. Masha: That is just to say that the G‑24 member countries, we have some of the largest economies in the world as members of G‑24, and the good thing is that the growth, the size of their economy, most of them over the past two or three decades, China, India and Brazil. So that takes a lot of vision. That takes a lot of implementations of the right policies. So, it is not quite a visionless leadership, but they have had to take policies that enable the countries to achieve what they have been able to achieve over such a short period of time.

    On the Common Framework — where we are on the Common Framework is that some countries have used it. Some have found it beneficial. The only complaint—well, some of the complaints we have heard about is that the process takes a very long time. And during that long time, they are not able to access the market, or they have to take some difficult decisions when they do not know how it is going to play out. And we also made that position known. The second, the other issue is we need more participation of the private market, maybe of also multilateral development banks, and also to have some precise idea of how it will play out. Some middle‑income countries have been asked to be a part of it. That is not really in discussion now, but all in all, countries have benefited from it, but there could be more benefit. Thank you.

    Mr. Devahasadin: Mr. Chair, you would like to add anything?

    Mr. Quirno (Argentina): No.

    Mr. Devahasadin: We are out of time. Unfortunately, Minister Edun had another obligation. If you have any follow‑up question, send it to press@G24.org. That was in the advisory, how to contact the G‑24. The communiqué should have been posted on IMF.org and the transcript of this press conference will be made available later. Thank you very much for joining this press conference and have a good rest of your day. Thank you.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Pavis Devahasadin

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

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/04/24/tr-04242025-g24-press-briefing

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Spring Meetings 2025 Press Briefing Transcript: The Managing Director’s Press Briefing on the Global Policy Agenda

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    April 24, 2025

    Speaker: Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, IMF

    Moderator: Julie Kozack, Director, Communications Department, IMF

    Ms. Kozack: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this IMF press briefing. I am Julie Kozack, Director of the Communications Department. Thank you so very much for joining us this morning and, as usual, we are going to begin with some opening remarks from our Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, after which we will turn to your questions. Without further ado, Kristalina, over to you.

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you, Julie. And a very warm welcome to all the journalists who got up early to be with us on this beautiful Thursday morning, and also to those who are online. Great to have you with us.

    As you saw earlier this week in our latest World Economic Outlook, we have significantly downgraded our projections for global growth. Major trade policy shifts have spiked uncertainty off the charts, accompanied by tighter financial conditions and higher market volatility. Simply put, the world economy is facing a new and major test, and it faces it with policy buffers depleted by the shocks of recent years. That puts countries in a difficult position. It also creates urgency for action to strengthen the economies for a world of rapid change.

    Today, I want to zoom in on how countries can actually do it. This is the main question we are getting from our members in every single meeting I have had this week. In my Global Policy Agenda, let me, for the audience, remind you that it is a very nicely crafted document. In parentheses this year we have very informative charts, and I hope you will look into those as well. In it, we focus on both the immediate challenges and our medium-term directions. I emphasize three overarching priorities. First and most urgent, for countries to work constructively to resolve trade tensions as swiftly as possible, preserving openness and removing uncertainty. A trade policy settlement among the main players is essential, and we are urging them to do it swiftly because uncertainty is very costly. I cannot stress this strongly enough.

    Without certainty, businesses do not invest, households prefer to save rather than to spend, and this further weakens prospects for already weakened growth.

    Countries also need to address the imbalances that fuel many of the tensions we see. Among major economies, some countries like China need to act to boost private consumption and embrace a shift to services. Others, like the United States, need to reduce fiscal deficits. And in Europe, it is time to complete the Single Market, Banking Union, Capital Markets Union, removing internal barriers to intra-EU trade. Get it done. All countries should seize this moment to lower their trade barriers, both tariff and nontariff.

    The second overarching priority, countries must act to safeguard economic and financial stability. The best way to do that is to get their own house in order. On fiscal policy, most countries need to rebuild buffers and ensure debt sustainability, although some may see shocks that warrant temporary and targeted fiscal support.

    We urge countries to define credible adjustment paths, gradual in most cases, protecting key investments, maximizing spending efficiency, and making space for longer term needs.

    Tradeoffs will be tough for all, but they will be toughest for low-income countries, which face both tight financial conditions and global growth slowdown and falling aid flows. To help ease the tradeoffs there, domestic resource mobilization must be part of the mix. We cannot have countries with a tax to GDP below 15 percent where it is difficult to sustain the functioning of the state. For central banks, the times when countries marched in lockstep is over. Different countries will face different conditions. Inflation pressures in some countries are easing. In others, pressures are yet to abate.

    What is our advice? Watch the data, watch inflation expectations. Central banks will need to strike a delicate balance between supporting growth and containing inflation. To do so, they must not only adjust policy interest rates but also rely on credibility to anchor expectations. Central bank independence is critical for credibility, protect it.

    Open economies, including many emerging markets, are exposed to the trade shocks and tighter financial conditions. They must preserve exchange rate flexibility as a shock absorber.

    In the event of unwarranted currency market volatility, these countries can find policy guidance in the IMF’s integrated policy framework.

    My third and final overarching priority, double down on growth oriented reforms to lift productivity. Even before the latest shock, we were living in a low growth, high debt world, sounding the alarm on weak medium-term growth for quite some time. You heard me saying that many times. Now is the time for long needed but often delayed reforms that can create a good business environment, put entrepreneurship in the front seat, reform labor markets, create conditions for innovation and in a world of rapid technological advancements, give countries a chance to catch the benefits of these advancements for their people.

    The IMF, of course, as always, will be there for our members. We are focusing on what we do best, helping them secure economic and financial stability, resolve or, even better, prevent balance of payments problems, and put in place strong policies and institutions to underpin vibrant economies.

    We will help countries with surveillance, with diagnostics, with policy advice and, when necessary, by providing financial support.

    As part of crisis resolution, we must ensure that the Global Financial Safety Net is strong. We will look for ways to further strengthen our collaboration with regional financing arrangements, and with [major] swap-providing central banks. When we have a cohesive, effective, and efficient Global Financial Safety Net, this will deliver confidence to our members in this more shock prone world.

    We will continue to foster cooperative policy solutions for promoting a healthy rebalancing of the world economy to help countries address debt vulnerabilities. Here, I want to acknowledge the important work of the Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable. This week, we agreed to publish a playbook that provides guidance for predictable and faster debt restructuring processes. And I was very pleased to see [the] support of all traditional, nontraditional creditors, private sector, and debtor countries to have that predictability.

    Finally, we will reiterate the need for continued cooperation in a multipolar world. The shared objective for all must be a better balanced and more resilient world economy.

    Before I wrap it up, I want to recognize Secretary Bessent’s remarks yesterday in which he laid out the U.S. administration’s vision for the Bretton Woods Institutions. The United States is our largest shareholder. And even more, the United States is the home of my colleagues and me. So, of course, we greatly value the voice of the United States. I very much appreciate Secretary Bessent’s reiteration of the U.S.’s commitment to the Fund and its role. He raised a number of issues and priorities for the institution that I look forward to discussing with the U.S. authorities and the membership as a whole. We will have opportunities to do so here, and we will also have opportunities to continue with our Executive Board as we carry out important policy reviews–the Comprehensive Surveillance Review, it will set our surveillance priorities for the next five years, and the Review of Program Design and Conditionality, which will carefully consider how our lending can best help countries address the low growth challenge and durably resolve balance of payments weaknesses. So, we have a way to go, and we are laser focused on it.

    Are there cyclists in this room, people who bike, bikers? As bikers would pay, ‘pedalare,’ step on the pedal. With that, I am very happy to take your questions.

    Ms. Kozack: Thank you very much, Kristalina. We will now turn to your questions. I see you have hands up already. Very good. Please just give your name and outlet when called on. I am going to start right here, woman right in the front row here.

    Questioner: Thanks very much for the opportunity to ask you—to put a question to you. You mentioned Secretary Bessent’s remarks yesterday. He accused the IMF and the World Bank of mission creep and specifically the IMF on mission creep in areas such as climate change, gender policies and also social issues. Do you think there is a role in the future for the IMF in areas such as climate, gender, and social issues?       

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you for your question. So, what do we do here? We concentrate on macroeconomic and financial stability for growth and employment. We have 191 members. They face different challenges. They face different types of risks to their balance of payment. And what we do is to analyze what these risks and what the Fund in our mandate and what we do on the fiscal side, on the monetary policy side, on the financial sector side, what can we do to help them be more resilient to shocks. So, when we have, for example, Caribbean countries that are wiped out by extreme weather events regularly, naturally they are very concerned about that, and they say how can we be more resilient to these shocks? Again, we focus on balance of payment. What are the risks and what can be done to protect the balance of payments in these countries.

    I want to say that I actually agree with the Secretary on one thing. It is a very complicated world, a world of massive challenges of all kinds. We are a small institution. We are 4,000 people. Not very well-known, but a very fiscally disciplined institution. Our budget today in real terms is what it was 20 years ago. So, yes, we have to focus. And that is exactly why we engage with the membership, so we can make best use of the staff of the Fund. I really like to run a tight ship. Yes.

    Ms. Kozack: I can attest to that. Let us go here, the gentleman in the third row, blue shirt.

    Questioner: Just to follow-up on Claire’s question. Does Secretary Bessent’s prescriptions here for the Fund, will it cause you to sort of rethink some of the lending programs like the RSF and the RST? And then secondly, a lot of economists in the private sector have sort of a more pessimistic view, especially when you look at sort of the prospects for U.S. recession. You are not predicting that. Some of the Ministers here that we have been interviewing feel that the Fund is being too conservative. Can you just sort of explain the differences between yourselves and the private sector?

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you very much. Actually, in the paper that I just flagged to you, we have a slide that shows Fund lending. You need a magnifying glass to see the share of the Resilience and Sustainability Trust in this lending. It is really small, but as I was explaining in the answer to the previous question, for countries that are highly vulnerable to extreme weather events, having policy advice strictly on the macro side, there is a bit of confusion. People think that we have climate experts. We do not. That is not our job. Our job is to say, OK, if you are Dominica and a hurricane can wipe out the equivalent of 200 percent of your GDP, what are reasonable policies to put in place, or to be more specific, because we have a program with Barbados, if you are Barbados natural disasters are highly damaging to your economy, what are the policy measures you can put in place. In the case of Barbados, we came up with creating an additional buffer for them that would actually prevent a balance of payments shock from derailing the economic development of the country. So, of course, we are a membership institution. What our members decide, this is what we do. We periodically review all of our instruments. At this point, we have the function of the Fund on balance of payments support defined with a number of instruments being deployed.

    To your second question, I am going to do this illustration. My glass, when you look at it, it is more than 60 percent full. This is where we are. This is what it is. How can I call it empty? I cannot. When we look at the data, what we see is that for the United States, recession risks have increased now to 37 percent, but we are not yet—we do not see either in the labor market or indicators for the functioning of the economy such a dramatic block of economic activities that would drag growth in the United States all the way to below zero.

    So, as you remember, I mean, this is something that people may not appreciate enough. Our earlier projections for a very vibrant U.S. economy were for 2.7 percent growth for this year. We have downgraded the United States—actually this is the largest of our downgrades—by 0.9 percent, to 1.8 percent for this year. But we see enough that carries the United States forward. And, of course, we recognize that there is work underway to resolve trade disputes and reduce uncertainty. I want to reiterate my message. Uncertainty is really bad for business, so the sooner this cloud that is hanging over our heads is lifted, the better for prospects for growth.

    For the world economy, as you know we are—you saw it in the WEO, we are also projecting an increase in recession risk from 17 to 30 percent. But again—and by the way, there we talk about growth falling below 2 percent, not below zero, so there is a lot that is carrying the world economy—actually the real economy is functioning in a way that we are seeing no predominant risk. Is there risk? Yes. But it is in our, we used to say, downside scenario and not in what is our—the scenario we anchor our projections.

    This being said—and I am sorry I am dwelling on that. It is a very important question. I get it from delegations when we talk about our projections a lot. This being said, countries can—they are not passive observers. They can act. And one thing that is amazing in these meetings is how much that sense of urgency to act is penetrating our membership. And I do hope that Ministers will go back and say, OK, tough reform, I have postponed it, postpone no more.

    Ms. Kozack: We are going to this side of the room. I am going to go all the way to the end. There is a woman in the third row at the end in a brown suit.

    Questioner: My question is many emerging markets, particularly in Asia, are feeling the pinch of escalating trade tensions and global uncertainties. So, from the IMF’s perspective, how has China and ASEAN countries been affected so far and is there any policy recommendations in the near term that are available from the IMF to navigate these countries through this thank you.

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you for your question. Indeed, Asia is a continent that is quite significantly impacted because economies that rely a lot on exports, when tariffs are announced, feel the pinch more. When we look at China, we have downgraded growth projections for China from 4.6 to 4 percent. We would have downgraded it much more—we actually would have had not .06 but 1.3 percent downgrade if it was not for the policy accommodation that China is already putting in place. It helps. And that is the first piece of advice. If you have policy space, now is a good time to use it. With regard to China, we are emphasizing four points. First, rebalance your economy towards domestic consumption more.

    Second, to help with this, bring to an end the turmoil in the property sector. And, of course, add social protection for people so they do not feel compelled to save rather than spend.

    Third, lift up services, a warm embrace from healthcare to education to basically the service sector, vis-à-vis the goods consumption. And four—and the fourth is very important. Get the government to pull back from too much intervention in the economy. Let the private sector function to its full capacity.

    We are currently working on a paper, and that is in consultation, collaboration with the Chinese authorities, to document in details what are the ways in which the government may be supporting businesses and by doing so shifting the competitive position of these businesses. And this will be one of our contributions to China.

    I am particularly concerned about ASEAN. Why? Because ASEAN, very open economies. They find themselves in a very tough spot with announced tariffs quite significant across the board in ASEAN countries.

    ASEAN has done really well to build resilience over the last years. Their growth has been quite sound. They have prudently brought inflation down. They have disciplined fiscal policy. It helps. This is our number one advice to ASEAN. You have some policy space in monetary policy, in fiscal policy. Carefully and prudently use it, of course, being mindful that if you deplete it entirely and there is another shock, that would be a problem.

    We have been working with ASEAN on their external sector, especially forex. We have integrated the policy framework. It allows good thinking around how to apply the exchange rate flexibility, how to look at this from the perspective of sudden exogenous shocks. I am very pleased to see that ASEAN is doing something that other regions are doing, strengthening economic cooperation, policy coordination, and intra-ASEAN trade. Currently the ASEAN countries trade only 21 percent among themselves. Well, they sure can go up.

    And I think that we will see not only in ASEAN, we will see it in other places, Gulf Cooperation Council, Central Asia, the African continent with the Continental Free Trade Agreement, more being done to compensate, if global trade is going down, then regional trade can be a compensator and actually inject growth energy.

    I want to finish by saying that ASEAN has been remarkably prudent over the last years to build resilience. And that puts them in a good position to have the reputation to deploy their policy space if needed.

    Ms. Kozack: OK. I am going to stay on this side of the room. I will go to the gentleman in the second row with the red tie.

    Questioner: You said these present tensions could disproportionately impact low-income countries, and I am glad you mentioned the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement because my question is on Africa. You met with the Nigerian delegation earlier this week. What is the strategy or your advice for the African continent? As you have noted in the past, Africa is not a country. It is a continent. Egypt cut rates for the first time in five years seven days ago. Prior to that, Ghana hiked its interest rate for the first time in almost three years. In these tough times, what is your advice for the continent?

    Ms. Georgieva: Well, we have seen over the last years the African continent having some of the fastest growing economies, but we also have seen low-income countries primarily, and among them fragile conflict affected countries, falling further behind. And now this is a shock for the continent. The direct impact of tariffs on most of Africa, not on all of Africa, but on most of Africa is relatively small, but the indirect impact is quite significant. Slowing global growth means that all other things equal, they will see a downgrade. And actually, we have downgraded growth prospects for the continent.

    For the oil producers like Nigeria, falling oil prices creates additional pressure on their budgets. On the other hand, for the oil importers, this is a breath of fresh air. In other words, as you indicated in your question, different countries face different challenges. If I were to come with some basic recommendations that apply to Africa, I would say—and actually they apply to Nigeria, they apply to Egypt, they apply to Ghana, they apply to Coté d’Ivoire. First, continue on a path of strengthening your fundamentals. There is still a lot that can be done on the fiscal side to have strength. As I was talking about ASEAN, to have buffers for a moment of shock. And do not use any excuses, oh, it is difficult, we cannot really go for more tax because, yes, you can. There is a lot that can be done to broaden the tax base and a lot that can be done to reduce tax evasion and tax avoidance.

    Using technology as some countries are doing to chase the tax dollar when there is the foundation for that is a very good thing to do.

    Second, on the monetary policy side, we know more as I said in the opening—we are no more in a place when you can look at the book of the Central Bank Governor of the neighboring country and say, oh, they are doing this, I will do the same, because you have to really assess domestic resource mobilization, what is your inflationary pressures and do the right thing for your country.

    But above all, make it so that the image of the whole continent changes because now everybody suffers from wrongdoing, from corruption or from conflict in one country. It throws a shadow on the rest of the continent.

    Finally, like with ASEAN, deepen interregional trade and cooperation. Remove the obstacles to it. Sometimes there are infrastructure obstacles. The World Bank is working on reducing that infrastructure obstacle to growth and trade.

    Africa has so much to offer the world. Obviously, they have the minerals, the natural disasters, and the young population. I think a more unified, more collaborative continent can go a long, long way to [becoming] an economic powerhouse.

    Ms. Kozack: I will go to this side of the room. I am going to have the woman in the red jacket, third row.

    Questioner: Ms. Georgieva, you have been very complementary of the economic reform that the Argentinian government is implementing. You have said that Argentina is an example of a country that has made great strides through structural reforms and fiscal discipline. I would like to ask you about the challenges that now the new program is facing right now, and above all what are the risks that Argentina can face in these times of global uncertainty? Thank you.

    Ms. Georgieva: Argentina has demonstrated that this time it is different. This time there is decisiveness to put the economy on a soundtrack from high deficit to surplus, from double-digit inflation to inflation that in February dipped under 3 percent, from poverty over 50 percent to now around 37 percent. Still very high but going down. The state is stepping out from where it does not belong to allow more dynamism in the private sector. Actually, if you are interested, today we will have the global debate, and Federico is going to be one of the speakers to talk about smart regulation, how you make the economy more vibrant by not being an obstacle to private initiative.

    We saw that when the program was announced, the immediate impact on markets was positive because, among other things, you ask about risks. One risk for Argentina would be if it is alone in this macroeconomic stabilization, now the country is not alone. We are there. The World Bank is there. The InterAmerican Bank is stepping up. What are the risks? And I am sorry, and there is a very important opportunity for Argentina in a world hungry for what Argentina produces, both in agriculture and in minerals, mining, gas, lithium. What are the risks?

    First, external. A worsening global environment of all other things equal, it would impact Argentina negatively. Domestic resource mobilization, the country is going to go to elections, as you know, in October. And it is very important that they do not derail the will for change. So far, we do not see that. We do not see that risk materializing, but I would urge Argentina, stay the course.

    Ms. Kozack: All right. Let us go right here in the front, end of the first row.

    Questioner: Managing Director, we had a lot of news this week, for example, mixed signals on tariffs on China, commentary on the position of the Fed Chair, and of course now the U.S. support of the IMF. How would you sum up the mood of the meetings of your members this week, please? 

    Ms. Georgieva: The membership is anxious because we were just about to step on a road to more stability after multiple shocks. We were projecting 3.3 percent growth. And actually, we were worried that this is not strong enough. And here we are, growth prospects weakened. The membership is also recognizing—and I hear it time and again—that it is very important to have a rules based global economy in which there is predictability of planning for action, both for governments and for the private sector. I actually hear a lot of support from the membership for the Fund because we have actually, the same way Argentina earned the Fund to support it, we have earned the support of the members by being there for them.

    Where the expectations are for the outcome of the meetings is to get more consistency in how all countries are going to go about pursuing their interests, which is legitimate. Of course, every country has to think about its own people but doing it so in a way that enlarges the global pie. It does not shrink it.

    Ms. Kozack: We have time for one last question. I am going to go over here.

    Ms. Georgieva: I am sorry. What I would say is the worry I hear more often is actually not even the tariffs. It is uncertainty. Let us have clarity. And that is why we are—with my apologies to the audience—so repetitive to say we need to bring uncertainty down.

    Ms. Kozack: We have time for one last question, the woman in the burgundy suit.

    Questioner:  I wanted to ask you about the MENA region. How concerned are you with all of this turmoil around the dollar and its effect on the MENA region, especially that many countries there are exporters of intermediate goods that go into major industries and many of them are exporters of energy and what is happening to the dollar is definitely of effect. And you have mentioned uncertainty many times today in this press conference. So, this uncertainty, how will it affect the countries in our region that are trying to get out of a lot of geopolitical uncertainty with the help of the IMF and special programs, such as Egypt? So, will this make the IMF revisit some of those programs amid all of this turmoil?

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you very much. The MENA region actually got quite a downgrade. It is still doing better this year than last year, but we were projecting that growth would go to 4 percent and now we downgraded it to 2.6. A little bit like Africa, most of the impact is indirect. While countries in the MENA region, of course, trade with the United States, but most of them do not have very high exposure. And where it bites is slowing down of the global economy. And MENA has many oil exporters. The price of oil is going down.

    The dollar has historically, it goes up, it goes down. It is not a new thing. So, if you have an oil exporter and you get your revenues in dollars, when the dollar weakens, that creates a bit of a problem for your fiscal position. But if you are an oil exporter, this is a gift because then you can deal more easily with the challenges you face.

    My take for the MENA region is a very diverse region, like the African continent. You have the Gulf Cooperation Council. I have a lot of praise to offer because they have been pursuing reforms and diversification of the economies. Most countries have done really well. So now they see oil growth down, but non-oil economies are still doing quite well.

    We have the more kind of middle-income countries that are faced with difficulties impacted by regional conflicts like Jordan, like Egypt. And there we have been engaged, we have been providing support, as you know. We have countries like Morocco that have done really well to get their house in order, to have sound fiscal monetary policy and the only country in the region that is eligible for Flexible Credit Line from the IMF. And then we have countries like Sudan or Syria that are severely impacted by conflicts.

    I was very pleased that the attention of our membership, despite difficulties at home, across-the-board on low-income countries and conflict affected states, has sharpened. There is a recognition that what happens there impacts the rest of the world.

    We had a Syria meeting during the week of the meetings. The first time in more than 20 years, the Central Bank Governor and the Minister of Finance from Syria are here at the meetings. Our intention is to first and foremost help them rebuild institutions so they can plug themselves in the world economy.

    You are asking me whether we are revisiting program assumptions. Of course, we will be carefully watching what is happening. Then I had a meeting with the Prime Minister of Jordan. We are not talking about amending the program for Jordan right now, but we are talking about the importance of the Fund as an anchor of stability and how we can exercise this role.

    Ms. Kozack: Thank you very much, Managing Director, and thank you very much to all of our journalists who have joined us today. I am bringing this press conference to an end. As always, the transcript will be made available on our website, and I want to wish all of you a very wonderful rest of your day. Thank you very much.

    Ms. Georgieva: Thank you very much. Have a good rest of your day.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Wafa Amr

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

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/04/24/tr-042425-managing-directors-press-briefing-on-gpa

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI: Federal Home Loan Bank of New York Announces First Quarter 2025 Operating Highlights

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, April 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Federal Home Loan Bank of New York (“FHLBNY”) today released its unaudited financial highlights for the quarter ended March 31, 2025.   

    “The Federal Home Loan Bank of New York continued to perform well in the first quarter of 2025, meeting the funding needs of our members and delivering liquidity in support of local economic growth,” said Randolph C. Snook, president and CEO of the FHLBNY. “Our sustained focus on executing on our foundational liquidity mission in a safe and sound manner drives our performance and positions the FHLBNY as a stable and reliable partner to our members and the communities we serve.”

    Highlights from the first quarter of 2025 include:

    • Net income for the quarter was $155.7 million, a decrease of $64.8 million, or 29.4%, from net income of $220.5 million for the first quarter of 2024.  Net interest income for the quarter was $215.0 million, a decrease of $50.0 million, or 18.9%, from net interest income of $265.0 million in the first quarter last year.  This decrease in net interest income was driven by a decrease in average interest earning assets of $8.3 billion, from $169.4 billion in the prior year period to $161.1 billion for the first quarter of 2025. Non-interest income declined by $15.2 million, or 42.3%, to $20.7 million from the first quarter of 2024 due to net unrealized fair value losses on derivatives and hedged items including trading securities held for liquidity purposes. Non-interest expense increased $6.3 million, or 11.2%, to $62.6 million due to increases in voluntary contributions to housing and community development programs, and personnel- and technology-related expenses.
    • Return on average equity (“ROE”) for the quarter was 7.16% (annualized), compared to ROE of 10.58% for the first quarter of 2024, as a result of the decrease in net income.  
    • As of March 31, 2025, total assets were $157.2 billion, a decrease of $3.1 billion, or 1.9%, from total assets of $160.3 billion at December 31, 2024. As of March 31, 2025, advances (par amount) were $97.9 billion, a decrease of $8.6 billion, or 8.1 %, from $106.5 billion at December 31, 2024.
    • As of March 31, 2025, total capital was $8.1 billion, a decrease of $0.3 billion from total capital of $8.4 billion at December 31, 2024, due to declines in capital stock aligned with smaller advances balances offset by an increase in retained earnings.  The FHLBNY’s retained earnings were $2.5 billion as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024; $1.3 billion of the retained earnings were unrestricted and $1.2 billion were restricted. At March 31, 2025, the FHLBNY was in compliance with its regulatory capital ratios and liquidity requirements.
    • The FHLBNY allocated $17.3 million from its first quarter 2025 earnings for its Affordable Housing Program.

    The FHLBNY currently expects to file its Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2025 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on or about May 8, 2025.

     
    Selected Balance Sheet Items (dollars in millions)
      March 31,     December 31,        
      2025     2024     Change  
                     
    Advances $ 97,523     $ 105,838     $ (8,315 )
    Mortgage loans held for portfolio 2,380     2,345     35  
    Mortgage-backed securities 19,480     19,397     83  
    Liquidity assets 35,566     30,344     5,222  
    Total assets $ 157,224     $ 160,300     $ (3,076 )
                     
    Consolidated obligations $ 145,396     $ 148,411     $ (3,015 )
    Capital stock 5,631     6,014     (383 )
    Unrestricted retained earnings 1,272     1,286     (14 )
    Restricted retained earnings 1,240     1,209     31  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (66 )   (100 )   34  
    Total capital $ 8,077     $ 8,410     $ (333 )
                     
    Capital-to-assets ratio (GAAP) 5.14 %   5.25 %      
    Capital-to-assets ratio (Regulatory) 5.18 %   5.31 %      
                     
         
    Operating Results (dollars in millions)
      Quarter Ended March 31,
    		      
      2025     2024   Change  
                     
    Total interest income $ 1,821.5     $ 2,316.0     $ (494.5 )
    Total interest expense 1,606.5     2,051.0     (444.5 )
    Net interest income 215.0     265.0     (50.0 )
    Provision (Reversal) for credit losses 0.1     (0.4 )   0.5  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses 214.9     265.4     (50.5 )
    Non-interest income (loss) 20.7     35.9     (15.2 )
    Non-interest expense 62.6     56.3     6.3  
    Affordable Housing Program assessments 17.3     24.5     (7.2 )
    Net income $ 155.7     $ 220.5     $ (64.8 )
                     
    Return on average equity 7.16 %   10.58 %      
    Return on average assets 0.39 %   0.52 %      
    Net interest margin 0.54 %   0.63 %      
                     

    About the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
    The Federal Home Loan Bank of New York is a Congressionally chartered, wholesale Bank. It is part of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, a national wholesale banking network of 11 regional, stockholder-owned banks. As of March 31, 2025, the FHLBNY serves 338 member institutions in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The FHLBNY’s mission is to provide members with reliable liquidity in support of housing and local community development.

    Safe Harbor Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
    This report may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based upon our current expectations and speak only as of the date hereof. These statements may use forward-looking terms, such as “projected,” “expects,” “may,” or their negatives or other variations on these terms. The Bank cautions that, by their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk or uncertainty and that actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements or could affect the extent to which a particular objective, projection, estimate, or prediction is realized. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the Risk Factors set forth in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, as well as regulatory and accounting rule adjustments or requirements, changes in interest rates, changes in projected business volumes, changes in prepayment speeds on mortgage assets, the cost of our funding, changes in our membership profile, the withdrawal of one or more large members, competitive pressures, shifts in demand for our products, and general economic conditions. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ciscomani Reiterates Support for Medicaid at Arizona Chamber Event

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Juan Ciscomani (Arizona)

    Phoenix, AZ – U.S. Congressman Juan Ciscomani reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to preserving Medicaid benefits for those who rely on it, like single mothers, the working poor, individuals with disabilities, and the elderly. 

    “We’ve got to make sure that we protect Medicaid for people the program was intended to serve,” said Ciscomani at the Arizona Chamber of Commerce’s annual Update from Capitol Hill Lunch. 

    Earlier this month, Ciscomani and twelve Republican colleagues sent a letter to House Republican Leadership and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie reiterating their support on Medicaid and making clear the lawmakers would not vote for legislation that reduces Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.  
    The Congressman also told the audience that there is no question that the federal government can, and must, do more to reduce waste and safeguard the long-term financial viability of Medicaid. You can watch Ciscomani’s remarks here. 

    “As the federal government has grown, so have inefficiencies and unnecessary bureaucracies,” said Ciscomani. “I have been crystal clear that I do not support reducing Medicaid coverage for those the program was intended to serve. What I do support are targeted reforms, such as implementing work requirements for able-bodied adults with no dependents and strengthening eligibility verification to ensure that every dollar is maximized and spent on vulnerable individuals who rely on Medicaid.” 

    The Congressman also told audiences that while we have made great strides to secure the southern border, Mexican drug cartels are regrouping as border security has ramped up under the Trump administration.  

    “The threat is still real, Mexican drug cartels aren’t going to surrender their multi-billion dollar businesses easily,” he said. “The fight is not over and there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to codify the administration’s border security efforts into law.” 

    In March, Ciscomani, who serves as Vice Chair of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, hosted nine freshman Republican lawmakers on a tour of the Arizona – Mexico border. Here, they learned about the cartel’s effort to use unmanned aerial drones to carry out their illicit operations and threaten our national security. As a result, Ciscomani and Rep. John McGuire (VA-05) penned a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Federal Aviation Administrator Chris Rocheleau about countering drones at the southern border. You can watch NewsNation’s coverage here. 

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –