NewzIntel.com

Category: Latin America

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Pope Francis changed the Catholic Church’s foreign policy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Massimo D’Angelo, Research Associate in the Institute for Diplomacy and International Affairs, Loughborough University

    Pope Francis greets visitors at Saint Peter’s Square, Vatican City. Ricardo Perna / Shutterstock

    When the late Pope Francis first stepped on to the balcony of Saint Peter’s Basilica following his election 12 years ago, he remarked that he had been called almost from the “end of the world”. He was the first non-European pontiff since Gregory III, elected in AD731, who was of Syrian origin. And he was the first pope in history to come from Latin America.

    This is not merely a biographical detail. His papacy was transformative in shaping a Catholic Church that was not focused solely on Europe. He shifted its attention from the old continent to the world’s peripheries, aspiring to create a truly global church.

    Before his election, Pope Francis was called Jorge Mario Bergoglio and had, since 1998, held the office of Archbishop of Buenos Aires. In Argentina, he worked to expand and support the efforts of priests serving in the slums.

    The Catholic Church has maintained a presence in the peripheries of Buenos Aires since the 1960s, when a group called Priests for the Third World established itself in impoverished neighbourhoods. These priests advocated for the rights of their parishioners and preached liberation theology, a movement that aligns the Catholic Church with the struggles of marginalised groups.

    The theme of the peripheries became a defining thread of Pope Francis’s papacy. Days before he became pope, Francis told the cardinals that elected him that the Church must “come out of herself and to go to the peripheries, not only geographically, but also the existential peripheries”.

    Without doing so, he warned, the Church risks becoming structurally disconnected from the ambivalent and contradictory processes that shape the modern global era.



    Read more:
    Pope Francis dies: an unconventional pontiff who sought to modernise Catholicism

    Pope Francis navigated a complex relationship with liberation theology. Some interpretations of the movement, which gained prominence in the late 1960s, incorporate Marxist elements. This raised concerns within the Church hierarchy and among western governments during the cold war.

    As a young Jesuit in Argentina, Bergoglio was influenced by the 1969 Declaration of San Miguel. This rejected Marxist interpretations of liberation theology and developed an alternative called the “theology of the people”. Rather than drawing on Marxist analysis, it emphasises the faith, culture and spiritual expressions of ordinary people, especially the poor.

    And from 1976 to 1983, when Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship, Bergoglio distanced himself from radical priests engaged in liberation theology. His caution not to alienate military hierarchy led to tensions, most notably in the 1976 abduction of two Jesuits, Orlando Yorio and Franz Jalics.

    The then Father Bergoglio was accused of withdrawing his protection from the priests, which allegedly left them exposed to the regime. In 2005, a secret dossier was anonymously circulated among cardinals accusing him of complicity in the abduction, based on a complaint by human rights lawyer Marcelo Parrilli.

    Some sources claimed this was smear campaign orchestrated by Jesuits who had previously clashed with Bergoglio. And in his testimony, Bergoglio stated that he met on two occasions with the dictators and members of the military, Jorge Videla and Emilio Massera, but to intercede on behalf of the detained priests. The Vatican denied he was guilty of any wrongdoing.

    Despite his cautious stance, Bergoglio consistently upheld the Church’s priority of addressing the needs of the poor. This was a principle that later defined his papacy. As Pope Francis, he softened the Vatican’s previous opposition to liberation theology, reaffirming its emphasis on social justice while distancing it from Marxist rhetoric.

    A post-European Pope

    Pope Francis’s predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger, maintained a profound engagement with Europe. This shaped his thinking as a theologian, cardinal and later as Pope Benedict XVI. His papacy was marked by numerous visits across the continent, where he delivered significant speeches on the Church’s role and Europe’s intellectual and spiritual challenges.

    One of his most notable speeches, delivered at the University of Regensburg in Germany in 2006, sparked considerable controversy in the Muslim world. The lecture explored Europe’s relationship with Christianity and its future responsibilities.

    But it became infamous for his quotation of Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor who characterised aspects of Islam as violent. This remark provoked widespread anger and protests across the Muslim world, highlighting the sensitivities surrounding interfaith dialogue and the role of religion in global politics.

    In contrast, Pope Francis recognised that Christians must go “beyond the walls” to embrace humanity as a whole. In his vision, the Church should function as a “field hospital”, extending its care even to the so-called “churches of the decimal point” – those with only a tiny percentage of Catholics relative to the populations in which they exist.

    Under his leadership, the Vatican’s geopolitical focus shifted significantly. The composition of the College of Cardinals, which will elect his successor, has changed. The historic European influence has been diluted.

    The regional distribution of the 135 cardinal electors now includes 23 from Asia, 20 from North America, 18 each from South America and Africa, and three from Oceania. Europe, which comprised a slight majority of the body when Francis was elected in 2013, has 53 cardinals.

    This diversification aligns with Francis’s vision of a Church that is truly present across the globe. Pope Francis’s apostolic journeys further reflected this global reorientation, taking him to places such as Iraq, Kazakhstan, the United Arab Emirates and South Korea.

    Pope Francis during his visit to Iraq in 2021.
    Jon_photographi / Shutterstock

    Another major transformation has been in the Church’s relationship with political power. While Ratzinger often saw alliances with political parties as necessary to safeguard the Church’s survival in an era of secular decline, Francis rejected this approach.

    As he stated in Kazakhstan in 2022, “the sacred must not be instrumentalised by the profane”. This stance has drawn criticism, particularly in relation to his responses to conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. His constant appeals for peace, rather than direct condemnation of religious or political leaders, led some to perceive his position as one of “neutralism” or even pro-Russian.

    Yet his approach appears to have been rooted in the conviction that dialogue is essential, even with the most controversial figures. This was evident in his willingness to engage with General Min Aung Hlaing, the head of Myanmar’s military government, further underscoring his effort to desacralise worldly power.

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

    – ref. How Pope Francis changed the Catholic Church’s foreign policy – https://theconversation.com/how-pope-francis-changed-the-catholic-churchs-foreign-policy-255051

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump is stripping protections from marine protected areas – why that’s a problem for fishing’s future, and for whales, corals and other ocean life

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By David Shiffman, Faculty Research Associate in Marine Biology, Arizona State University

    The coral reefs of Palmyra Atoll, part of Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, provide nurseries for many fish species. Andrew S. Wright/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Flickr, CC BY-SA

    The single greatest threat to the diversity of life in our oceans over the past 50 years, more than climate change or plastic pollution, has been unsustainable fishing practices.

    In much of the ocean, there is little to no regulation or oversight of commercial fishing or other human activities. That’s part of the reason about a tenth of marine plant and animal species are considered threatened or at risk.

    It’s also why countries around the world have been creating marine protected areas.

    These protected areas, covering over 11.6 million square miles (30 million square kilometers) in 16,000 locations, offer refuge away from human activities for a wide variety of living creatures, from corals to sea turtles and whales. They give fish stocks a place to thrive, and those fish spread out into the surrounding waters, which helps fishing industries and local economies.

    In the U.S., however, marine protection is being dismantled by President Donald Trump.

    Marine protected areas as of 2022. Fully or highly protected areas represented less than 3% of the ocean, according to the Marine Protection Atlas.
    Marine Conservation Institute via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    Trump issued a proclamation on April 17, 2025, titled “Unleashing American commercial fishing in the Pacific,” ordering the removal of key protections to allow commercial fishing in parts of a nearly-500,000-square-mile marine protected area called the Pacific Island Heritage National Marine Monument.

    He also called for a review of all other marine national monuments to decide if they should be opened to commercial fishing too. In addition, the Trump administration is proposing to redefine “harm” under the Endangered Species Act in a way that would allow for more damage to these species’ habitats.

    I’m a marine biologist and scuba diver, and it’s no accident that all my favorite dive sites are within marine protected areas. I’ve found what scientific studies from across the world show: Protected areas have much healthier marine life populations and healthier ecosystems.

    What’s at risk in the Pacific

    The Pacific Island Heritage National Marine Monument, about 750 miles west of Hawaii, is dotted by coral reefs and atolls, with species of fish, marine mammals and birds rarely found anywhere else.

    It is home to protected and endangered species, including turtles, whales and Hawaiian monk seals. Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, both within the area, are considered among the most pristine coral reefs in the world, each providing habitats for a wide range of fish and other species.

    These marine species are able to thrive there and spread out into the surrounding waters because their habitats have been protected.

    A tour of several marine protected areas and their inhabitants in 2016.

    President George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, created this protected area in 2009, restricting fishing there, and President Barack Obama later expanded it. Trump, whose administration has made no secret of its aim to strip away environmental protections across the country’s land and waters, is now reopening much of the marine protected area to industrial-scale fishing.

    The risks from industrial fishing

    When too many fish are killed and too few young fish are left to replace them, it’s considered overfishing, and this has become a growing problem around the world.

    In 1974, about 10% of the world’s fish stocks were overfished. By 2021, that number had risen to 37.7%, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s annual State of Fisheries and Aquaculture Report.

    A fishing net caught on a coral reef can destroy habitat.
    Kampee Patisena/Moment/Getty Images

    Modern industrial-scale fishing practices can also harm other species.

    Bycatch, or catching animals that fishermen don’t want but are inadvertently caught up in nets and other gear, is a threat to many endangered species. Many seabirds, sea turtles and whales die this way each year. Some types of fishing gear, such as trawls and dredges that drag along the sea floor to scoop up sea life, can destroy ocean habitat itself.

    Without regulations or protected areas, fishing can turn into a competitive free-for-all that can deplete fish stocks.

    How marine protected areas protect species

    Marine protected areas are designed to safeguard parts of the ocean from human impacts, including offshore oil and gas extraction and industrial fishing practices.

    Studies have found that these areas can produce many benefits for both marine life and fishermen by allowing overfished species to recover and ensuring their health for the future.

    A decade after Mexico established the Cabo Pulmo protected area, for example, fish biomass increased by nearly 500%.

    How marine protected areas help marine life and local economies.

    Successful marine protected areas tend to have healthier habitats, more fish, more species of fish, and bigger fish than otherwise-similar unprotected areas. Studies have found the average size of organisms to be 28% bigger in these areas than in fished areas with no protections. How many babies a fish has is directly related to the size of the mother.

    All of this helps create jobs through ecotourism and support local fishing communities outside the marine protected area.

    Marine protected areas also have a “spillover effect” – the offspring of healthy fish populations that spawn inside these areas often spread beyond them, helping fish populations outside the boundaries thrive as well.

    Ultimately, the fishing industry benefits from a continuing supply. And all of this happens at little cost.

    A need for more protected areas, not fewer

    Claims by the Trump administration that marine protected areas are a heavy-handed restriction on the U.S. fishing industry do not hold water. As science and my own experience show, these refuges for sea life can instead help local economies and the industry by allowing fish populations to thrive.

    For the future of the planet’s whales, sea turtles, coral reefs and the health of fishing itself, scientists like me recommend creating more marine protected areas to help species thrive, not dismantling them.

    David Shiffman has consulted for many environmental non-profit groups including the Ocean Conservancy, as well as fishing industry groups and fisheries managment agencies.

    – ref. Trump is stripping protections from marine protected areas – why that’s a problem for fishing’s future, and for whales, corals and other ocean life – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-stripping-protections-from-marine-protected-areas-why-thats-a-problem-for-fishings-future-and-for-whales-corals-and-other-ocean-life-254925

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Justice Department lawyers work for justice and the Constitution – not the White House

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

    The U.S. flag flies above Department of Justice headquarters on Jan. 20, 2024, in Washington. J. David Ake/Getty Images

    In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon tried to fire the Department of Justice prosecutor leading an investigation into the president’s involvement in wiretapping the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters.

    Since then, the DOJ has generally been run as an impartial law enforcement agency, separated from the executive office and partisan politics.

    Those guardrails are now being severely tested under the Trump administration.

    In February 2025, seven DOJ attorneys resigned, rather than follow orders from Attorney General Pam Bondi to dismiss corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Adams was indicted in September 2024, during the Biden administration, for alleged bribery and campaign finance violations.

    One DOJ prosecutor, Hagan Scotten, wrote in his Feb. 15 resignation letter that while he held no negative views of the Trump administration, he believed the dismissal request violated DOJ’s ethical standards.

    Among more than a dozen DOJ attorneys who have recently been terminated, the DOJ fired Erez Reuveni, acting deputy chief of the department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, on April 15. Reuveni lost his job for speaking honestly to the court about the facts of an immigration case, instead of following political directives from Bondi and other superiors.

    Reuveni was terminated for acknowledging in court on April 14 that the Department of Homeland Security had made an “administrative error” in deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, against court orders. DOJ leadership placed Reuveni on leave the very next day.

    Bondi defended the decision, arguing that Reuveni had failed to “vigorously advocate” for the administration’s position.

    I’m a legal ethics scholar, and I know that as more DOJ lawyers face choices between following political directives and upholding their profession’s ethical standards, they confront a critical question: To whom do they ultimately owe their loyalty?

    President Donald Trump speaks before Pam Bondi is sworn in as attorney general at the White House on Feb. 5, 2025.
    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Identifying the real client

    All attorneys have core ethical obligations, including loyalty to clients, confidentiality and honesty to the courts. DOJ lawyers have additional professional obligations: They have a duty to seek justice, rather than merely win cases, as well as to protect constitutional rights even when inconvenient.

    DOJ attorneys typically answer to multiple authorities, including the attorney general. But their highest loyalty belongs to the U.S. Constitution and justice itself.

    The Supreme Court established in a 1935 case that DOJ attorneys have a special mission to ensure that “justice shall be done.”

    DOJ attorneys reinforce their commitment to this mission by taking an oath to uphold the Constitution when they join the department. They also have training programs, internal guidelines and a long-standing institutional culture that emphasizes their unique responsibility to pursue justice, rather than simply win cases.

    This creates a professional identity that goes beyond simply carrying out the wishes of political appointees.

    Playing by stricter rules

    All lawyers also follow special professional rules in order to receive and maintain a license to practice law. These professional rules are established by state bar associations and supreme courts as part of the state-based licensing system for attorneys.

    But the more than 10,000 attorneys at the DOJ face even tougher standards.

    The McDade Amendment, passed in 1998, requires federal government lawyers to follow both the ethics rules of the state where they are licensed to practice and federal regulations. This includes rules that prohibit DOJ attorneys from participating in cases where they have personal or political relationships with involved parties, for example.

    This law also explicitly subjects federal prosecutors to state bar discipline. Such discipline could range from private reprimands to suspension or even permanent disbarment, effectively ending an attorney’s legal career.

    This means DOJ lawyers might have to refuse a supervisor’s orders if those directives would violate professional conduct standards – even at the risk of their jobs.

    This is what Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon wrote in a Feb. 12, 2025, letter to Bondi, explaining why she could not drop the charges against Adams. Sassoon instead resigned from her position at the DOJ.

    “Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged, I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations … because I do not see any good-faith basis for the proposed position, I cannot make such arguments consistent with my duty of candor,” Sassoon wrote.

    As DOJ’s own guidance states, attorneys “must satisfy themselves that their behavior comports with the applicable rules of professional conduct” regardless of what their bosses say.

    Post-Watergate principles under pressure

    The president nominates the attorney general, who must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

    That can create the perception and even the reality that the attorney general is indebted to, and loyal to, the president. To counter that, Attorney General Griffin Bell, in 1978, spelled out three principles established after Watergate to maintain a deliberate separation between the White House and the Justice Department.

    First, Bell called for procedures to prevent personal or partisan interests from influencing legal judgments.

    Second, Bell said that public confidence in the department’s objectivity is essential to democracy, with DOJ serving as the “acknowledged guardian and keeper of the law.”

    Third, these principles ultimately depend on DOJ lawyers committed to good judgment and integrity, even under intense political pressure. These principles apply to all employees throughout the department – including the attorney general.

    Recent ethics tests

    These principles face a stark test in the current political climate.

    The March 2025 firing of Elizabeth Oyer, a career pardon attorney with the Justice Department, raises questions about the boundaries between political directives and professional obligations.

    Oyer was fired by Bondi shortly after declining to recommend the restoration of gun rights to actor Mel Gibson, a known Donald Trump supporter. Gibson lost his gun rights after pleading no contest to a misdemeanor domestic battery charge in 2011.

    Oyer initially expressed concern to her superiors about restoring Gibson’s gun rights without a sufficient background investigation, particularly given Gibson’s history of domestic violence.

    When Oyer later agreed to testify before Congress in a hearing about the White House’s handling of the Justice Department, the administration initially planned to send armed U.S. Marshals officers to deliver a warning letter to her home, saying that she could not disclose records about firearms rights to lawmakers.

    Oyer was away from home when she received an urgent alert that the marshals were en route to her home, where her teenage child was alone. Oyer’s attorney described this plan as “both unprecedented and completely inappropriate.”

    Officials called off the marshals only after Oyer confirmed receipt of the letter via email.

    Elizabeth Oyer, a former U.S. pardon attorney at the Justice Department, speaks at a Senate hearing on April 7, 2025, in Washington.
    Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

    Why independence matters

    In my research, I found that lawyers sometimes have lapses in judgment because of the “partisan kinship,” conscious or not, they develop with clients. This partisan kinship can lead attorneys to overlook serious red flags that outsiders would easily spot.

    When lawyers become too politically aligned with clients – or their superiors – their judgment suffers. They miss ethical problems and legal flaws that would otherwise be obvious. Professional distance allows attorneys to provide the highest quality legal counsel, even if that means saying “no” to powerful people.

    That’s why DOJ attorneys sometimes make decisions that frustrate political objectives. When they refuse to target political opponents, when they won’t let allies off easily, or when they disclose information their superiors wanted hidden, they’re not being insubordinate.

    They’re fulfilling their highest ethical duties to the Constitution and rule of law.

    Cassandra Burke Robertson 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. Justice Department lawyers work for justice and the Constitution – not the White House – https://theconversation.com/justice-department-lawyers-work-for-justice-and-the-constitution-not-the-white-house-254763

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: VAT hikes can raise tax without hurting the poor: an economist sets out the evidence

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Imraan Valodia, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Climate, Sustainability and Inequality and Director, Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand

    South Africa’s 2025-6 budget has been subjected to more comment than usual. This is due to the political tensions generated by a proposed increase in value added tax (VAT).

    South Africa’s choices on how it manages the revenue and expenditure issues in the budget are critical for how the larger issues of the country’s debt and its economic policies are handled. As things stand, the economy is locked into a low-growth trajectory which make the debt, revenue and expenditure issues more difficult to deal with.

    This piece draws on a longer article which explores these issues in greater detail. Here, I focus only on the VAT issue.

    The finance minister originally tabled an increase of 2 percentage points, then changed it to 0.5 percentage points. Still, it is threatening to end the country’s government of national unity, which was set up after elections in 2024.



    Read more:
    South Africa’s finance minister wanted to raise VAT: the pros and cons of a tricky tax

    Most commentators, including the political parties that have opposed the proposal, many academics, and non-governmental organisations claiming to represent low-income groups, have argued that an increase in VAT places an undue burden on low-income groups. This would make it regressive.

    Based on work as an academic economist over the past three decades, I believe that the debate has been based largely on conjecture and ideological opposition to VAT, rather than on the evidence of its impact.

    This is a pity as there is empirical evidence rooted in research that a VAT increase is, in fact, not regressive and is therefore a good policy decision.

    Tax experts usually refer to the three Es in taxes – equity, efficiency and ease of administration – for evaluating tax policy proposals. New taxes should ideally promote equity (they should be progressive and not regressive), be efficient and be easy to administer.

    An increase in VAT in South Africa ticks all these boxes.

    First, contrary to what many commentators have been arguing, VAT isn’t always regressive – it depends on how it’s implemented. As proposed by the finance minister it would not be regressive because, while it would add to the burden of low-income households, most of the VAT would be collected from higher-income households. Added to this is that the proposed expansion of the existing list of zero-rated items would protect the lowest-income households.

    Second, VAT is a very efficient tax. For relatively low increases in the rate, government is able to raise a large amount of revenue.

    Finally, the system is easy to administer and adds very little cost to collection.

    Key to its efficacy is the way VAT is implemented, including the choice of products to zero rate, and the political credibility of government.

    The case for a VAT increase

    VAT is a consumption tax, so it only affects the income that a household consumes.

    According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), VAT is now the mainstay of tax systems in over 160 countries, raising on average one-third of total government revenues.

    In theory, there are good reasons to be concerned about the impact of VAT. First, it can place a high burden on low-income households because they spend a large proportion of their incomes on consumption goods such as food.

    Second, VAT may also place a heavy burden of tax on women. In South Africa and many other countries, women-led households tend to be clustered in the lower end of the income distribution. And women disproportionately take responsibility for feeding and caring for family members.

    So, at least in theory, VAT is a regressive tax. But is it really so in practice?

    Three studies that have explored this issue in some detail have concluded that, in South Africa, VAT is not regressive.

    In 2008, I worked with colleagues in eight countries (South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Morocco, Mexico, Argentina, India and the United Kingdom) on the gender issues related to tax. In particular we looked at the burden of VAT on low-income and women-headed households.

    Our findings were that, in general, VAT is regressive and discriminates against women, but it depends on how it is implemented.

    In South Africa, the zero-rating of basic consumption goods is very effective, protecting low-income and female-headed households from VAT. It’s an example of a VAT system that is neutral – neither regressive nor progressive.

    A more recent study by South African economist Ingrid Woolard and colleagues reached a similar conclusion in 2018.

    A third study was done in the same year when VAT was increased from 14% to 15%. Following a similar emotive debate, the finance minister appointed an independent committee which I served on and which was chaired by Woolard, to advise on further zero-rating.

    Our conclusion – again – was that zero-rating is highly effective at protecting low-income groups from the deleterious effects of VAT.

    How it’s done matters

    The challenge with zero-rating is that while low-income households benefit, high-income households benefit more (because they spend more, in absolute terms, on zero-rated goods). Large amounts of potential VAT revenue are lost to high-income groups that don’t need protection.

    The trick is to find a basket of goods that low-income households consume a lot of, but which high-income households don’t consume in large quantities. Some typical examples are beans, canned pilchards and cabbage. These are all goods that low-income households consume and high-income households do not.

    National Treasury’s proposals for increasing the basket of goods to be zero-rated are based on solid research.

    A good example of the trade-offs to consider is the case of chicken. Chicken is an important source of protein for low-income households, but also for high-income households. So, if all chicken were zero-rated, this would protect poor households, but a large amount of VAT revenue would be lost.

    In our 2018 zero-rating report, at 2018 prices and consumption patterns, we calculated that zero-rating all chicken products would be equivalent to R1.3 billion (US$67.6 million) but government would lose R4.6 billion (US$244.4 million) to high income households.

    Not a good trade-off.

    However, some chicken products, such as chicken heads and feet, are mostly consumed by low-income groups, and are therefore good candidates for zero-rating.

    The two other Es – efficiency and ease of administration – of taxes are also key to consider.

    On these two considerations, VAT has big advantages.

    It’s very difficult to avoid or evade VAT because it’s collected along the chain of production. There’s evidence that South Africa has very little leakage in the system.

    So it is relatively easy to increase the VAT rate without needing to invest additional resources to collect the tax.

    Credibility is key

    Apart from the economic considerations, tax policy has to be politically credible. People should believe that their tax contributions are being used effectively, and government should be seen to be acting in line with this.

    If people don’t believe in government’s ability to spend wisely, resistance to taxes increases. Then tax avoidance and evasion increases.

    It would be fair to say that, with the high levels of corruption in South Africa’s political system, government’s credibility is low.

    Thus, if VAT is to be increased, government has to do a lot more to improve its credibility and reassure South Africans that the tax revenues will be well spent.

    Imraan Valodia receives funding from a number of foundations and governments that support academic research.

    – ref. VAT hikes can raise tax without hurting the poor: an economist sets out the evidence – https://theconversation.com/vat-hikes-can-raise-tax-without-hurting-the-poor-an-economist-sets-out-the-evidence-254213

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: VAT hikes can raise tax without hurting the poor: an economist sets out the evidence

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Imraan Valodia, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Climate, Sustainability and Inequality and Director, Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand

    South Africa’s 2025-6 budget has been subjected to more comment than usual. This is due to the political tensions generated by a proposed increase in value added tax (VAT).

    South Africa’s choices on how it manages the revenue and expenditure issues in the budget are critical for how the larger issues of the country’s debt and its economic policies are handled. As things stand, the economy is locked into a low-growth trajectory which make the debt, revenue and expenditure issues more difficult to deal with.

    This piece draws on a longer article which explores these issues in greater detail. Here, I focus only on the VAT issue.

    The finance minister originally tabled an increase of 2 percentage points, then changed it to 0.5 percentage points. Still, it is threatening to end the country’s government of national unity, which was set up after elections in 2024.

    Read more: South Africa’s finance minister wanted to raise VAT: the pros and cons of a tricky tax

    Most commentators, including the political parties that have opposed the proposal, many academics, and non-governmental organisations claiming to represent low-income groups, have argued that an increase in VAT places an undue burden on low-income groups. This would make it regressive.

    Based on work as an academic economist over the past three decades, I believe that the debate has been based largely on conjecture and ideological opposition to VAT, rather than on the evidence of its impact.

    This is a pity as there is empirical evidence rooted in research that a VAT increase is, in fact, not regressive and is therefore a good policy decision.

    Tax experts usually refer to the three Es in taxes – equity, efficiency and ease of administration – for evaluating tax policy proposals. New taxes should ideally promote equity (they should be progressive and not regressive), be efficient and be easy to administer.

    An increase in VAT in South Africa ticks all these boxes.

    First, contrary to what many commentators have been arguing, VAT isn’t always regressive – it depends on how it’s implemented. As proposed by the finance minister it would not be regressive because, while it would add to the burden of low-income households, most of the VAT would be collected from higher-income households. Added to this is that the proposed expansion of the existing list of zero-rated items would protect the lowest-income households.

    Second, VAT is a very efficient tax. For relatively low increases in the rate, government is able to raise a large amount of revenue.

    Finally, the system is easy to administer and adds very little cost to collection.

    Key to its efficacy is the way VAT is implemented, including the choice of products to zero rate, and the political credibility of government.

    The case for a VAT increase

    VAT is a consumption tax, so it only affects the income that a household consumes.

    According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), VAT is now the mainstay of tax systems in over 160 countries, raising on average one-third of total government revenues.

    In theory, there are good reasons to be concerned about the impact of VAT. First, it can place a high burden on low-income households because they spend a large proportion of their incomes on consumption goods such as food.

    Second, VAT may also place a heavy burden of tax on women. In South Africa and many other countries, women-led households tend to be clustered in the lower end of the income distribution. And women disproportionately take responsibility for feeding and caring for family members.

    So, at least in theory, VAT is a regressive tax. But is it really so in practice?

    Three studies that have explored this issue in some detail have concluded that, in South Africa, VAT is not regressive.

    In 2008, I worked with colleagues in eight countries (South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Morocco, Mexico, Argentina, India and the United Kingdom) on the gender issues related to tax. In particular we looked at the burden of VAT on low-income and women-headed households.

    Our findings were that, in general, VAT is regressive and discriminates against women, but it depends on how it is implemented.

    In South Africa, the zero-rating of basic consumption goods is very effective, protecting low-income and female-headed households from VAT. It’s an example of a VAT system that is neutral – neither regressive nor progressive.

    A more recent study by South African economist Ingrid Woolard and colleagues reached a similar conclusion in 2018.

    A third study was done in the same year when VAT was increased from 14% to 15%. Following a similar emotive debate, the finance minister appointed an independent committee which I served on and which was chaired by Woolard, to advise on further zero-rating.

    Our conclusion – again – was that zero-rating is highly effective at protecting low-income groups from the deleterious effects of VAT.

    How it’s done matters

    The challenge with zero-rating is that while low-income households benefit, high-income households benefit more (because they spend more, in absolute terms, on zero-rated goods). Large amounts of potential VAT revenue are lost to high-income groups that don’t need protection.

    The trick is to find a basket of goods that low-income households consume a lot of, but which high-income households don’t consume in large quantities. Some typical examples are beans, canned pilchards and cabbage. These are all goods that low-income households consume and high-income households do not.

    National Treasury’s proposals for increasing the basket of goods to be zero-rated are based on solid research.

    A good example of the trade-offs to consider is the case of chicken. Chicken is an important source of protein for low-income households, but also for high-income households. So, if all chicken were zero-rated, this would protect poor households, but a large amount of VAT revenue would be lost.

    In our 2018 zero-rating report, at 2018 prices and consumption patterns, we calculated that zero-rating all chicken products would be equivalent to R1.3 billion (US$67.6 million) but government would lose R4.6 billion (US$244.4 million) to high income households.

    Not a good trade-off.

    However, some chicken products, such as chicken heads and feet, are mostly consumed by low-income groups, and are therefore good candidates for zero-rating.

    The two other Es – efficiency and ease of administration – of taxes are also key to consider.

    On these two considerations, VAT has big advantages.

    It’s very difficult to avoid or evade VAT because it’s collected along the chain of production. There’s evidence that South Africa has very little leakage in the system.

    So it is relatively easy to increase the VAT rate without needing to invest additional resources to collect the tax.

    Credibility is key

    Apart from the economic considerations, tax policy has to be politically credible. People should believe that their tax contributions are being used effectively, and government should be seen to be acting in line with this.

    If people don’t believe in government’s ability to spend wisely, resistance to taxes increases. Then tax avoidance and evasion increases.

    It would be fair to say that, with the high levels of corruption in South Africa’s political system, government’s credibility is low.

    Thus, if VAT is to be increased, government has to do a lot more to improve its credibility and reassure South Africans that the tax revenues will be well spent.

    – VAT hikes can raise tax without hurting the poor: an economist sets out the evidence
    – https://theconversation.com/vat-hikes-can-raise-tax-without-hurting-the-poor-an-economist-sets-out-the-evidence-254213

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Distillate and jet fuel contribute to record U.S. petroleum product exports in 2024

    Source: US Energy Information Administration

    In-brief analysis

    April 23, 2025

    In 2024, U.S. exports of total petroleum products increased to a record 6.6 million barrels per day (b/d) annual average. Annual U.S. petroleum product exports increased by 495,000 b/d as U.S. exports of distillate fuel oil, typically sold as diesel, and jet fuel increased compared with 2023, while exports of total motor gasoline decreased. Imports of major petroleum products, including gasoline, distillate fuel oil, and jet fuel, decreased by 210,000 b/d in 2024 compared with 2023.

    Distillate fuel oil accounts for the largest share of U.S. transportation fuel exports and is the second-largest petroleum export by volume, after propane. Distillate exports increased 182,000 b/d to about 1.30 million b/d in 2024, still less than the annual record of 1.38 million b/d in 2017.

    The largest destination for U.S. distillate exports is Mexico, which accounted for 272,000 b/d (21%) in 2024. Other major destinations included Chile (110,000 b/d), the Netherlands (103,000 b/d), the UK (81,000 b/d), and Peru (74,000 b/d).

    Brazil was the second-largest destination for U.S. distillate exports over the previous 10 years (2014–23), but it only received 41,000 b/d of U.S. exports in 2024. This decrease indirectly reflects sanctions by European countries on Russia’s distillate imports. Brazil increased imports of discounted and displaced distillate from Russia last year, reducing its own imports from the United States. At the same time, major European hubs in the Netherlands and the UK imported significantly more distillate from the United States. The Netherlands imported 103,000 b/d of distillate from the United States in 2024, and UK distillate imports averaged 81,000 b/d. In 2021, the Netherlands imported just 12,000 b/d of U.S. distillate, and the UK imported only 23,000 b/d.

    In 2024, exports of U.S. motor gasoline, including both finished motor gasoline and motor gasoline blending components, totaled 877,000 b/d, or 24,000 b/d less than in 2023. Mexico is the largest destination for U.S. gasoline exports, accounting for more than half of 2024 exports at 495,000 b/d. Other destinations for U.S. gasoline exports are generally concentrated in the Western Hemisphere, such as Guatemala, Colombia, Canada, and Panama—the next-largest destinations by volume in 2024.

    Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly
    Note: Total motor gasoline exports are calculated as the sum of exports of finished motor gasoline and exports of motor gasoline blending components.

    Jet fuel exports in 2024 increased relative to 2023, rising to a total of 209,000 b/d but remaining below pre-pandemic levels. Major destinations for jet fuel exports are elsewhere in the Americas, and as with the other fuels, Mexico has historically been the largest single destination, constituting 63,000 b/d (30%) of 2024 exports. U.S. annual exports of jet fuel to Mexico were their highest on record last year.

    Principal contributor: Kevin Hack

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Volta Finance Limited – Net Asset Value(s) as at 31 March 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Volta Finance Limited (VTA / VTAS)
    March 2025 monthly report

    NOT FOR RELEASE, DISTRIBUTION, OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR PART, IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES

    Guernsey, April 23rd, 2025

    AXA IM has published the Volta Finance Limited (the “Company” or “Volta Finance” or “Volta”) monthly report for March 2025. The full report is attached to this release and will be available on Volta’s website shortly (www.voltafinance.com).

    Performance and Portfolio Activity

    Dear Investors,

    Volta Finance’s net performance for the month of March was negative -2.9%, taking the Aug 2024-to-date performance at +9.7%. Both our investments in CLO Debt and CLO Equity were impacted by the broader volatility and risk repricing across global markets. In line with its dividend policy, Volta declared a 15.5c quarterly dividend through the month.

    CLO markets exhibited classic cyclical patterns characterized by spread tightening in January followed by some widening towards the end of the Quarter. However, market movements in March extended beyond typical seasonal dynamics as geopolitical tensions and uncertainties surrounding President Trump’s trade policies had a significant impact. The announcement of tariffs targeting Canada, Mexico and increased levies on China in February shook Equity markets across the globe and triggered a general repricing of risk. March saw additional tariff threats hinting towards a total revamp of US trade agreements in the making. Major Equity indices sold off, with pressures on technology, automotive and consumer discretionary sectors notably. These announcements overshadowed positive news on the inflation front (cooling PCE), while the Fed maintained its key rate on March 19. Lower GDP growth projections were on everybody’s mind, while markets were left in limbo ahead of the tariff announcements of the US administration due to take place on April 2nd.

    It was no surprise to see Credit markets repricing in March as well: the European High Yield index (Xover) closed around 40bps wider at 328bps. In the loan market, Euro Loans dropped c. 1pt to about 97.80px (Morningstar European Leveraged Loan Index) while US Loans felt by 85cts down to 96.30px. The primary CLO market remained active as many transactions were executed, although levels moved wider across the capital structure, notably BBs towards +600bps (from +475bps context). In terms of performance, BBs had a total return of -1.5%, US High Yield returned -1.07% and Euro High Yield were down by -1%.

    Looking at Volta Finance’s cashflow, the portfolio generated c. €28m equivalent of interests and coupons over the last six months, representing c.21% of February’s NAV on an annualized basis. Over the month, Volta’s CLO Equity tranches returned -4.3%** while CLO Debt tranches returned -0.5% performance**, cash representing c. 10% of the NAV.

    Volta is around 21% exposed to USD, the March currency moves having a meaningful impact on the overall funds’ performance (-0.94%).

    As of end of March 2025, Volta’s NAV was €269.6m, i.e. €7.37 per share.

    *It should be noted that approximately 0.29% of Volta’s GAV comprises investments for which the relevant NAVs as at the month-end date are normally available only after Volta’s NAV has already been published. Volta’s policy is to publish its NAV on as timely a basis as possible to provide shareholders with Volta’s appropriately up-to-date NAV information. Consequently, such investments are valued using the most recently available NAV for each fund or quoted price for such subordinated notes. The most recently available fund NAV or quoted price was 0.18% as at 28 February 2025, 0.11% as at 30 September 2024.

    ** “performances” of asset classes are calculated as the Dietz-performance of the assets in each bucket, taking into account the Mark-to-Market of the assets at period ends, payments received from the assets over the period, and ignoring changes in cross-currency rates. Nevertheless, some residual currency effects could impact the aggregate value of the portfolio when aggregating each bucket.

    CONTACTS

    For the Investment Manager
    AXA Investment Managers Paris
    François Touati
    francois.touati@axa-im.com
    +33 (0) 1 44 45 80 22

    Olivier Pons
    Olivier.pons@axa-im.com
    +33 (0) 1 44 45 87 30

    Company Secretary and Administrator
    BNP Paribas S.A, Guernsey Branch
    guernsey.bp2s.volta.cosec@bnpparibas.com 
    +44 (0) 1481 750 853

    Corporate Broker
    Cavendish Securities plc
    Andrew Worne
    Daniel Balabanoff
    +44 (0) 20 7397 8900

    *****
    ABOUT VOLTA FINANCE LIMITED

    Volta Finance Limited is incorporated in Guernsey under The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) and listed on Euronext Amsterdam and the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market for listed securities. Volta’s home member state for the purposes of the EU Transparency Directive is the Netherlands. As such, Volta is subject to regulation and supervision by the AFM, being the regulator for financial markets in the Netherlands.

    Volta’s Investment objectives are to preserve its capital across the credit cycle and to provide a stable stream of income to its Shareholders through dividends that it expects to distribute on a quarterly basis. The Company currently seeks to achieve its investment objectives by pursuing exposure predominantly to CLO’s and similar asset classes. A more diversified investment strategy across structured finance assets may be pursued opportunistically. The Company has appointed AXA Investment Managers Paris an investment management company with a division specialised in structured credit, for the investment management of all its assets.

    *****

    ABOUT AXA INVESTMENT MANAGERS
    AXA Investment Managers (AXA IM) is a multi-expert asset management company within the AXA Group, a global leader in financial protection and wealth management. AXA IM is one of the largest European-based asset managers with 2,800 professionals and €859 billion in assets under management as of the end of June 2024.  

    *****

    This press release is published by AXA Investment Managers Paris (“AXA IM”), in its capacity as alternative investment fund manager (within the meaning of Directive 2011/61/EU, the “AIFM Directive”) of Volta Finance Limited (the “Volta Finance”) whose portfolio is managed by AXA IM.

    This press release is for information only and does not constitute an invitation or inducement to acquire shares in Volta Finance. Its circulation may be prohibited in certain jurisdictions and no recipient may circulate copies of this document in breach of such limitations or restrictions. This document is not an offer for sale of the securities referred to herein in the United States or to persons who are “U.S. persons” for purposes of Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or otherwise in circumstances where such offer would be restricted by applicable law. Such securities may not be sold in the United States absent registration or an exemption from registration from the Securities Act. Volta Finance does not intend to register any portion of the offer of such securities in the United States or to conduct a public offering of such securities in the United States.

    *****

    This communication is only being distributed to and is only directed at (i) persons who are outside the United Kingdom or (ii) investment professionals falling within Article 19(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (the “Order”) or (iii) high net worth companies, and other persons to whom it may lawfully be communicated, falling within Article 49(2)(a) to (d) of the Order (all such persons together being referred to as “relevant persons”). The securities referred to herein are only available to, and any invitation, offer or agreement to subscribe, purchase or otherwise acquire such securities will be engaged in only with, relevant persons. Any person who is not a relevant person should not act or rely on this document or any of its contents. Past performance cannot be relied on as a guide to future performance.

    *****
    This press release contains statements that are, or may deemed to be, “forward-looking statements”. These forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology, including the terms “believes”, “anticipated”, “expects”, “intends”, “is/are expected”, “may”, “will” or “should”. They include the statements regarding the level of the dividend, the current market context and its impact on the long-term return of Volta Finance’s investments. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. Volta Finance’s actual results, portfolio composition and performance may differ materially from the impression created by the forward-looking statements. AXA IM does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements.

    Any target information is based on certain assumptions as to future events which may not prove to be realised. Due to the uncertainty surrounding these future events, the targets are not intended to be and should not be regarded as profits or earnings or any other type of forecasts. There can be no assurance that any of these targets will be achieved. In addition, no assurance can be given that the investment objective will be achieved.

    The figures provided that relate to past months or years and past performance cannot be relied on as a guide to future performance or construed as a reliable indicator as to future performance. Throughout this review, the citation of specific trades or strategies is intended to illustrate some of the investment methodologies and philosophies of Volta Finance, as implemented by AXA IM. The historical success or AXA IM’s belief in the future success, of any of these trades or strategies is not indicative of, and has no bearing on, future results.

    The valuation of financial assets can vary significantly from the prices that the AXA IM could obtain if it sought to liquidate the positions on behalf of the Volta Finance due to market conditions and general economic environment. Such valuations do not constitute a fairness or similar opinion and should not be regarded as such.

    Editor: AXA INVESTMENT MANAGERS PARIS, a company incorporated under the laws of France, having its registered office located at Tour Majunga, 6, Place de la Pyramide – 92800 Puteaux. AXA IMP is authorized by the Autorité des Marchés Financiers under registration number GP92008 as an alternative investment fund manager within the meaning of the AIFM Directive.

    *****

    Attachment

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Cloudbrink Supercharges Work from Anywhere with High-Performance ZTNA in LATAM, Korea, and Africa Through Strategic Channel Expansion

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SUNNYVALE, Calif., April 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Cloudbrink, a leader in high-performance secure connectivity, today announced further global expansion through strategic channel agreements and a new in-country office in Brazil. Cloudbrink strengthened its commitment to partner-led ZTNA growth by signing exclusive Korea partner WITHX, a LATAM distribution agreement with partner BAMM Technologies, and African distribution via OneTic.

    “Cloudbrink solves the last-mile latency and reliability issues that channel partners in LATAM, Africa, and APAC face on a regular basis,” said Mark Craven, Channel Chief for Cloudbrink. “We are committed to a channel-first distribution strategy because for Cloudbrink it isn’t just about geographic expansion. It’s about enabling remote and hybrid workforces in regions that have been underserved by legacy solutions. Our goal is to bring world-class performance to emerging markets through the channel, not around it.”

    Game-changing performance that scales globally

    Cloudbrink’s new partnerships bring game-changing edge performance and security to global markets where infrastructure is a bottleneck. As announced today, Cloudbrink has achieved industry-leading SASE performance, providing its partners and their customers with a per-datacenter capacity of 300 Gbps and per-user throughput of 1 Gbps.

    Deploying and expanding traditional physical Points of Presence (PoPs) can be a time-intensive process, often taking several months or weeks to complete or sometimes years. With Cloudbrink’s software-defined FAST (Flexible, Autonomous, Smart, and Temporary) Edges, partners can rapidly deploy PoPs, based on user locations, by leveraging existing infrastructures from multiple telcos and public cloud providers. This approach allows Cloudbrink to provide users with edge latency as low as 4-7 milliseconds, significantly enhancing the work-from-anywhere experience.

    “WITHX is pleased to be the exclusive partner for Cloudbrink in Korea”, said KiHwan Lee, CEO, WITHX. “As hybrid work becomes the norm, demand for high-performance and reliable connectivity continues to rise – no matter where the end user is located. We are confident that Cloudbrink’s Personal SASE provide companies can deliver the fast, secure access their employees expect, with the security they need for little to no management overhead. We believe this partnership will help accelerate the adoption of more flexible and agile work environment in Korea as well.”

    LATAM and Africa expansion

    Cloudbrink’s expansion into Africa and Latin America are anchored by two partnerships, and a new physical presence in Brazil. Cloudbrink’s distribution agreement with OneTic Africa empowers African businesses to embrace digital transformation and compete on a global scale. In Latin America the increasing demand for secure connectivity is strong enough to support the company’s new office in Osasco, Sao Paulo in Brazil, as well as its new distribution partner, BAMM Technologies.

    “Cloudbrink is ZTNA that works,” said Miguel Daud, CEO of BAMM Technologies. “The impressive performance gains we can offer with Cloudbrink mean that we’re not just enabling a good work from anywhere experience for our customers, we’re enabling innovation anywhere. That’s the type of offering that creates great value for customers and helps us build long-term strategic relationships.”

    Channel Commitment

    Cloudbrink’s commitment to a channel-first go-to-market strategy reduces onboarding friction and increases the speed to value for customers in new markets. Channel partners like WITHX, BAMM Technologies, and OneTic offer local language support, cultural familiarity, and boots-on-the-ground expertise for deployment, troubleshooting, and integration ensuring an overall better hybrid work experience for customers and their end users.

    The new partnerships enable regional VARs, MSPs, and SIs to capitalize on Cloudbrink’s differentiated AI-powered ZTNA platform — addressing performance gaps in hybrid work environments, especially where traditional VPNs and SD-WANs struggle. Cloudbrink’s differentiated ZTNA + performance optimization technology enables partners to offer a solution that brings healthy margins, recurring revenue, and the potential for additional services such as managed access, onboarding, and optimization.

    “By working with regional distributors, we’re not just shipping software — we’re delivering a local experience that scales globally,” Craven added.

    About Cloudbrink
    Cloudbrink delivers a high-performance secure connectivity solution that significantly enhances productivity for the work-from-anywhere generation. The Personal SASE service offers up to a 30-fold increase in network performance and ensures a secure, seamless, in-office experience for employees, no matter where they are. With a focus on speed, simplicity, security, and savings, Cloudbrink streamlines management and support while providing edge-native zero-trust access for users and devices for simplified operations, reduced complexity, and fewer support calls. For more information go to www.cloudbrink.com.

    Media contact:
    Chris Fucanan
    AquaLab PR for Cloudbrink
    chris@aqualabpr.com
    916-345-3475

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Guatemalan alien illegally residing in the US and convicted of sexual battery indicted for fraudulently obtaining custody of an unaccompanied alien child in the United States, following ICE, joint law enforcement partner investigation

    Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    WASHINGTON — A federal grand jury indicted an illegal alien, April 17, for his alleged role in smuggling an unaccompanied alien child to the United States and for allegedly submitting a sponsorship application with false statements to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement to gain custody of the minor after she entered the United States, following a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FBI, investigation.

    “This case is a testament to ICE’s commitment to hold predators accountable for the harm they inflict on children,” said ICE acting Director Todd Lyons. “We are making every effort to ensure the safety of children released to sponsors across the United States. This is vital work and through their victim centered approach, ICE Homeland Security Investigations special agents are perfectly positioned to uncover any similar crimes by predatory sponsors.”

    “The prior administration’s border policies created an environment that enabled human trafficking and allowed bad actors to take advantage of at-risk children,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “We are committed to protecting children from the scourge of human trafficking and will not rest until we deliver justice for those who suffered during the border crisis.”

    According to the indictment, Juan Tiul Xi, 26, a Guatemalan national illegally residing in Cleveland, illegally entered the United States in 2023. Thereafter, Tiul Xi allegedly encouraged and induced a 14-year-old Guatemalan girl to illegally enter the United States and to use the identity of Tiul Xi’s sister as her alias. As a UAC, the Guatemalan girl was placed in the care and custody of ORR. As alleged, Tiul Xi then falsely stated on documents submitted to ORR when he applied to sponsor and obtain custody of the girl that he was the UAC’s brother and that her alias was her actual name. ORR relied on Tiul Xi’s alleged false statements when, on or about Sept. 5, 2023, ORR released the UAC to Tiul Xi’s care.

    Tiul Xi is charged with one count of encouraging or inducing illegal entry for financial gain, one count of making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement, and one count of aggravated identity theft. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on the illegal entry count, a maximum penalty of five years in prison on the false statement count, and a mandatory consecutive penalty of two years in prison on the aggravated identity theft count. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    “The Office of Refugee Resettlement is committed to continuing vital policy changes that promote the safety and welfare of unaccompanied alien children related into the Unites States,” said ORR Acting Director Angie M. Salazar. “We have significantly increased sponsor vetting with the wellbeing of the child at the core of our process. We hope that our commitment is evident by our collaboration with law enforcement to right previous wrongs and help bring these crimes to light.”

    The indictment is the result of the coordinated efforts of Joint Task Force Alpha (JTFA). JTFA, a partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, has been elevated and expanded by the Attorney General with a mandate to target cartels and other transnational criminal organizations to eliminate human smuggling and trafficking networks operating in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, and Colombia that impact public safety and the security of our borders. JTFA currently comprises detailees from U.S. Attorneys’ Offices along the southwest border. Dedicated support is provided by numerous components of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, led by HRSP and supported by the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, and the Office of International Affairs, among others. JTFA also relies on substantial law enforcement investment from DHS, FBI, DEA, and other partners. To date, JTFA’s work has resulted in more than 360 domestic and international arrests of leaders, organizers, and significant facilitators of alien smuggling; more than 325 U.S. convictions; more than 270 significant jail sentences imposed; and forfeitures of substantial assets.

    The ICE HSI and FBI Cleveland field offices are jointly investigating with assistance from HSI’s Attaché team in Guatemala. Additionally, HSI’s Center for Countering Human Trafficking in Washington, D.C. and ORR have provided valuable assistance.

    Senior Trial Attorney Christian Levesque of the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section, Joint Task Force Alpha detailee/Trial Attorney Spencer M. Perry of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, and Acting U.S. Attorney Carol Skutnik and Criminal Division Chief Michael L. Collyer for the Northern District of Ohio are prosecuting the case, with assistance from HRSP Analyst/Latin America Specialist Joanna Crandall.

    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 other transnational criminal organizations, and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Project Safe Neighborhood.

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

    Individuals across the world can report suspicious criminal activity to the ICE Tip Line at 866-DHS-2-ICE, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Highly trained specialists take reports from both the public and law enforcement agencies on more than 400 laws enforced by ICE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Bitget Wallet Launches New Stablecoin Yield Product SyrupUSDC at 20% Return

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador, April 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bitget Wallet, a leading Web3 non-custodial wallet, has added a new offering to its Hold2Earn section, allowing users to earn up to 20% APY by holding SyrupUSDC. The move comes amid rising interest in passive income strategies that maintain asset liquidity.

    SyrupUSDC is a yield-accruing stablecoin issued by Maple Finance through its Syrup protocol. The token is designed to provide stable returns while enabling users to retain the ability to move or utilize their funds. The offering is available to Bitget Wallet users from April 23 16:00 to May 7 16:00 (UTC+8), with yields accessible directly through the wallet’s in-app Earn interface.

    Hold2Earn is Bitget Wallet’s passive income platform that focuses on flexible yield products, including liquid staking derivatives and tokenized yield assets. The section currently features products across Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Solana, selected based on protocol audits, liquidity, and user adoption. Unlike traditional staking or centralized yield products, Hold2Earn operates under a self-custody model, with users maintaining full control of their funds.

    “Hold2Earn is part of a broader shift toward onchain yield strategies that balance usability and transparency,” said Alvin Kan, COO of Bitget Wallet. “As users increasingly seek alternatives to locked or custodial yield models, we see an opportunity to offer accessible tools for asset growth directly within the wallet experience.“

    For more information, please visit Bitget Wallet official X.

    About Bitget Wallet
    Bitget Wallet is a non-custodial crypto wallet designed to make crypto simple, secure, and accessible for everyone. With over 60 million users, it brings together a full suite of crypto services, including swaps, market insights, staking, rewards, a DApp browser, and crypto payment solutions. Supporting 130+ blockchains, 20,000+ DApps, and a million tokens, Bitget Wallet enables seamless multi-chain trading across hundreds of DEXs and cross-chain bridges. Backed by a $300+ million user protection fund, it ensures the highest level of security for users’ assets.
    For more information, visit: X | Telegram | Instagram | YouTube | LinkedIn | TikTok | Discord | Facebook
    For media inquiries, contact media.web3@bitget.com

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/80127284-1f57-41f9-b558-102fdc3ec7ca 

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Colombia: Reaffirming Commitment to Peace, Security, & Justice Amid Challenges | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    The Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Colombia, Carlos Ruiz Massieu, today (22 Apr) told the Security Council that “illicit economies are intertwined with conflict in Colombia,” and solving this problem “is necessary for peace to be consolidated.”

    Ruiz Massieu said, “despite the many challenges still present,” Colombia “is a changed country” compared to the years preceding the signing of the 2016 Peace Agreement,” which “brought to an end the largest insurgency in the country which spanned decades.”

    He told the Council that “the provisions of the Agreement on the problem of illicit drugs have the potential to contribute to these solutions. Yet, the success of instruments such as voluntary crop substitution has been limited, including due to a lack of follow-through by the State with development assistance promised to peasants who voluntarily eradicated coca.”

    Ruiz Massieu, who is the Head of the United Nations Verification Mission in Colombia (UNVIC), said “looking to the future, it is essential to prioritize those processes of dialogue with actors that demonstrate a real desire for peace and that can have tangible results to benefit communities.”

    He said, “no real desire for peace is demonstrated if minors are recruited and leaders are assassinated. There is no real desire for peace if you extort money from communities. You don’t show a real desire for peace, if people are deprived of their freedom.”

    Ruiz Massieu said, “I am convinced that if the Agreement had been implemented more thoroughly in the last eight years, we would not have situations like those experienced in Catatumbo or Cauca today,” and stressed that “there is still time to use the Agreement as a current and necessary instrument to overcome these cases and prevent the repetition of cycles of conflict in Colombia.”

    For her part, Colombia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Laura Camila Sarabia Torres told the Council that “fulfilling the Agreement has not been and will not be easy.”

    Sarabia Torres said, “the implementation of the Agreement was ignored for four years because of selfish political decisions. The consequences are now being experienced; a rural reform that was ignored and that is advancing at a slow pace; a clarification of the truth that was fragmented and that has left victims in the middle.

    She said, “the transformation of the most vulnerable territories wasn’t a priority. Public resources were committed for decades to urban works, while in departments such as Chocó more than half of the population lives without water.”

    The Agreement followed years of negotiations which began at the Havana dialogues between delegates from the National Government, led by President Juan Manuel Santos, and delegates from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC-EP), based on their mutual decision to bring the national armed conflict to an end.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuqDcRCOUGg

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: President Lai pays respects to Pope Francis  

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    Details
    2025-04-23
    President Lai meets US CNAS NextGen fellows
    On the morning of April 23, President Lai Ching-te met with fellows from the Shawn Brimley Next Generation National Security Leaders Program (NextGen) run by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). In remarks, President Lai thanked the government of the United States for continuing its arms sales to Taiwan over the years, supporting Taiwan’s efforts to enhance its national defense capabilities and jointly maintaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. The president pointed out that we will promote our “Taiwan plus one” policy, that is, new arrangements for Taiwan plus the US, and form a “Taiwan investment in the US team” to expand investment and bring about even closer Taiwan-US trade cooperation, allowing us to reduce the trade deficit and generate development that benefits both sides. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: Ms. Michèle Flournoy, chair of the CNAS Board of Directors, is a good friend of Taiwan, and she has made major contributions to Taiwan-US relations through her long-time efforts on various aspects of our cooperation. I am happy to welcome Chair Flournoy, who is once again leading a NextGen Fellowship delegation to Taiwan. CNAS is a prominent think tank focusing on US national security and defense policy based in Washington, DC. Its NextGen Fellowship has fostered talented individuals in the fields of national security and foreign affairs. This year’s delegation is significantly larger than those of the past, demonstrating the increased importance that the next generation of US leaders attach to Taiwan. On behalf of the people of Taiwan, I extend my sincerest welcome to you all. The Taiwan Strait, an issue of importance for our guests, has become a global issue. There is a high degree of international consensus that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait are indispensable elements in global security and prosperity. Facing military threats from China, Taiwan proposed the Four Pillars of Peace action plan. First, we are actively implementing military reforms, enhancing whole-of-society defense resilience, and working to increase our defense budget to more than 3 percent of GDP. Second, we are strengthening our economic resilience. As Taiwan’s economy must keep advancing, we can no longer put all our eggs in one basket. We are taking action to remain firmly rooted in Taiwan while expanding our global presence and marketing worldwide. In these efforts, we are already seeing results. Third, we are standing side-by-side with other democratic countries to demonstrate the strength of deterrence and achieve our goal of peace through strength. And fourth, Taiwan is willing, under the principles of parity and dignity, to conduct exchanges and cooperate with China towards achieving peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. This April 10 marked the 46th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act. We thank the US government for continuing its arms sales to Taiwan over the years, supporting Taiwan’s efforts to enhance its national defense capabilities and jointly maintaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. We look forward to Taiwan and the US continuing to strengthen collaboration on the development of both our defense industries as well as the building of non-red supply chains. This will yield even more results and further deepen our economic and trade partnership. The US is now the main destination for outbound investment from Taiwan. Moving forward, we will promote our “Taiwan plus one” policy, that is, new arrangements for Taiwan plus the US. And our government will form a “Taiwan investment in the US team” to expand investment. We hope this will bring Taiwan-US economic and trade cooperation even closer and, through mutually beneficial assistance, allow us to generate development that benefits both our sides while reducing our trade deficit. In closing, thank you once again for visiting Taiwan. We hope your trip is fruitful and leaves you with a deep impression of Taiwan. We also hope that going forward you continue supporting Taiwan and advancing even greater development for Taiwan-US ties.  Chair Flournoy then delivered remarks, first thanking President Lai for making time to receive their delegation. Referring to President Lai’s earlier remarks, she said that it is quite an impressive group, as past members of this program have gone on to become members of the US Congress, leading government experts, and leaders in the think-tank world and in the private sector. She remarked that investing in this group is a wonderful privilege for her and that they appreciate President Lai’s agreeing to take the time to engage in exchange with them. Chair Flournoy emphasized that they are visiting Taiwan at a critical moment, when there is so much change and volatility in the geostrategic environment, a lot of uncertainty, and a lot of unpredictability. She stated that given our shared values, our shared passion for democracy and human rights, and our shared interests in peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, this is an important time for dialogue, collaboration, and looking for additional opportunities where we can work together towards regional peace and stability.

    Details
    2025-04-18
    President Lai meets US delegation from Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific
    On the afternoon of April 18, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation led by Senator Pete Ricketts, chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy. In remarks, President Lai said we hope to promote our Taiwan plus one policy, that is, new industrial arrangements for Taiwan plus the US, to leverage the strengths of both sides and reinforce our links in such areas as the economy, trade, and technological innovation. The president said that by deepening cooperation, Taiwan and the US will be better positioned to work together on building non-red supply chains. He said a more secure and sustainable economic and trade partnership will allow us to address the challenges posed by geopolitics, climate change, and the restructuring of global supply chains. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I warmly welcome you all to Taiwan. I want to take this opportunity to especially thank Chairman Pete Ricketts and Ranking Member Chris Coons for their high regard and support for Taiwan. Chairman Ricketts has elected to visit Taiwan on his first overseas trip since taking up his new position in January. Ranking Member Coons made a dedicated trip to Taiwan in 2021 to announce a donation of COVID-19 vaccines on behalf of the US government. He also visited last May, soon after my inauguration, continuing to deepen Taiwan-US exchanges. Thanks to support from Chairman Ricketts and Ranking Member Coons, the US Congress has continued to introduce many concrete initiatives and resources to assist Taiwan through the National Defense Authorization Act and Consolidated Appropriations Act, bringing the Taiwan-US partnership even closer. For this, I want to again express my gratitude. There has long been bipartisan support in the US Congress for maintaining security in the Taiwan Strait. Faced with China’s persistent political and military intimidation, Taiwan will endeavor to reform national defense and enhance whole-of-society defense resilience. We will also make special budget allocations to ensure that our defense budget exceeds 3 percent of GDP, up from the current 2.5 percent, so as to enhance Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities. We look forward to Taiwan and the US continuing to work together to maintain peace and stability in the region. We will also promote our Taiwan plus one policy, that is, new industrial arrangements for Taiwan plus the US. We hope to leverage the strengths of both sides and reinforce our links in such areas as the economy, trade, and technological innovation, jointly promoting prosperity and development. We believe that by deepening cooperation through the Taiwan plus one policy, Taiwan and the US will be better positioned to work together on building non-red supply chains. A more secure and sustainable economic and trade partnership will allow us to address the challenges posed by geopolitics, climate change, and the restructuring of global supply chains. In closing, I wish Chairman Ricketts and Ranking Member Coons a smooth and successful visit. Chairman Ricketts then delivered remarks, first thanking President Lai for his hospitality. He said that he and his delegation have had a wonderful time meeting with government officials, industry representatives, and the team at the American Institute in Taiwan. Highlighting that Taiwan has long been a friend and partner of the US, he said their bipartisan delegation to Taiwan emphasizes long-time bipartisan support in the US Congress for Taiwan, and though administrations change, that bipartisan support remains. Chairman Ricketts stated that the US is committed to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific and that they want to see peace across the Taiwan Strait. He also stated that the US opposes any unilateral change in the status of Taiwan and that they expect any differences between Taiwan and China to be resolved peacefully without coercion or the threat of force. To that end, he said, the US will continue to assist Taiwan in its self-defense and will also step up by bolstering its own defense capabilities, noting that there is broad consensus on this in the US Congress. Chairman Ricketts stated that they want to see Taiwan participate in international organizations and memberships where appropriate, and encourage Taiwan to reach out to current and past diplomatic allies to strengthen those bilateral relationships. He pointed out that the long economic relationship between the US and Taiwan is important for our as well as the entire world’s security and prosperity. He also noted that there are many opportunities for us to continue to grow the economic relationship that will help create more prosperity for our respective peoples and ensure that we are more secure in the world. Chairman Ricketts emphasized that they made this trip early on in the new US administration to work with Taiwan to develop three points: security, diplomatic relations, and the economy. He stated that in the face of rising aggression from communist China, the US will provide commensurate help to Taiwan in self-defense and that they will continue to provide the services and tools needed. In closing, Chairman Ricketts once again thanked President Lai for the hospitality and said he looks forward to dialogue on how we can continue these relationships. Ranking Member Coons then delivered remarks. Mentioning that their delegation also visited the Philippines on this trip, he said that there and in Taiwan, they have been focused on peace, stability, and security, and the ways for deepening and strengthening economic and security relations. He noted that 46 years ago, the US Senate passed the Taiwan Relations Act, adding that it was strongly bipartisan when enacted and that support for it is still strongly bipartisan today. Its core commitment, he said, is that the US will be engaged and will be a partner in ensuring that any dispute or challenge across the strait will be resolved peacefully, and that Taiwan will have the resources it needs for its self-defense. Ranking Member Coons said that between people, friendships are deepest and most enduring when they are based not just on interests but on values, and that the same is true between the US and Taiwan. Free press, free enterprise, free societies, democracy – these core shared values, he said, anchor our friendship and partnership, making them deeper. He remarked that they are grateful for the significant investment in the US being made by companies from Taiwan, but what anchors our partnership, in addition to these important investments and investments being made by Taiwan in its own security, are the values that mobilize our free-enterprise spirit and our commitment to free societies. In Europe in recent years, Ranking Member Coons said, an aggressive nation has tried to change boundaries and change history by force. He said that the US and dozens of countries committed to freedom have come to the aid of Ukraine to defend it, help it stabilize, and secure its future. So too in this region of the world, he added, the US and a bipartisan group in the US Senate are committed to stable, secure, peaceful relations and to deterring any unilateral effort to change the status quo by force. In closing, he said he is grateful for a chance to return to Taiwan after the pandemic and that he looks forward to our conversation, our partnership, and the important work we have in front of us. The delegation was accompanied to the Presidential Office by American Institute in Taiwan Taipei Office Director Raymond Greene.

    Details
    2025-04-17
    President Lai meets New Zealand delegation from All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taiwan  
    On the morning of April 17, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation from New Zealand’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taiwan. In remarks, President Lai thanked the government of New Zealand for reiterating the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait on multiple occasions since last year. He also stated that this year, the Taiwan-New Zealand economic cooperation agreement (ANZTEC) is being implemented in its complete form. The president expressed hope that deeper collaboration in such fields as smart agriculture, food manufacturing, biomedicine, the digital economy, and clean energy, as well as exchanges among our indigenous peoples, will allow our economies and industries to continue evolving as they adapt to the challenges arising from global changes. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I extend a warm welcome to all of our guests. New Zealand’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taiwan was established in 2023, marking a significant milestone in the deepening of Taiwan-New Zealand relations. I would like to thank Members of Parliament Stuart Smith and Tangi Utikere for leading this delegation, and thank all our guests for demonstrating support for Taiwan through action. We currently face a rapidly changing international landscape. Authoritarian regimes continue to converge and expand. Democracies must actively cooperate and jointly safeguard peace, stability, and the prosperous development of the Indo-Pacific region. Since last year, the government of New Zealand has on multiple occasions reiterated the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. On behalf of the people of Taiwan, I would like to express our sincere gratitude for these statements and demonstrations of support. This year, ANZTEC is being implemented in its complete form. We look forward to exploring even more diverse markets with New Zealand. Deeper collaboration in such fields as smart agriculture, food manufacturing, biomedicine, the digital economy, and clean energy, as well as exchanges among indigenous peoples, will allow our economies and industries to continue evolving as they adapt to the challenges arising from global changes. Taiwan and New Zealand share the universal values of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights, and parliamentary diplomacy is a tradition practiced by democracies around the world. Looking ahead, our parliamentary exchanges and mutual visits are bound to become more frequent. This will enable us to explore even more opportunities for cooperation and further deepen and solidify the democratic partnership between Taiwan and New Zealand. Thank you once again for making the long journey to visit us. I wish you a fruitful and successful trip. I also hope that everyone can take time to see more of Taiwan, try our local cuisine, and learn more about our culture. I hope our guests will fall in love with Taiwan. MP Smith then delivered remarks, saying that it is a great pleasure and an honor to be received by President Lai. The MP, noting that President Lai already covered many of the points he planned to make, went on to say that New Zealand and Taiwan share many values. He indicated that both are trading nations that rely on easy access for imports and exports, and that is why freedom of navigation is so important. That is why New Zealand had a naval vessel sail through the Taiwan Strait, he said, to underline the importance of freedom of navigation and our mutual security. MP Smith said that they look forward to building stronger relationships and enhancing the trade between our two nations. He added that New Zealand has much to offer in the field of geothermal energy to assist Taiwan, and mentioned that New Zealand is third largest in terms of the number of rocket launchers for satellites, which could assist Taiwan with communications in the future. New Zealand has other products as well, he said, but looks for assistance from Taiwan’s technology and technological sector. Lastly, MP Smith stated that he looks forward to a long and prosperous relationship between Taiwan and New Zealand. MP Utikere then delivered remarks, indicating that like Taiwan, New Zealand is a nation that is surrounded by ocean, which means that they rely on strong partnerships with communities of interest all around the globe. He said that the all-party parliamentary friendship group that was established and that they are a part of goes a long way in ensuring that a secure relationship between our two parliaments can continue to prosper. The MP also thanked Taiwan’s Representative to New Zealand Joanne Ou (歐江安) and her team for their work, which has ensured the success of the delegation’s visit. He said that the delegation experienced meetings with ministers in Taiwan’s government, members of the legislature, and those from the non-government organization sector as well. He also said that they enjoyed the opportunity to visit Wulai, and that the strength of the connections between the indigenous peoples of Taiwan and the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand is something that certainly landed with members of the delegation. MP Utikere noted that he will take up President Lai’s offer on experiencing more of Taiwan, and will spend a few extra days in Tainan, which he understands has a very special place in the president’s heart, adding that he looks forward to his time and experiences there. The MP concluded his remarks by saying that this will be a relationship that continues to go from strength to strength. After their remarks, the New Zealand delegation sang the Māori song “Tutira Mai Nga Iwi” to extend best wishes to Taiwan. Also in attendance at the meeting were New Zealand Members of Parliament Jamie Arbuckle, Greg Fleming, Hamish Campbell, Cameron Luxton, and Helen White.  

    Details
    2025-04-15
    President Lai meets delegation led by Tuvalu Deputy Prime Minister Panapasi Nelesone 
    On the afternoon of April 15, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation led by Tuvalu Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and Economic Development Panapasi Nelesone and his wife. In remarks, President Lai thanked Tuvalu for its staunch and long-term backing of Taiwan’s international participation. The president said he looks forward to our nations deepening bilateral ties in such areas as agriculture, medicine, education, and information and communications technology and working together toward greater peace, prosperity, and development in the Pacific region. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I extend a very warm welcome to Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone and Madame Corinna Ituaso Laafai as they lead this delegation to Taiwan. Our distinguished guests are the first delegation from Tuvalu that I have received at the Presidential Office this year. During my visit to Tuvalu last year, I met and exchanged views with Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone and the ministers present. I am delighted to meet you again today and thank you once again for the hospitality you accorded my delegation. The culture of Tuvalu and the warmth of its people are not easily forgotten. Tuvalu’s support for Taiwan has also touched us deeply. I want to take this opportunity to thank Tuvalu for staunchly backing Taiwan’s international participation over the past several decades. Our two countries have supported each other like family and have together made contributions in the international arena. Last Tuesday, I received the credentials of Ambassador Lily Tangisia Faavae and expressed my hope for Taiwan and Tuvalu continuing to deepen bilateral relations. This visit by Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone is an important step in that regard. Our two countries will be signing a labor cooperation agreement and an agreement concerning the recognition of training and certification of seafarers. This will expand bilateral cooperation at multiple levels and bring our relations even closer. Taiwan and Tuvalu are maritime nations and share the values of democracy and freedom. Our two countries have stood shoulder to shoulder to protect marine resources and address the challenges posed by climate change and authoritarianism, and we aspire to work toward greater peace, prosperity, and development in the Pacific region. Our nations have produced fruitful results in such areas as agriculture, medicine, education, and information and communications technology. I anticipate that, with the support of Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone and our distinguished guests, we can continue to employ a more diverse range of strategies to begin a new chapter in our diplomatic partnership. Together, we can make even greater and more concrete contributions to regional development. Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone then delivered remarks, first thanking President Lai for his kind words of welcome and the warm hospitality extended to his delegation. On behalf of the government and people of Tuvalu, he conveyed their gratitude to the president and the people of Taiwan for the generous support, as well as for the enduring friendship we share. He said that Taiwan’s steadfast commitment to our bilateral relationship has been instrumental in advancing our shared values of democracy, resilience, and sustainable development. From vital development assistance to cooperation in health, education, and climate change resilience, he added, Taiwan’s contributions have made a significant impact on the lives of the people of Tuvalu.  For Taiwan’s recent generous donation of shoes for Tuvaluan primary school students, Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone expressed thanks to President Lai. He commented that these gifts, which underscore a deep commitment to the welfare of their youth, transcend mere material support; they are symbols of care, friendship, and hope for the future generations. Noting that our bilateral relationship is built on mutual respect, shared values, and a common vision for sustainable development in the Pacific, he expressed confidence that this partnership will continue to flourish and will serve as a beacon of cooperation and solidarity within our region.  The delegation also included Tuvalu Minister of Foreign Affairs, Labour, and Trade Paulson Panapa; Minister of Public Works, Infrastructure Development and Water Ampelosa Tehulu, and was accompanied to the Presidential Office by Tuvalu Ambassador Faavae.

    Details
    2025-04-10
    President Lai pens Bloomberg News article on Taiwan’s response to US reciprocal tariffs
    On April 10, an article penned by President Lai Ching-te entitled “Taiwan Has a Roadmap for Deeper US Trade Ties” was published by Bloomberg News, explaining to a global audience Taiwan’s strategy on trade with the United States, as well as how Taiwan will engage in dialogue with the aim of removing bilateral trade barriers, increasing investment between Taiwan and the US, and reducing tariffs to zero. The following is the full text of President Lai’s article: Last month, the first of Taiwan’s 66 new F-16Vs rolled off the assembly line in Greenville, South Carolina. Signed during President Donald Trump’s first term, the $8 billion deal stands as a testament to American ingenuity and leadership in advanced manufacturing. Beyond its economic impact – creating thousands of well-paying jobs across the US – it strengthens the foundations of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.  This deal is emblematic of the close interests shared between Taiwan and the US. Our bond is forged by an unwavering belief in freedom and liberty. For decades, our two countries have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in deterring communist expansionism. Even as Beijing intensifies its air force and naval exercises in our vicinity, we remain resolute. Taiwan will always be a bastion of democracy and peace in the region. This partnership extends well beyond the security realm. Though home to just 23 million people, Taiwan has in recent years become a significant investor in America. TSMC recently announced it will raise its total investment in the US to $165 billion – an initiative that will create 40,000 construction jobs and tens of thousands more in advanced chip manufacturing and R&D. This investment will bolster the emergence of a new high-tech cluster in Arizona. Taiwan is committed to strengthening bilateral cooperation in manufacturing and innovation. As a trade-dependent economy, our long-term success is built on trade relationships that are fair, reciprocal and mutually beneficial. Encouraging Taiwanese businesses to expand their global footprint, particularly in the US, is a vital part of this strategy. Deepening commercial ties between Taiwanese and American firms is another. These core principles will guide our response to President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. First, we will seek to restart trade negotiations with a common objective of reducing all tariffs between Taiwan and the US. While Taiwan already maintains low tariffs, with an average nominal rate of 6%, we are willing to further cut this rate to zero on the basis of reciprocity with the US. By removing the last vestiges to free and fair trade, we seek to encourage greater trade and investment flows between our two countries. Second, Taiwan will rapidly expand procurement of American goods. Over the past five years, rising demand for semiconductors and AI-related components has increased our trade surplus. In response to these market trends, Taiwan will seek to narrow the trade imbalance through the procurement of energy, agriculture and other industrial goods from the US. These efforts will create thousands of new jobs across multiple sectors.  We’ll also pursue additional arms procurements that are vital to our self-defense and contribute to peace and stability over the Taiwan Strait. During President Trump’s first term, we secured $18 billion in arms deals, including advanced fighter jets, tanks and anti-ship missiles. Future purchases, which are not reflected in trade balances, build on our economic and security partnership while being essential to Taiwan’s “Peace Through Strength” approach. Third, new investments will be made across the US. Already, Taiwanese firms support 400,000 jobs throughout all 50 states. Beyond TSMC, we also see emerging opportunities in electronics, ICT, energy and petrochemicals. We will establish a cross-agency “US Investment Team” to support bilateral trade and investment – and we hope that efforts will be reciprocated by the Trump administration. Fourth, we are committed to removing non-tariff trade barriers. Taiwan will take concrete steps to resolve persistent issues that have long impeded trade negotiations. And finally, we will strongly address US concerns over export controls and improper transshipment of low-cost goods through Taiwan. These steps form the basis of a comprehensive roadmap for how Taiwan will navigate the shifting trade landscape, transforming challenges in the Taiwan-US economic relationship into new opportunities for growth, resilience and strategic alignment. At a time of growing global uncertainty, underpinned by growing Chinese assertiveness, closer trade ties are more than sound economics; they are a critical pillar of regional security. Our approach is long-term and principled, grounded in a lasting commitment to our friendship with the US, a firm belief in the benefits of fair and reciprocal trade, and an unwavering dedication to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We are confident that our shared economic and security interests will not only overcome turbulence in the international trade environment – they will define the future of a free and open Indo-Pacific.

    Details
    2025-04-06
    President Lai delivers remarks on US tariff policy response
    On April 6, President Lai Ching-te delivered recorded remarks regarding the impact of the 32 percent tariff that the United States government recently imposed on imports from Taiwan in the name of reciprocity. In his remarks, President Lai explained that the government will adopt five response strategies, including making every effort to improve reciprocal tariff rates through negotiations, adopting a support plan for affected domestic industries, adopting medium- and long-term economic development plans, forming new “Taiwan plus the US” arrangements, and launching industry listening tours. The president emphasized that as we face this latest challenge, the government and civil society will work hand in hand, and expressed hope that all parties, both ruling and opposition, will support the measures that the Executive Yuan will take to open up a broader path for Taiwan’s economy. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: My fellow citizens, good evening. The US government recently announced higher tariffs on countries around the world in the name of reciprocity, including imposing a 32 percent tariff on imports from Taiwan. This is bound to have a major impact on our nation. Various countries have already responded, and some have even adopted retaliatory measures. Tremendous changes in the global economy are expected. Taiwan is an export-led economy, and in facing future challenges there will inevitably be difficulties, so we must proceed carefully to turn danger into safety. During this time, I want to express gratitude to all sectors of society for providing valuable opinions, which the government regards highly, and will use as a reference to make policy decisions.  However, if we calmly and carefully analyze Taiwan’s trade with the US, we find that last year Taiwan’s exports to the US were valued at US$111.4 billion, accounting for 23.4 percent of total export value, with the other 75-plus percent of products sold worldwide to countries other than the US. Of products sold to the US, competitive ICT products and electronic components accounted for 65.4 percent. This shows that Taiwan’s economy does still have considerable resilience. As long as our response strategies are appropriate, and the public and private sectors join forces, we can reduce impacts. Please do not panic. To address the reciprocal tariffs by the US, Taiwan has no plans to adopt retaliatory tariffs. There will be no change in corporate investment commitments to the US, as long as they are consistent with national interests. But we must ensure the US clearly understands Taiwan’s contributions to US economic development. More importantly, we must actively seek to understand changes in the global economic situation, strengthen Taiwan-US industry cooperation, elevate the status of Taiwan industries in global supply chains, and with safeguarding the continued development of Taiwan’s economy as our goal, adopt the following five strategies to respond. Strategy one: Make every effort to improve reciprocal tariff rates through negotiations using the following five methods:  1. Taiwan has already formed a negotiation team led by Vice Premier Cheng Li-chiun (鄭麗君). The team includes members from the National Security Council, the Office of Trade Negotiations, and relevant Executive Yuan ministries and agencies, as well as academia and industry. Like the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, negotiations on tariffs can start from Taiwan-US bilateral zero-tariff treatment. 2. To expand purchases from the US and thereby reduce the trade deficit, the Executive Yuan has already completed an inventory regarding large-scale procurement plans for agricultural, industrial, petroleum, and natural gas products, and the Ministry of National Defense has also proposed a military procurement list. All procurement plans will be actively pursued. 3. Expand investments in the US. Taiwan’s cumulative investment in the US already exceeds US$100 billion, creating approximately 400,000 jobs. In the future, in addition to increased investment in the US by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, other industries such as electronics, ICT, petrochemicals, and natural gas can all increase their US investments, deepening Taiwan-US industry cooperation. Taiwan’s government has helped form a “Taiwan investment in the US” team, and hopes that the US will reciprocate by forming a “US investment in Taiwan” team to bring about closer Taiwan-US trade cooperation, jointly creating a future economic golden age.  4. We must eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade. Non-tariff barriers are an indicator by which the US assesses whether a trading partner is trading fairly with the US. Therefore, we will proactively resolve longstanding non-tariff barriers so that negotiations can proceed more smoothly. 5. We must resolve two issues that have been matters of longstanding concern to the US. One regards high-tech export controls, and the other regards illegal transshipment of dumped goods, otherwise referred to as “origin washing.” Strategy two: We must adopt a plan for supporting our industries. For industries that will be affected by the tariffs, and especially traditional industries as well as micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises, we will provide timely and needed support and assistance. Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) and his administrative team recently announced a package of 20 specific measures designed to address nine areas. Moving forward, the support we provide to different industries will depend on how they are affected by the tariffs, will take into account the particular features of each industry, and will help each industry innovate, upgrade, and transform. Strategy three: We must adopt medium- and long-term economic development plans. At this point in time, our government must simultaneously adopt new strategies for economic and industrial development. This is also the fundamental path to solutions for future economic challenges. The government will proactively cooperate with friends and allies, develop a diverse range of markets, and achieve closer integration of entities in the upper, middle, and lower reaches of industrial supply chains. This course of action will make Taiwan’s industrial ecosystem more complete, and will help Taiwanese industries upgrade and transform. We must also make good use of the competitive advantages we possess in such areas as semiconductor manufacturing, integrated chip design, ICT, and smart manufacturing to build Taiwan into an AI island, and promote relevant applications for food, clothing, housing, and transportation, as well as military, security and surveillance, next-generation communications, and the medical and health and wellness industries as we advance toward a smarter, more sustainable, and more prosperous new Taiwan. Strategy four: “Taiwan plus one,” i.e., new “Taiwan plus the US” arrangements: While staying firmly rooted in Taiwan, our enterprises are expanding their global presence and marketing worldwide. This has been our national economic development strategy, and the most important aspect is maintaining a solid base here in Taiwan. We absolutely must maintain a solid footing, and cannot allow the present strife to cause us to waver. Therefore, our government will incentivize investments, carry out deregulation, and continue to improve Taiwan’s investment climate by actively resolving problems involving access to water, electricity, land, human resources, and professional talent. This will enable corporations to stay in Taiwan and continue investing here. In addition, we must also help the overseas manufacturing facilities of offshore Taiwanese businesses to make necessary adjustments to support our “Taiwan plus one” policy, in that our national economic development strategy will be adjusted as follows: to stay firmly rooted in Taiwan while expanding our global presence, strengthening US ties, and marketing worldwide. We intend to make use of the new state of supply chains to strengthen cooperation between Taiwanese and US industries, and gain further access to US markets. Strategy five: Launch industry listening tours: All industrial firms, regardless of sector or size, will be affected to some degree once the US reciprocal tariffs go into effect. The administrative teams led by myself and Premier Cho will hear out industry concerns so that we can quickly resolve problems and make sure policies meet actual needs. My fellow citizens, over the past half-century and more, Taiwan has been through two energy crises, the Asian financial crisis, the global financial crisis, and pandemics. We have been able to not only withstand one test after another, but even turn crises into opportunities. The Taiwanese economy has emerged from these crises stronger and more resilient than ever. As we face this latest challenge, the government and civil society will work hand in hand, and I hope that all parties in the legislature, both ruling and opposition, will support the measures that the Executive Yuan will take to open up a broader path for Taiwan’s economy. Let us join together and give it our all. Thank you.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI: Tower Semiconductor Announces First Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MIGDAL HAEMEK, Israel – April 23, 2025 – Tower Semiconductor (NASDAQ/ TASE: TSEM), the leading foundry of high value analog semiconductor solutions, will issue its first quarter 2025 earnings release on Wednesday, May 14, 2025. The Company will hold a conference call to discuss its first quarter 2025 financial results and second quarter 2025 guidance on Wednesday, May 14, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (09:00 a.m. Central, 08:00 a.m. Mountain, 07:00 a.m. Pacific and 05:00 p.m. Israel time).

    The call will be webcast and available through the Investor Relations section of Tower Semiconductor’s website at https://ir.towersemi.com/, where the pre-registration form required for dial-in participation is also accessible. Upon completing the registration, participants will receive the dial-in details, a unique PIN, and a confirmation email with all necessary information. The teleconference will be available for replay for 90 days.

    About Tower Semiconductor         

    Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (NASDAQ/TASE: TSEM), the leading foundry of high-value analog semiconductor solutions, provides technology, development, and process platforms for its customers in growing markets such as consumer, industrial, automotive, mobile, infrastructure, medical and aerospace and defense. Tower Semiconductor focuses on creating a positive and sustainable impact on the world through long-term partnerships and its advanced and innovative analog technology offering, comprised of a broad range of customizable process platforms such as SiGe, BiCMOS, mixed-signal/CMOS, RF CMOS, CMOS image sensor, non-imaging sensors, displays, integrated power management (BCD and 700V), photonics, and MEMS. Tower Semiconductor also provides world-class design enablement for a quick and accurate design cycle as well as process transfer services including development, transfer, and optimization, to IDMs and fabless companies. To provide multi-fab sourcing and extended capacity for its customers, Tower Semiconductor owns one operating facility in Israel (200mm), two in the U.S. (200mm), two in Japan (200mm and 300mm) which it owns through its 51% holdings in TPSCo, shares a 300mm facility in Agrate, Italy with STMicroelectronics as well as has access to a 300mm capacity corridor in Intel’s New Mexico factory. For more information, please visit: www.towersemi.com.

    ###

    Contact Information:
    Liat Avraham
    Investor Relations
    liatavra@towersemi.com | +972 4 650 6154

    Attachment

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: President Lai meets US CNAS NextGen fellows

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    Details
    2025-04-18
    President Lai meets US delegation from Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific
    On the afternoon of April 18, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation led by Senator Pete Ricketts, chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy. In remarks, President Lai said we hope to promote our Taiwan plus one policy, that is, new industrial arrangements for Taiwan plus the US, to leverage the strengths of both sides and reinforce our links in such areas as the economy, trade, and technological innovation. The president said that by deepening cooperation, Taiwan and the US will be better positioned to work together on building non-red supply chains. He said a more secure and sustainable economic and trade partnership will allow us to address the challenges posed by geopolitics, climate change, and the restructuring of global supply chains. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I warmly welcome you all to Taiwan. I want to take this opportunity to especially thank Chairman Pete Ricketts and Ranking Member Chris Coons for their high regard and support for Taiwan. Chairman Ricketts has elected to visit Taiwan on his first overseas trip since taking up his new position in January. Ranking Member Coons made a dedicated trip to Taiwan in 2021 to announce a donation of COVID-19 vaccines on behalf of the US government. He also visited last May, soon after my inauguration, continuing to deepen Taiwan-US exchanges. Thanks to support from Chairman Ricketts and Ranking Member Coons, the US Congress has continued to introduce many concrete initiatives and resources to assist Taiwan through the National Defense Authorization Act and Consolidated Appropriations Act, bringing the Taiwan-US partnership even closer. For this, I want to again express my gratitude. There has long been bipartisan support in the US Congress for maintaining security in the Taiwan Strait. Faced with China’s persistent political and military intimidation, Taiwan will endeavor to reform national defense and enhance whole-of-society defense resilience. We will also make special budget allocations to ensure that our defense budget exceeds 3 percent of GDP, up from the current 2.5 percent, so as to enhance Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities. We look forward to Taiwan and the US continuing to work together to maintain peace and stability in the region. We will also promote our Taiwan plus one policy, that is, new industrial arrangements for Taiwan plus the US. We hope to leverage the strengths of both sides and reinforce our links in such areas as the economy, trade, and technological innovation, jointly promoting prosperity and development. We believe that by deepening cooperation through the Taiwan plus one policy, Taiwan and the US will be better positioned to work together on building non-red supply chains. A more secure and sustainable economic and trade partnership will allow us to address the challenges posed by geopolitics, climate change, and the restructuring of global supply chains. In closing, I wish Chairman Ricketts and Ranking Member Coons a smooth and successful visit. Chairman Ricketts then delivered remarks, first thanking President Lai for his hospitality. He said that he and his delegation have had a wonderful time meeting with government officials, industry representatives, and the team at the American Institute in Taiwan. Highlighting that Taiwan has long been a friend and partner of the US, he said their bipartisan delegation to Taiwan emphasizes long-time bipartisan support in the US Congress for Taiwan, and though administrations change, that bipartisan support remains. Chairman Ricketts stated that the US is committed to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific and that they want to see peace across the Taiwan Strait. He also stated that the US opposes any unilateral change in the status of Taiwan and that they expect any differences between Taiwan and China to be resolved peacefully without coercion or the threat of force. To that end, he said, the US will continue to assist Taiwan in its self-defense and will also step up by bolstering its own defense capabilities, noting that there is broad consensus on this in the US Congress. Chairman Ricketts stated that they want to see Taiwan participate in international organizations and memberships where appropriate, and encourage Taiwan to reach out to current and past diplomatic allies to strengthen those bilateral relationships. He pointed out that the long economic relationship between the US and Taiwan is important for our as well as the entire world’s security and prosperity. He also noted that there are many opportunities for us to continue to grow the economic relationship that will help create more prosperity for our respective peoples and ensure that we are more secure in the world. Chairman Ricketts emphasized that they made this trip early on in the new US administration to work with Taiwan to develop three points: security, diplomatic relations, and the economy. He stated that in the face of rising aggression from communist China, the US will provide commensurate help to Taiwan in self-defense and that they will continue to provide the services and tools needed. In closing, Chairman Ricketts once again thanked President Lai for the hospitality and said he looks forward to dialogue on how we can continue these relationships. Ranking Member Coons then delivered remarks. Mentioning that their delegation also visited the Philippines on this trip, he said that there and in Taiwan, they have been focused on peace, stability, and security, and the ways for deepening and strengthening economic and security relations. He noted that 46 years ago, the US Senate passed the Taiwan Relations Act, adding that it was strongly bipartisan when enacted and that support for it is still strongly bipartisan today. Its core commitment, he said, is that the US will be engaged and will be a partner in ensuring that any dispute or challenge across the strait will be resolved peacefully, and that Taiwan will have the resources it needs for its self-defense. Ranking Member Coons said that between people, friendships are deepest and most enduring when they are based not just on interests but on values, and that the same is true between the US and Taiwan. Free press, free enterprise, free societies, democracy – these core shared values, he said, anchor our friendship and partnership, making them deeper. He remarked that they are grateful for the significant investment in the US being made by companies from Taiwan, but what anchors our partnership, in addition to these important investments and investments being made by Taiwan in its own security, are the values that mobilize our free-enterprise spirit and our commitment to free societies. In Europe in recent years, Ranking Member Coons said, an aggressive nation has tried to change boundaries and change history by force. He said that the US and dozens of countries committed to freedom have come to the aid of Ukraine to defend it, help it stabilize, and secure its future. So too in this region of the world, he added, the US and a bipartisan group in the US Senate are committed to stable, secure, peaceful relations and to deterring any unilateral effort to change the status quo by force. In closing, he said he is grateful for a chance to return to Taiwan after the pandemic and that he looks forward to our conversation, our partnership, and the important work we have in front of us. The delegation was accompanied to the Presidential Office by American Institute in Taiwan Taipei Office Director Raymond Greene.

    Details
    2025-04-17
    President Lai meets New Zealand delegation from All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taiwan  
    On the morning of April 17, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation from New Zealand’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taiwan. In remarks, President Lai thanked the government of New Zealand for reiterating the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait on multiple occasions since last year. He also stated that this year, the Taiwan-New Zealand economic cooperation agreement (ANZTEC) is being implemented in its complete form. The president expressed hope that deeper collaboration in such fields as smart agriculture, food manufacturing, biomedicine, the digital economy, and clean energy, as well as exchanges among our indigenous peoples, will allow our economies and industries to continue evolving as they adapt to the challenges arising from global changes. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I extend a warm welcome to all of our guests. New Zealand’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taiwan was established in 2023, marking a significant milestone in the deepening of Taiwan-New Zealand relations. I would like to thank Members of Parliament Stuart Smith and Tangi Utikere for leading this delegation, and thank all our guests for demonstrating support for Taiwan through action. We currently face a rapidly changing international landscape. Authoritarian regimes continue to converge and expand. Democracies must actively cooperate and jointly safeguard peace, stability, and the prosperous development of the Indo-Pacific region. Since last year, the government of New Zealand has on multiple occasions reiterated the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. On behalf of the people of Taiwan, I would like to express our sincere gratitude for these statements and demonstrations of support. This year, ANZTEC is being implemented in its complete form. We look forward to exploring even more diverse markets with New Zealand. Deeper collaboration in such fields as smart agriculture, food manufacturing, biomedicine, the digital economy, and clean energy, as well as exchanges among indigenous peoples, will allow our economies and industries to continue evolving as they adapt to the challenges arising from global changes. Taiwan and New Zealand share the universal values of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights, and parliamentary diplomacy is a tradition practiced by democracies around the world. Looking ahead, our parliamentary exchanges and mutual visits are bound to become more frequent. This will enable us to explore even more opportunities for cooperation and further deepen and solidify the democratic partnership between Taiwan and New Zealand. Thank you once again for making the long journey to visit us. I wish you a fruitful and successful trip. I also hope that everyone can take time to see more of Taiwan, try our local cuisine, and learn more about our culture. I hope our guests will fall in love with Taiwan. MP Smith then delivered remarks, saying that it is a great pleasure and an honor to be received by President Lai. The MP, noting that President Lai already covered many of the points he planned to make, went on to say that New Zealand and Taiwan share many values. He indicated that both are trading nations that rely on easy access for imports and exports, and that is why freedom of navigation is so important. That is why New Zealand had a naval vessel sail through the Taiwan Strait, he said, to underline the importance of freedom of navigation and our mutual security. MP Smith said that they look forward to building stronger relationships and enhancing the trade between our two nations. He added that New Zealand has much to offer in the field of geothermal energy to assist Taiwan, and mentioned that New Zealand is third largest in terms of the number of rocket launchers for satellites, which could assist Taiwan with communications in the future. New Zealand has other products as well, he said, but looks for assistance from Taiwan’s technology and technological sector. Lastly, MP Smith stated that he looks forward to a long and prosperous relationship between Taiwan and New Zealand. MP Utikere then delivered remarks, indicating that like Taiwan, New Zealand is a nation that is surrounded by ocean, which means that they rely on strong partnerships with communities of interest all around the globe. He said that the all-party parliamentary friendship group that was established and that they are a part of goes a long way in ensuring that a secure relationship between our two parliaments can continue to prosper. The MP also thanked Taiwan’s Representative to New Zealand Joanne Ou (歐江安) and her team for their work, which has ensured the success of the delegation’s visit. He said that the delegation experienced meetings with ministers in Taiwan’s government, members of the legislature, and those from the non-government organization sector as well. He also said that they enjoyed the opportunity to visit Wulai, and that the strength of the connections between the indigenous peoples of Taiwan and the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand is something that certainly landed with members of the delegation. MP Utikere noted that he will take up President Lai’s offer on experiencing more of Taiwan, and will spend a few extra days in Tainan, which he understands has a very special place in the president’s heart, adding that he looks forward to his time and experiences there. The MP concluded his remarks by saying that this will be a relationship that continues to go from strength to strength. After their remarks, the New Zealand delegation sang the Māori song “Tutira Mai Nga Iwi” to extend best wishes to Taiwan. Also in attendance at the meeting were New Zealand Members of Parliament Jamie Arbuckle, Greg Fleming, Hamish Campbell, Cameron Luxton, and Helen White.  

    Details
    2025-04-15
    President Lai meets delegation led by Tuvalu Deputy Prime Minister Panapasi Nelesone 
    On the afternoon of April 15, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation led by Tuvalu Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and Economic Development Panapasi Nelesone and his wife. In remarks, President Lai thanked Tuvalu for its staunch and long-term backing of Taiwan’s international participation. The president said he looks forward to our nations deepening bilateral ties in such areas as agriculture, medicine, education, and information and communications technology and working together toward greater peace, prosperity, and development in the Pacific region. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I extend a very warm welcome to Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone and Madame Corinna Ituaso Laafai as they lead this delegation to Taiwan. Our distinguished guests are the first delegation from Tuvalu that I have received at the Presidential Office this year. During my visit to Tuvalu last year, I met and exchanged views with Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone and the ministers present. I am delighted to meet you again today and thank you once again for the hospitality you accorded my delegation. The culture of Tuvalu and the warmth of its people are not easily forgotten. Tuvalu’s support for Taiwan has also touched us deeply. I want to take this opportunity to thank Tuvalu for staunchly backing Taiwan’s international participation over the past several decades. Our two countries have supported each other like family and have together made contributions in the international arena. Last Tuesday, I received the credentials of Ambassador Lily Tangisia Faavae and expressed my hope for Taiwan and Tuvalu continuing to deepen bilateral relations. This visit by Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone is an important step in that regard. Our two countries will be signing a labor cooperation agreement and an agreement concerning the recognition of training and certification of seafarers. This will expand bilateral cooperation at multiple levels and bring our relations even closer. Taiwan and Tuvalu are maritime nations and share the values of democracy and freedom. Our two countries have stood shoulder to shoulder to protect marine resources and address the challenges posed by climate change and authoritarianism, and we aspire to work toward greater peace, prosperity, and development in the Pacific region. Our nations have produced fruitful results in such areas as agriculture, medicine, education, and information and communications technology. I anticipate that, with the support of Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone and our distinguished guests, we can continue to employ a more diverse range of strategies to begin a new chapter in our diplomatic partnership. Together, we can make even greater and more concrete contributions to regional development. Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone then delivered remarks, first thanking President Lai for his kind words of welcome and the warm hospitality extended to his delegation. On behalf of the government and people of Tuvalu, he conveyed their gratitude to the president and the people of Taiwan for the generous support, as well as for the enduring friendship we share. He said that Taiwan’s steadfast commitment to our bilateral relationship has been instrumental in advancing our shared values of democracy, resilience, and sustainable development. From vital development assistance to cooperation in health, education, and climate change resilience, he added, Taiwan’s contributions have made a significant impact on the lives of the people of Tuvalu.  For Taiwan’s recent generous donation of shoes for Tuvaluan primary school students, Deputy Prime Minister Nelesone expressed thanks to President Lai. He commented that these gifts, which underscore a deep commitment to the welfare of their youth, transcend mere material support; they are symbols of care, friendship, and hope for the future generations. Noting that our bilateral relationship is built on mutual respect, shared values, and a common vision for sustainable development in the Pacific, he expressed confidence that this partnership will continue to flourish and will serve as a beacon of cooperation and solidarity within our region.  The delegation also included Tuvalu Minister of Foreign Affairs, Labour, and Trade Paulson Panapa; Minister of Public Works, Infrastructure Development and Water Ampelosa Tehulu, and was accompanied to the Presidential Office by Tuvalu Ambassador Faavae.

    Details
    2025-04-10
    President Lai pens Bloomberg News article on Taiwan’s response to US reciprocal tariffs
    On April 10, an article penned by President Lai Ching-te entitled “Taiwan Has a Roadmap for Deeper US Trade Ties” was published by Bloomberg News, explaining to a global audience Taiwan’s strategy on trade with the United States, as well as how Taiwan will engage in dialogue with the aim of removing bilateral trade barriers, increasing investment between Taiwan and the US, and reducing tariffs to zero. The following is the full text of President Lai’s article: Last month, the first of Taiwan’s 66 new F-16Vs rolled off the assembly line in Greenville, South Carolina. Signed during President Donald Trump’s first term, the $8 billion deal stands as a testament to American ingenuity and leadership in advanced manufacturing. Beyond its economic impact – creating thousands of well-paying jobs across the US – it strengthens the foundations of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.  This deal is emblematic of the close interests shared between Taiwan and the US. Our bond is forged by an unwavering belief in freedom and liberty. For decades, our two countries have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in deterring communist expansionism. Even as Beijing intensifies its air force and naval exercises in our vicinity, we remain resolute. Taiwan will always be a bastion of democracy and peace in the region. This partnership extends well beyond the security realm. Though home to just 23 million people, Taiwan has in recent years become a significant investor in America. TSMC recently announced it will raise its total investment in the US to $165 billion – an initiative that will create 40,000 construction jobs and tens of thousands more in advanced chip manufacturing and R&D. This investment will bolster the emergence of a new high-tech cluster in Arizona. Taiwan is committed to strengthening bilateral cooperation in manufacturing and innovation. As a trade-dependent economy, our long-term success is built on trade relationships that are fair, reciprocal and mutually beneficial. Encouraging Taiwanese businesses to expand their global footprint, particularly in the US, is a vital part of this strategy. Deepening commercial ties between Taiwanese and American firms is another. These core principles will guide our response to President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. First, we will seek to restart trade negotiations with a common objective of reducing all tariffs between Taiwan and the US. While Taiwan already maintains low tariffs, with an average nominal rate of 6%, we are willing to further cut this rate to zero on the basis of reciprocity with the US. By removing the last vestiges to free and fair trade, we seek to encourage greater trade and investment flows between our two countries. Second, Taiwan will rapidly expand procurement of American goods. Over the past five years, rising demand for semiconductors and AI-related components has increased our trade surplus. In response to these market trends, Taiwan will seek to narrow the trade imbalance through the procurement of energy, agriculture and other industrial goods from the US. These efforts will create thousands of new jobs across multiple sectors.  We’ll also pursue additional arms procurements that are vital to our self-defense and contribute to peace and stability over the Taiwan Strait. During President Trump’s first term, we secured $18 billion in arms deals, including advanced fighter jets, tanks and anti-ship missiles. Future purchases, which are not reflected in trade balances, build on our economic and security partnership while being essential to Taiwan’s “Peace Through Strength” approach. Third, new investments will be made across the US. Already, Taiwanese firms support 400,000 jobs throughout all 50 states. Beyond TSMC, we also see emerging opportunities in electronics, ICT, energy and petrochemicals. We will establish a cross-agency “US Investment Team” to support bilateral trade and investment – and we hope that efforts will be reciprocated by the Trump administration. Fourth, we are committed to removing non-tariff trade barriers. Taiwan will take concrete steps to resolve persistent issues that have long impeded trade negotiations. And finally, we will strongly address US concerns over export controls and improper transshipment of low-cost goods through Taiwan. These steps form the basis of a comprehensive roadmap for how Taiwan will navigate the shifting trade landscape, transforming challenges in the Taiwan-US economic relationship into new opportunities for growth, resilience and strategic alignment. At a time of growing global uncertainty, underpinned by growing Chinese assertiveness, closer trade ties are more than sound economics; they are a critical pillar of regional security. Our approach is long-term and principled, grounded in a lasting commitment to our friendship with the US, a firm belief in the benefits of fair and reciprocal trade, and an unwavering dedication to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We are confident that our shared economic and security interests will not only overcome turbulence in the international trade environment – they will define the future of a free and open Indo-Pacific.

    Details
    2025-04-08
    President Lai receives credentials from new Tuvalu Ambassador Lily Tangisia Faavae  
    On the morning of April 8, President Lai Ching-te received the credentials of new Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Tuvalu to the Republic of China (Taiwan) Lily Tangisia Faavae. In remarks, President Lai welcomed the ambassador to her new post and thanked Tuvalu for its long-term support for Taiwan’s international participation. The president also noted that joint efforts between our two countries have produced fruitful results in such areas as medicine and public health, agricultural and fisheries technology, and information and communications technology. He expressed his hope that we will continue to deepen our bilateral relations so as to generate even greater well-being for our peoples and promote peace, stability, and prosperity in the Pacific region. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: It is a great pleasure today to receive the credentials of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Tuvalu Lily Tangisia Faavae. On behalf of the Republic of China (Taiwan), I extend my warmest welcome to you. Last year, the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Tuvalu celebrated 45 years of diplomatic relations. Prime Minister Feleti Teo visited Taiwan in May last year for the inauguration of myself and Vice President Bi-khim Hsiao and again in October for our National Day celebrations. When I visited Tuvalu last December, I was warmly received by the government and people of Tuvalu, and I deeply felt that our two countries were like family. Ambassador Faavae’s posting to Taiwan demonstrates the importance Prime Minister Teo places on our ties. Widely recognized for her exceptional talent, Ambassador Faavae is an outstanding official with extensive experience in public service. Moreover, during her term as Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, she voiced support for Taiwan at the World Health Assembly. I believe that with her assistance, our two nations will further advance cooperation and exchanges. I want to thank the government of Tuvalu for long supporting Taiwan’s international participation. Furthermore, joint efforts between our two countries have produced fruitful results in such areas as medicine and public health, agricultural and fisheries technology, and information and communications technology. Last year, Prime Minister Teo and I signed a joint communiqué on advancing the comprehensive partnership between Taiwan and Tuvalu. Going forward, we will stand together in tackling the challenges we face, including climate change and expanding authoritarianism. And we will continue to deepen our bilateral relations so as to generate even greater well-being for our peoples and promote peace, stability, and prosperity in the Pacific region. Once again, I warmly welcome Ambassador Faavae to her new post in Taiwan. Please convey warmest regards from Taiwan to Prime Minister Teo and all of our friends in Tuvalu. I wish you all the best in work and life during your term in Taiwan. Ambassador Faavae then delivered remarks, saying that it is a great honor and privilege to meet with President Lai today as the new Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Tuvalu to Taiwan, and to present to him her letter of credence. She then extended, on behalf of the government and people of Tuvalu, her warmest greetings and deep respect to the president and people of Taiwan. The letter of credence, she noted, signifies the trust and confidence that her government and governor-general have placed in her to represent their nation and to foster and strengthen the bonds of friendship and cooperation between our countries. Ambassador Faavae said that our two countries have enjoyed a longstanding relationship of 45 years based on mutual respect, cooperation, and shared values. She added that we have collaborated, and continue to do so, in such fields as education, health, climate change adaptation and sea level rise mitigation, agriculture, clean energy, and internet connectivity.  Ambassador Faavae pointed out that Tuvalu remains committed to deepening ties with Taiwan and that it values people-to-people connections and our shared Austronesian heritage. She noted that the people of Tuvalu, a small developing nation, have greatly benefited from Taiwan’s advanced technical expertise and diverse financial assistance. She said she believes Tuvalu and Taiwan share a common interest and are united in our efforts and commitment to upholding democracy, peace, stability, and prosperity for our people and making the world better and safer.  Ambassador Faavae stated that as ambassador of Tuvalu to Taiwan, she pledges to work diligently and respectfully to enhance our bilateral relations, promote mutual understanding, and facilitate collaboration in areas of shared concern. The ambassador said she looks forward to collaborating closely with the Taiwan government and other stakeholders to achieve our common objectives and to continue building a more prosperous and harmonious future for our nations. In closing, she thanked President Lai for the opportunity to serve and to further the enduring friendship between our two countries.  

    Details
    2025-04-06
    President Lai delivers remarks on US tariff policy response
    On April 6, President Lai Ching-te delivered recorded remarks regarding the impact of the 32 percent tariff that the United States government recently imposed on imports from Taiwan in the name of reciprocity. In his remarks, President Lai explained that the government will adopt five response strategies, including making every effort to improve reciprocal tariff rates through negotiations, adopting a support plan for affected domestic industries, adopting medium- and long-term economic development plans, forming new “Taiwan plus the US” arrangements, and launching industry listening tours. The president emphasized that as we face this latest challenge, the government and civil society will work hand in hand, and expressed hope that all parties, both ruling and opposition, will support the measures that the Executive Yuan will take to open up a broader path for Taiwan’s economy. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: My fellow citizens, good evening. The US government recently announced higher tariffs on countries around the world in the name of reciprocity, including imposing a 32 percent tariff on imports from Taiwan. This is bound to have a major impact on our nation. Various countries have already responded, and some have even adopted retaliatory measures. Tremendous changes in the global economy are expected. Taiwan is an export-led economy, and in facing future challenges there will inevitably be difficulties, so we must proceed carefully to turn danger into safety. During this time, I want to express gratitude to all sectors of society for providing valuable opinions, which the government regards highly, and will use as a reference to make policy decisions.  However, if we calmly and carefully analyze Taiwan’s trade with the US, we find that last year Taiwan’s exports to the US were valued at US$111.4 billion, accounting for 23.4 percent of total export value, with the other 75-plus percent of products sold worldwide to countries other than the US. Of products sold to the US, competitive ICT products and electronic components accounted for 65.4 percent. This shows that Taiwan’s economy does still have considerable resilience. As long as our response strategies are appropriate, and the public and private sectors join forces, we can reduce impacts. Please do not panic. To address the reciprocal tariffs by the US, Taiwan has no plans to adopt retaliatory tariffs. There will be no change in corporate investment commitments to the US, as long as they are consistent with national interests. But we must ensure the US clearly understands Taiwan’s contributions to US economic development. More importantly, we must actively seek to understand changes in the global economic situation, strengthen Taiwan-US industry cooperation, elevate the status of Taiwan industries in global supply chains, and with safeguarding the continued development of Taiwan’s economy as our goal, adopt the following five strategies to respond. Strategy one: Make every effort to improve reciprocal tariff rates through negotiations using the following five methods:  1. Taiwan has already formed a negotiation team led by Vice Premier Cheng Li-chiun (鄭麗君). The team includes members from the National Security Council, the Office of Trade Negotiations, and relevant Executive Yuan ministries and agencies, as well as academia and industry. Like the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, negotiations on tariffs can start from Taiwan-US bilateral zero-tariff treatment. 2. To expand purchases from the US and thereby reduce the trade deficit, the Executive Yuan has already completed an inventory regarding large-scale procurement plans for agricultural, industrial, petroleum, and natural gas products, and the Ministry of National Defense has also proposed a military procurement list. All procurement plans will be actively pursued. 3. Expand investments in the US. Taiwan’s cumulative investment in the US already exceeds US$100 billion, creating approximately 400,000 jobs. In the future, in addition to increased investment in the US by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, other industries such as electronics, ICT, petrochemicals, and natural gas can all increase their US investments, deepening Taiwan-US industry cooperation. Taiwan’s government has helped form a “Taiwan investment in the US” team, and hopes that the US will reciprocate by forming a “US investment in Taiwan” team to bring about closer Taiwan-US trade cooperation, jointly creating a future economic golden age.  4. We must eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade. Non-tariff barriers are an indicator by which the US assesses whether a trading partner is trading fairly with the US. Therefore, we will proactively resolve longstanding non-tariff barriers so that negotiations can proceed more smoothly. 5. We must resolve two issues that have been matters of longstanding concern to the US. One regards high-tech export controls, and the other regards illegal transshipment of dumped goods, otherwise referred to as “origin washing.” Strategy two: We must adopt a plan for supporting our industries. For industries that will be affected by the tariffs, and especially traditional industries as well as micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises, we will provide timely and needed support and assistance. Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) and his administrative team recently announced a package of 20 specific measures designed to address nine areas. Moving forward, the support we provide to different industries will depend on how they are affected by the tariffs, will take into account the particular features of each industry, and will help each industry innovate, upgrade, and transform. Strategy three: We must adopt medium- and long-term economic development plans. At this point in time, our government must simultaneously adopt new strategies for economic and industrial development. This is also the fundamental path to solutions for future economic challenges. The government will proactively cooperate with friends and allies, develop a diverse range of markets, and achieve closer integration of entities in the upper, middle, and lower reaches of industrial supply chains. This course of action will make Taiwan’s industrial ecosystem more complete, and will help Taiwanese industries upgrade and transform. We must also make good use of the competitive advantages we possess in such areas as semiconductor manufacturing, integrated chip design, ICT, and smart manufacturing to build Taiwan into an AI island, and promote relevant applications for food, clothing, housing, and transportation, as well as military, security and surveillance, next-generation communications, and the medical and health and wellness industries as we advance toward a smarter, more sustainable, and more prosperous new Taiwan. Strategy four: “Taiwan plus one,” i.e., new “Taiwan plus the US” arrangements: While staying firmly rooted in Taiwan, our enterprises are expanding their global presence and marketing worldwide. This has been our national economic development strategy, and the most important aspect is maintaining a solid base here in Taiwan. We absolutely must maintain a solid footing, and cannot allow the present strife to cause us to waver. Therefore, our government will incentivize investments, carry out deregulation, and continue to improve Taiwan’s investment climate by actively resolving problems involving access to water, electricity, land, human resources, and professional talent. This will enable corporations to stay in Taiwan and continue investing here. In addition, we must also help the overseas manufacturing facilities of offshore Taiwanese businesses to make necessary adjustments to support our “Taiwan plus one” policy, in that our national economic development strategy will be adjusted as follows: to stay firmly rooted in Taiwan while expanding our global presence, strengthening US ties, and marketing worldwide. We intend to make use of the new state of supply chains to strengthen cooperation between Taiwanese and US industries, and gain further access to US markets. Strategy five: Launch industry listening tours: All industrial firms, regardless of sector or size, will be affected to some degree once the US reciprocal tariffs go into effect. The administrative teams led by myself and Premier Cho will hear out industry concerns so that we can quickly resolve problems and make sure policies meet actual needs. My fellow citizens, over the past half-century and more, Taiwan has been through two energy crises, the Asian financial crisis, the global financial crisis, and pandemics. We have been able to not only withstand one test after another, but even turn crises into opportunities. The Taiwanese economy has emerged from these crises stronger and more resilient than ever. As we face this latest challenge, the government and civil society will work hand in hand, and I hope that all parties in the legislature, both ruling and opposition, will support the measures that the Executive Yuan will take to open up a broader path for Taiwan’s economy. Let us join together and give it our all. Thank you.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: 23 April 2025 Policy and education: ways to end child marriage and prevent adolescent pregnancy

    Source: World Health Organisation

    Every year, an estimated 21 million girls aged 15–19 years in low- and middle-income countries become pregnant. Adolescent pregnancy leads to higher risks of maternal and infant mortality, a greater chance of mental health problems, and constraints for educational and economic prospects, which contributes to cycles of poverty and inequality that can span across generations

    In many parts of the world, adolescents lack access to the information and resources necessary to make informed decisions about their sexual and reproductive health (SRH). This leaves them vulnerable to unintended pregnancies; child marriage further fuels the risk.

    The World Health Organization (WHO) recently released an updated guideline for preventing early pregnancy and poor reproductive outcomes among adolescents in low- and middle-income countries, providing evidence-based normative guidance in two key areas: preventing child marriage and improving adolescents’ access to contraception. The recommendations highlight the importance of enabling laws and policies and education to achieve these goals.  

    The power of policy

    Many countries around the world have recently stepped up to make child marriage illegal. Colombia is one of these, with members of congress abolishing  a law in November 2024 that allowed marriages from the age of 14. Importantly, the new bill they introduced also includes measures to restore the rights of children and adolescents affected by underage marriages and unions, with a special emphasis on supporting indigenous people and other vulnerable communities.

    A joint effort by authorities and society is required to eradicate this practice and guarantee the protection of girls’ rights.

    Tamara Ospina / Government of Colombia’s Vice Minister of Women

     “The effective implementation of this law shows a change in the social norms that perpetuate child marriage. A joint effort by authorities and society is required to eradicate this practice and guarantee the protection of girls’ rights,” said Tamara Ospina, the Government of Colombia’s Vice Minister of Women. “It is essential to advance a campaign for cultural change that allows for the dismantling of traditional family views and promotes the participation of girls in different sectors, especially in the educational sector, to foster greater opportunities.”

    The WHO guideline recommends the formulation and implementation of such laws and policies that prevent marriage before age 18, in line with human rights standards. However, the guideline acknowledges, in agreement with the Human Right Council Resolution, that simply making child marriage illegal is not enough. Without additional support programmes, this approach could marginalize and stigmatize girls and families, and lead to more informal or unregistered marriages, unintentionally increasing the practice.

    This is why a comprehensive approach, that includes efforts to address the root causes of child marriage, such as poverty, gender inequality and access to education, is so important. The guideline also suggests the approach should also mobilize youth and adolescents, as well as political and governmental leaders, alongside religious, traditional and other influential people in the community to promote girls’ rights.

     The importance of comprehensive sexuality education

    The WHO guideline reinforces the interagency technical guidelines on sexuality education, emphasizing that comprehensive sexuality education is key to preventing adolescent pregnancy and improving contraceptive uptake. In Colombia, implementation of the law is facilitated by work led by adolescent girls to ensure that girls have access to sexuality education.

    Ángela Rosa Cervantes Bravo is a teen activist from a rural indigenous village in Colombia where she is heavily involved in an NGO called Sinumar Foundation that focuses on girls and sexuality education with the aim to prevent adolescent pregnancy in her community. Every year, the foundation organizes an entire week of speakers on sexual education. “During this time, our mothers, children in the community, and we, as young women, are guided and filled with knowledge about our bodies, contraceptive methods, and more. We sit down with boys and girls in mixed circles, talking about sexual education, violence and any other issue that might be relevant to the community,” Cervantes Bravo said.

    Discussing topics, such as adolescent pregnancy or child marriage, comes with its challenges due to the social stigma and traditional beliefs around it. “Some parents still get upset when they hear us discussing these things, but they need to understand that we are at a stage where these conversations are necessary,” she said. The experiences of Cervantes Bravo reinforce the need to engage parents and other community members in supporting adolescents, which is highlighted as another recommendation in the updated guideline.  

    Support tools for policy makers and programme managers will be rolled out to guide decision making and ensure that interventions are contextually relevant, to support the work of countries like Colombia and of NGO’s like Sinumar Foundation.

    Avni Amin, Unit Head of Rights and Equality Across the Life Course at WHO and the UN Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) concludes: “While these guidelines offer a solid foundation for countries to address adolescent pregnancy and prevent child marriage, the true measure of their success lies in their implementation. It is essential that these guidelines are not only read but acted upon, integrated into national policies, and adapted to fit local contexts. Our goal is to see tangible changes on the ground that will empower young girls and protect their rights.” 

    Other countries that have taken recent measures to act on child marriage include Sierra Leone and Belize. Sierra Leone’s Prohibition of Child Marriage Act eliminated all exceptions that previously allowed marriage under 18, ensuring a strict nationwide ban. Similarly, Belize amended its Marriage Act to raise the legal marriage age from 16 to 18, without any exceptions, reinforcing its commitment to ending child marriage. 

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cantwell & Colleagues Introduce Bill to Permanently Protect the Pacific Ocean from Offshore Drilling

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell
    04.22.25
    Cantwell & Colleagues Introduce Bill to Permanently Protect the Pacific Ocean from Offshore Drilling
    Cantwell: WA’s maritime economy supports nearly $46 billion in business revenue & more than 174k jobs – all of which could be compromised in an instant by an oil spill
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, on Earth Day, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, joined her colleagues in announcing the reintroduction of the West Coast Protection Act to permanently protect the Pacific Ocean from the dangers of fossil fuel drilling.
    “Washington’s $45.9 billion maritime economy supports over 174,000 jobs from fisheries, trade, tourism, and recreation – but it could all be devastated in an instant by an oil spill,” Sen. Cantwell said. “We must permanently ban offshore drilling on the West Coast to protect our coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems against the risk of an oil spill.”
    This bill prohibits the Department of the Interior from issuing a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas in any area of the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, or Washington. This legislation comes just after the 15th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which resulted in the deaths of 11 workers, 134 million gallons spilled into the Gulf of Mexico over 87 days, the demise of thousands of marine mammals and sea turtles, and billions of dollars in economic losses from the fishing, outdoor recreation, and tourism industries.
    The West Coast Protection Act was introduced by U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) and is additionally cosponsored by Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). It is endorsed by organizations including Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Oceana, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Surfrider Foundation, Seattle Aquarium, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Nassau Hiking & Outdoor Club, Lee (MA) Greener Gateway Committee, South Shore Audubon Society (Freeport, NY), Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Futureswell, Ocean Conservancy, Environment America, WILDCOAST, Food & Water Watch, Environmental Protection Information Center, Ocean Defense Initiative, Center for Biological Diversity, The Ocean Project, Business Alliance to Protect the Pacific Coast, Animal Welfare Institute, Wild Cumberland, Climate Reality Project – North Broward and Palm Beach County Chapter, U.S. Climate Action Network, American Bird Conservancy, Surf Industry Members Association, Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast (BAPPC), Clean Ocean Action, and Hispanic Access Foundation.
    Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA-02), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, is leading companion legislation in the House for the West Coast Ocean Protection Act.
    A one-pager on the West Coast Protection Act is available HERE. Full text of the West Coast Protection Act is available HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Aid cuts threaten the lives of 110,000 children with severe malnutrition reliant on emergency treatment from Save the Children

    Source: Save the Children

    At least 110,000- severely acutely malnourished children supported by Save the Children in 10 countries could be left without access to life-saving ready-to-use emergency food and nutrition programmes as aid cuts hit supplies in coming months, according to a Save the Children analysis.
    Globally, one in five deaths among children aged under 5 are attributed to severe acute malnutrition, making it one of the top threats to child survival. Community-based programmes combining medical treatment and therapeutic foods, including a fortified peanut paste, have a 90% success rate.
    Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF) is an energy-dense, micronutrient paste typically made using peanuts, sugar, milk powder, oil, vitamins and minerals that is packaged in foil pouches with a long shelf life and no need of refrigeration. Over the past 30 years this emergency therapeutic food has saved the lives of millions of children facing acute malnutrition [1] [2].
    At a time when global hunger is skyrocketing [3], the current global supply of RUTF is already not even meeting 40% of global needs, Save the Children said, leaving millions of children without access to this life-saving intervention.
    In 2024 there were large-scale breaks in the supply of RUTF as rising malnutrition rates drove up demand and due to disruptions in global supply chains and insufficient funding. This situation is expected to worsen in 2025. An analysis by Save the Children of the 10 countries forecast to have the biggest gaps in supplies found 110,000 malnourished children could miss out on this vital treatment by the end of the year. RUTF supplies are expected to run out in many locations from next month due to a lack of funding.
    Globally at least 18.2 million children were born into hunger in 2024, or about 35 children a minute, with children in conflict zones from Gaza to Ukraine, to Haiti, Sudan to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), struggling daily to get enough to eat. Famine has been declared in several parts of Sudan where people are resorting to eating grass to stay alive.
    Hannah Stephenson, Head of Hunger and Nutrition at Save the Children, said:
    “Right now, funding shortfalls mean essential nutrition packs are not reaching the children who desperately need them. We know we have the expertise and the track record to reach children around the world but what we urgently need now is the funding to ensure children can receive life-saving treatment. We are running out of time, and t his will cost children’s lives.
    “We also need to see long-term commitments to tackle the root causes of hunger and malnutrition, or else we will continue to see the reversal of progress made for children.”
    In Kenya, one of the countries where Save the Children treats acute malnutrition cases, 18-month-old Ereng has just recovered from malnutrition with treatment from Community Health Promoter Charles, who was trained in basic healthcare by Save the Children.
    Lomanat and Daniel, Ereng’s parents, walked for several kilometres to reach Charles’ clinic. The family are pastoralists, but recent droughts have killed their livestock, and the family now has no sustainable income and no reliable food source.
    They know how important treatment is for children like Ereng, who gained 2.4 kgs (5.3 pounds) in two months once she started receiving nutrition treatment using the fortified peanut paste which has about 500 calories in each portion. Lomanat said:
    “Our  child was in a very bad shape, and the doctor helped by giving her peanut paste. I am very happy, because she is cured.”
    In Somalia, where Save the Children also treats child with acute malnutrition, 7-month-Mukhtar- arrived at a health centre in Puntland after contracting flu which led to breathing difficulties and malnutrition.
    His mother Shamso, 40, who has eight other children, feared her son would not survive with the family struggling after drought killed all but six of their herd of 30 goats. But after receiving medical care and treatment for malnutrition with peanut paste, Mukhtar recovered and returned home.
    “His condition was serious when I brought him in and I didn’t expect him to reach the town alive ,” said Shamso. “My biggest worry is the children, whether my own, those of the relatives or those of my neighbours. When drought comes, it follows that hunger will strike.”
    Children are always the most vulnerable in food crises and, without enough to eat and the right nutritional balance, they are at high risk of becoming acutely malnourished.
    Malnutrition can cause stunting, impede mental and physical development, and increase the risk of contracting deadly diseases.
    About 1.12 billion children globally – or almost half of the world’s children – are unable to afford a balanced diet now, according to data from Save the Children released last month.
    In 2025, Save the Children aims to treat 260,000 children for severe acute malnutrition at outpatient sites in 10 countries that are now experiencing therapeutic food shortages.
    Save the Children is urgently trying to raise $7 million to provide 110,000 severely malnourished children with life-saving RUTF and the critical services needed to treat malnutrition 1 including skilled health workers, community follow-up, immunizations, safe spaces for treatment, safe water, hygiene and sanitation support.
    In the United States, actress and Save the Children ambassador Jennifer Garner launched her #67Strong4Kids campaign on her birthday last week. For #67Strong4Kids she is running a mile a day for 67 consecutive days to raise awareness about Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF). The amount $67 covers a six-week course of RUTF that treats a child suffering from severe acute malnutrition and potentially saves their life.
    NOTES:
    -Methodology: Save the Children used the target reach figures for all outpatient severe acute malnutrition treatment in 10 countries facing the largest disruption to the RUTF supply and compared with the current funding gaps for RUTF in those countries. Given the continued uncertainty in supply funding these figures are preliminary and up to date as of 26 March 2025. The 10 countries facing the largest disruptions are Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Myanmar, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Yemen.
    REFERENCES
    About Save the Children NZ:
    Save the Children works in 120 countries across the world. The organisation responds to emergencies and works with children and their communities to ensure they survive, learn and are protected.
    Save the Children NZ currently supports international programmes in Fiji, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Laos, Nepal, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. Areas of work include child protection, education and literacy, disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation, and alleviating child poverty.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Who will the next pope be? Here are some top contenders

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

    The death of Pope Francis this week marks the end of a historic papacy and the beginning of a significant transition for the Catholic Church. As the faithful around the world mourn his passing, attention now turns to the next phase: the election of a new pope.

    This election will take place through a process known as the conclave. Typically held two to three weeks after a pope’s funeral, the conclave gathers the College of Cardinals in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel. Here, through prayer, reflection and secret ballots, they must reach a two-thirds majority to choose the next Bishop of Rome.

    While, in theory, any baptised Catholic man can be elected, for the past seven centuries the role has gone to a cardinal. That said, the outcome can still be unpredictable – sometimes even surprising the electors themselves.



    Read more:
    How will a new pope be chosen? An expert explains the conclave

    An unlikely candidate

    Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio – who became Pope Francis – wasn’t among the front-runners in 2013. Nonetheless, after five rounds of voting, he emerged as the top candidate. Something similar could happen again.

    This conclave will take place during a time of tension and change within the church. Francis sought to decentralise Vatican authority, emphasised caring for the poor and the planet, and tried to open dialogue on sensitive issues such as LGBTQIA+ inclusion and clerical abuse. The cardinals must now decide whether to continue in this direction, or steer towards a more traditional course.

    There is historical precedent to consider. For centuries, Italians dominated the papacy. Of the 266 popes, 217 have been Italian.

    However, this pattern has shifted in recent decades: Francis was from Argentina, John Paul II (1978–2005) from Poland, and Benedict XVI (2005–2013) from Germany.

    The top papabili

    As with any election, observers are speaking of their “favourites”. The term papabile, which in Italian means “pope-able”, or “capable of becoming pope”, is used to describe cardinals who are seen as serious contenders.

    Among the leading papabili is Cardinal Pietro Parolin, aged 70, the current Secretary of State of Vatican City. Parolin has long been one of Francis’ closest collaborators and has led efforts to open dialogue with difficult regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party.

    Parolin is seen as a centrist figure who could appeal to both reform-minded and more conservative cardinals. Yet some observers argue he lacks the charismatic and pastoral presence that helped define Francis’ papacy.

    Another name to watch is Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. At 60, he is younger than many of his colleagues, but brings extensive experience in interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. His fluency in Hebrew and his long service in the Holy Land could prove appealing.

    Then again, his relative youth may cause hesitation among those concerned about electing a pope who could serve for decades. As the papacy of John Paul II demonstrated, such long reigns can have a profound impact on the church.

    Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines is also frequently mentioned. Now 67, Tagle is known for his deep commitment to social justice and the poor. He has spoken out against human rights abuses in his home country and has often echoed Francis’ pastoral tone. But some cardinals may worry that his outspoken political views could complicate the church’s diplomatic efforts.

    Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, now 76, was a prominent figure during the last conclave. A strong voice on environmental and economic justice, he has served under both Benedict XVI and Francis.

    Turkson has largely upheld the church’s traditional teachings on matters such as male-only priesthood, marriage between a man and a woman, and sexuality. He is also a strong advocate for transparency, and has spoken out against corruption and in defence of human rights.

    Though less widely known among the public, Cardinal Mykola Bychok of Melbourne may also be considered. His election would be as surprising (and perhaps as symbolically powerful) as that of John Paul II in 1978. A Ukrainian-Australian pope, chosen during the ongoing war in Ukraine, would send a strong message about the church’s concern for suffering peoples and global peace.

    Other names that may come up are Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Cardinal Jaime Spengler of Brazil – both of whom lead large and growing Catholic communities. Although news reports don’t always list them among the top contenders, their influence within their regions – and the need to recognise the church’s global demographic shifts – means their voices will matter.

    On the more conservative side is American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who had been one of Francis’ most vocal critics. But his confrontational stance makes him an unlikely candidate.

    More plausible would be Cardinal Péter Erdő of Hungary, aged 71. Erdő is a respected canon lawyer with a more traditional theological orientation. He was mentioned in 2013 and may reemerge as a promising candidate among conservative cardinals.

    Cardinal Péter Erdő was ordained as a priest in 1975 and has a doctorate in theology. He will be a top pick among conservatives.
    Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    One tough act to follow

    Although Francis appointed many of the cardinals who will vote in the conclave, that doesn’t mean all of them supported his agenda. Many come from communities with traditional values, and may be drawn to a candidate who emphasises older church teachings.

    The conclave will also reflect broader questions of geography. The church’s growth has shifted away from Europe, to Asia, Africa and Latin America. A pope from one of these regions could symbolise this change, and speak more directly to the challenges faced by Catholic communities in the Global South.

    Ultimately, predicting a conclave is impossible. Dynamics often change once the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel and begin voting. Alliances shift, new names emerge, and consensus may form around someone who was barely discussed beforehand.

    What is certain is that the next pope will shape the church’s future: doctrinally, diplomatically and pastorally. Whether he chooses to build on Francis’ legacy of reform, or move in a new direction, he will need to balance ancient traditions with the urgent realities of the modern world.

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

    – ref. Who will the next pope be? Here are some top contenders – https://theconversation.com/who-will-the-next-pope-be-here-are-some-top-contenders-255006

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for April 23, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on April 23, 2025.

    The ‘responsible gambling’ mantra does nothing to prevent harm. It probably makes things worse
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Haelen Haagen/Shutterstock Recent royal commissions and inquiries into Crown and Star casino groups attracted much media attention. Most of this was focused on money laundering and other illegalities. The Victorian royal commission found widespread

    This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University The centre of gravity of Australian politics has shifted. Millennials and Gen Z voters, now comprising 47% of the electorate, have taken over as the dominant voting bloc. But this generational shift isn’t just about numerical dominance. It’s also about

    Only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending: new research
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Dunley, Senior Lecturer in History and Maritime Strategy, UNSW Sydney National security issues have been a constant feature of this federal election campaign. Both major parties have spruiked their national security credentials by promising additional defence spending. The Coalition has pledged to spend 3% of Australia’s

    After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to

    The Greens are hoping for another ‘greenslide’ election. What do the polls say?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Associate Professor in Politics, Murdoch University Election talk is inevitably focused on Labor and the Coalition because they are the parties that customarily form government. But a minor party like the Greens is consequential, regardless of whether the election delivers a minority government. Certainly, the

    Victory for US press freedom and workers – court grants injunction in VOA media case
    Asia Pacific Report The US District Court for the District of Columbia has granted a preliminary injunction in Widakuswara v Lake, affirming the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) was unlawfully shuttered by the Trump administration, Acting Director Victor Morales and Special Adviser Kari Lake. The decision enshrines that USAGM must fulfill its legally required

    Scientists claim to have found evidence of alien life. But ‘biosignatures’ might hide more than they reveal
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Campbell Rider, PhD Candidate in Philosophy – Philosophy of Biology, University of Sydney Artist’s impression of the exoplanet K2-18b A. Smith/N. Madhusudhan (University of Cambridge) Whether or not we’re alone in the universe is one of the biggest questions in science. A recent study, led by astrophysicist Nikku

    What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Kirkland, Research Fellow in Psychology, The University of Queensland LOOKSLIKEPHOTO/Shutterstock Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon

    Even experts disagree over whether social media is bad for kids. We examined why
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Knight, Associate Professor, Transdisciplinary School, University of Technology Sydney A low relief sculpture depicting Plato and Aristotle arguing adorning the external wall of Florence Cathedral. Krikkiat/Shutterstock Disagreement and uncertainty are common features of everyday life. They’re also common and expected features of scientific research. Despite this,

    Australian women are wary of AI being used in breast cancer screening – new research
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Pearce, Associate Professor, Health Economics, University of Sydney Okrasiuk/Shutterstock Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly relevant in many aspects of society, including health care. For example, it’s already used for robotic surgery and to provide virtual mental health support. In recent years, scientists have developed AI

    These 3 climate misinformation campaigns are operating during the election run-up. Here’s how to spot them
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alfie Chadwick, PhD Candidate, Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Monash University Australia’s climate and energy wars are at the forefront of the federal election campaign as the major parties outline vastly different plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle soaring power prices. Meanwhile, misinformation about

    Port of Darwin’s struggling Chinese leaseholder may welcome an Australian buy-out
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Hawes, Associate professor of law, University of Technology Sydney Slow Walker/Shutterstock Far from causing trade frictions, an Australian buyout of the Port of Darwin lease may provide a lifeline for its struggling Chinese parent company Landbridge Group. Both Labor and the Coalition have proposed such a

    When rock music met ancient archeology: the enduring power of Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Barker, Head, Public Engagement, Chau Chak Wing Museum, University of Sydney Sony Music The 1972 concert film Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii, back in cinemas this week, remains one of the most unique concert documentaries ever recorded by a rock band. The movie captured the band

    Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Russell, Principal Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia Mick Tsikas/AAP, Joel Carret/AAP, Darren England/AAP, Ihor Koptilin/Shutterstock, The Conversation, CC BY Gambling prevalence studies provide a snapshot of gambling behaviour, problems and harm in our communities. They are typically conducted about every five years. In some Australian states and

    Lest we forget? Aside from Anzac Day, NZ has been slow to remember its military veterans
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato Fiona Goodall/Getty Images Following some very public protests, including Victoria Cross recipient Willie Apiata handing back his medal, the government’s announcement of an expanded official definition of the term “veteran” brings some good news for former military personnel ahead

    Dutton promises Coalition would increase defence spending to 3% of GDP ‘within a decade’
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will promise a Coalition government would boost Australia’s spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP within five years and 3% within a decade. Launching the Coalition’s long-awaited defence policy on Wednesday in Western Australia, Dutton will

    Leaders trade barbs and well-worn lines in unspectacular third election debate
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have met for the third leaders’ debate of this election campaign, this time on the Nine network. And while the debate traversed much of the same ground as the first two, the quick-fire

    Election Diary: Dutton in third debate gives Labor ammunition for its scare about cuts
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra In the leaders’ third head-to-head encounter, on Nine on Tuesday, Peter Dutton’s bluntness when pressed on cuts has given more ammunition to Labor’s scare campaign about what a Coalition government might do. “When John Howard came into power, there was

    To truly understand Pope Francis’ theology – and impact – you need to look to his life in Buenos Aires
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fernanda Peñaloza, Senior Lecturer in Latin American Studies, University of Sydney Pope Francis’ journey from the streets of Flores, a neighbourhood in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to the Vatican, is a remarkable tale. Born in 1936, Jorge Bergoglio was raised in a middle-class family of Italian Catholic immigrants.

    Bougainville takes the initiative in mediation over independence
    By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist In recent weeks, Bougainville has taken the initiative, boldly stating that it expects to be independent by 1 September 2027. It also expects the PNG Parliament to quickly ratify the 2019 referendum, in which an overwhelming majority of Bougainvilleans supported independence. In a third move, it established a

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who will the next pope be? Here are some top contenders

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

    The death of Pope Francis this week marks the end of a historic papacy and the beginning of a significant transition for the Catholic Church. As the faithful around the world mourn his passing, attention now turns to the next phase: the election of a new pope.

    This election will take place through a process known as the conclave. Typically held two to three weeks after a pope’s funeral, the conclave gathers the College of Cardinals in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel. Here, through prayer, reflection and secret ballots, they must reach a two-thirds majority to choose the next Bishop of Rome.

    While, in theory, any baptised Catholic man can be elected, for the past seven centuries the role has gone to a cardinal. That said, the outcome can still be unpredictable – sometimes even surprising the electors themselves.



    Read more:
    How will a new pope be chosen? An expert explains the conclave

    An unlikely candidate

    Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio – who became Pope Francis – wasn’t among the front-runners in 2013. Nonetheless, after five rounds of voting, he emerged as the top candidate. Something similar could happen again.

    This conclave will take place during a time of tension and change within the church. Francis sought to decentralise Vatican authority, emphasised caring for the poor and the planet, and tried to open dialogue on sensitive issues such as LGBTQIA+ inclusion and clerical abuse. The cardinals must now decide whether to continue in this direction, or steer towards a more traditional course.

    There is historical precedent to consider. For centuries, Italians dominated the papacy. Of the 266 popes, 217 have been Italian.

    However, this pattern has shifted in recent decades: Francis was from Argentina, John Paul II (1978–2005) from Poland, and Benedict XVI (2005–2013) from Germany.

    The top papabili

    As with any election, observers are speaking of their “favourites”. The term papabile, which in Italian means “pope-able”, or “capable of becoming pope”, is used to describe cardinals who are seen as serious contenders.

    Among the leading papabili is Cardinal Pietro Parolin, aged 70, the current Secretary of State of Vatican City. Parolin has long been one of Francis’ closest collaborators and has led efforts to open dialogue with difficult regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party.

    Parolin is seen as a centrist figure who could appeal to both reform-minded and more conservative cardinals. Yet some observers argue he lacks the charismatic and pastoral presence that helped define Francis’ papacy.

    Another name to watch is Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. At 60, he is younger than many of his colleagues, but brings extensive experience in interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. His fluency in Hebrew and his long service in the Holy Land could prove appealing.

    Then again, his relative youth may cause hesitation among those concerned about electing a pope who could serve for decades. As the papacy of John Paul II demonstrated, such long reigns can have a profound impact on the church.

    Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines is also frequently mentioned. Now 67, Tagle is known for his deep commitment to social justice and the poor. He has spoken out against human rights abuses in his home country and has often echoed Francis’ pastoral tone. But some cardinals may worry that his outspoken political views could complicate the church’s diplomatic efforts.

    Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, now 76, was a prominent figure during the last conclave. A strong voice on environmental and economic justice, he has served under both Benedict XVI and Francis.

    Turkson has largely upheld the church’s traditional teachings on matters such as male-only priesthood, marriage between a man and a woman, and sexuality. He is also a strong advocate for transparency, and has spoken out against corruption and in defence of human rights.

    Though less widely known among the public, Cardinal Mykola Bychok of Melbourne may also be considered. His election would be as surprising (and perhaps as symbolically powerful) as that of John Paul II in 1978. A Ukrainian-Australian pope, chosen during the ongoing war in Ukraine, would send a strong message about the church’s concern for suffering peoples and global peace.

    Other names that may come up are Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Cardinal Jaime Spengler of Brazil – both of whom lead large and growing Catholic communities. Although news reports don’t always list them among the top contenders, their influence within their regions – and the need to recognise the church’s global demographic shifts – means their voices will matter.

    On the more conservative side is American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who had been one of Francis’ most vocal critics. But his confrontational stance makes him an unlikely candidate.

    More plausible would be Cardinal Péter Erdő of Hungary, aged 71. Erdő is a respected canon lawyer with a more traditional theological orientation. He was mentioned in 2013 and may reemerge as a promising candidate among conservative cardinals.

    Cardinal Péter Erdő was ordained as a priest in 1975 and has a doctorate in theology. He will be a top pick among conservatives.
    Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    One tough act to follow

    Although Francis appointed many of the cardinals who will vote in the conclave, that doesn’t mean all of them supported his agenda. Many come from communities with traditional values, and may be drawn to a candidate who emphasises older church teachings.

    The conclave will also reflect broader questions of geography. The church’s growth has shifted away from Europe, to Asia, Africa and Latin America. A pope from one of these regions could symbolise this change, and speak more directly to the challenges faced by Catholic communities in the Global South.

    Ultimately, predicting a conclave is impossible. Dynamics often change once the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel and begin voting. Alliances shift, new names emerge, and consensus may form around someone who was barely discussed beforehand.

    What is certain is that the next pope will shape the church’s future: doctrinally, diplomatically and pastorally. Whether he chooses to build on Francis’ legacy of reform, or move in a new direction, he will need to balance ancient traditions with the urgent realities of the modern world.

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

    – ref. Who will the next pope be? Here are some top contenders – https://theconversation.com/who-will-the-next-pope-be-here-are-some-top-contenders-255006

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

    US Senate News:

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Global Financial Stability Report Press Briefing

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    April 22, 2025

    GFSR PRESS BRIEFING

    Speakers:

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

    Moderator: Meera Louis, Communications Officer, IMF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, the lady here in the front.

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION: Thank you. Rotus Oddiri with Arise News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION: Hi. Szu Chan from the Telegraph.

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

    Mr. ADRIAN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. WU: Maybe just quickly, to complement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The lady here in the front row.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Caio?

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Caio and Tobias. 

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

    QUESTION: Hi. Riley Callanan from GZERO Media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Meera Louis

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

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

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: April 22nd, 2025 Heinrich, Daines, Neguse, Leger Fernández Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Complete the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.), and U.S. Representatives Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) introduced their bipartisan Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Completion Act, legislation that directs the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of Interior to prioritize the completion of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDT).

    Designated by Congress as part of the National Trail System in 1978, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail stretches more than 3,000 miles and passes through New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. The trail follows the Continental Divide and transverses some of the nation’s most treasured natural, historic, and cultural resources.

    Since the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail’s creation, stakeholders have worked tirelessly to complete the trail. Today, more than 160 miles of the trail require diversions onto roadways and highways, and 600 miles of the trail require relocation.Closing these gaps and relocating these segments will help better maintain the trail’s purpose while ensuring a safer and more enjoyable journey for hikers.

    “The existing Continental Divide National Scenic Trail serves as a major economic driver for communities along the trail like Grants and Silver City, New Mexico. The trail also provides recreational access to some of our most incredible natural, historic, and cultural landscapes,” said Heinrich, Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “Our Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Completion Act will finally finish incomplete portions of the trail and make it easier and safer for locals and through-hikers to access. As a National Scenic Trail, the Continental Divide Trail deserves no less.”

    “The Continental Divide Trail provides an unmatched outdoor experience for Montanans and visitors alike,” said Daines. “My bipartisan bill ensures the trail will continue to provide public access and a continuous route will finally be completed.”

    “It’s been nearly half a century since Congress formally established the Continental Divide Trail, a scenic route that spans the Rocky Mountains and crosses five states. Since then, the trail has provided the American people with world-class recreational opportunities and has served as an economic driver for the rural towns and cities along its route. In championing the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Completion Act, we are calling on the federal government to fulfill its promise to complete the trail’s full 3,100-mile length, enhancing the benefits this iconic trail brings to both our people and our public lands,” said Neguse, Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands.

    “A divided and incomplete Continental Divide Trail is calling out for congressional action to finish the job. A completed trail highlights and honors the unique cultures and environments along its route in New Mexico.” said Rep. Leger Fernández. “This bill will help grow our outdoor recreation economy and support the rural communities along the CDT. Importantly, it also makes sure we respect local landowners, Tribes, Land Grants-Mercedes, Acequias, and other land users. I look forward to co-leading the bill again this Congress with Congressman Neguse and my colleagues.”

    Specifically, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Completion Act: 

    • Directs the USDA Secretary and Interior Secretary to establish a Trail Completion Team comprised of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Administrator. This team will be responsible for conducting optimal location reviews and to assist in developing a comprehensive development plan for the Trail.
    • Recognizes the value of cooperation between federal land managers, states, Tribes, towns, Native communities, and others. The Continental Divide Trail Completion Act directs USFS and BLM to maintain close partnerships with stakeholders in developing, maintaining, and managing the trail.
    • Requires the completion of a comprehensive development plan for the Trail, to include areas of Trail where there are gaps, opportunities for acquiring land to complete the trail, and site-specific Trail development plans.
    • Ensures that land purchased to complete the trail may only be acquired from willing sellers.

    Last year, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Completion Act passed through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with unanimous consent. The legislation has the backing of the Continental Divide Trail Coalition and a number of organizations and businesses.

    “Completing the CDT is not just about closing the gaps — it’s about all the benefits that result from ensuring connections to one of the country’s most important landscapes exist for future generations,” said Teresa Martinez, Executive Director of the Continental Divide Trail Coalition.

    Text of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Completion Act can be found here.

    Timeline of Actions on Continental Divide National Scenic Trail in 118th Congress:

    MIL OSI USA News –

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

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    April 22, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A copy of the letter is available here and below:

    April 22, 2025

    Dear President Trump:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely,

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Global Financial Stability Report Press Briefing

    Source: International Monetary Fund

    April 22, 2025

    GFSR PRESS BRIEFING

    Speakers:

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

    Moderator: Meera Louis, Communications Officer, IMF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, the lady here in the front.

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION: Thank you. Rotus Oddiri with Arise News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION: Hi. Szu Chan from the Telegraph.

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

    Mr. ADRIAN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. WU: Maybe just quickly, to complement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The lady here in the front row.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Caio?

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Caio and Tobias. 

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

    QUESTION: Hi. Riley Callanan from GZERO Media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Meera Louis

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

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Carbajal Reintroduces Bill to Ban Future Offshore Oil Drilling in California

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Salud Carbajal (CA-24)

    This week, Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) announced the reintroduction of the California Clean Coast Act. The California Clean Coast Act was the first bill Congressman Carbajal introduced as a Member of Congress, demonstrating his longstanding commitment to protecting California’s coast from offshore drilling and the devastating impact of oil spills.

    The California Clean Coast Act would permanently ban future offshore oil and gas leasing in areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California. 

    “Santa Barbara knows firsthand how devastating oil spills can be on our marine ecosystems and coastline,” said Rep. Carbajal. “I’m proud to lead this bill to ban future offshore oil drilling in our state and ensure California’s world-famous coastline is protected for future generations to enjoy.”

    “California’s spectacular marine life — including complex kelp forests and charismatic sea otters — and vibrant coastal economies rely on healthy ecosystems. This legislation could, once and for all, block offshore drilling activities along the continental shelf, and protect critical marine habitats along California’s iconic Pacific Coast,” said Pamela Flick, Defenders of Wildlife California Program Director.

    “The California Clean Coast Act is critical to protecting our coast and climate from the threats of offshore oil drilling,” said Linda Krop, Chief Counsel of the Environmental Defense Center, which was founded in the aftermath of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.  “From the 1969 blowout at Platform A to the 2015 pipeline spill along the Gaviota Coast, the California Coast has suffered the devastating effects of offshore oil development on communities who live, play, and work here. We know that when it comes to offshore oil drilling, it is not a question of if – but when – another spill will devastate our beaches, our ocean, our wildlife, and our economy. The California Clean Coast Act will preserve our precious coast from the threats of future oil spills and climate change.”

    Rep. Carbajal has been a staunch advocate to ban future offshore drilling off the Central Coast. At the end of the Biden Administration, Carbajal’s 8-year push to ban future offshore oil drilling came to fruition when President Biden invoked his authority to protect over 625 million acres of federal waters —including the entire East Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, and parts of the Northern Bering Sea— from oil and gas exploration. Congressman Carbajal was one of 12 members of Congress who wrote to President Biden requesting this action before the end of his term.

    For the full bill text click here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cantwell Statement on Colleagues’ Trips to El Salvador

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell

    04.22.25

    Cantwell Statement on Colleagues’ Trips to El Salvador

    EDMONDS, WA – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) released the following statement on the alarming recent detentions and deportations of lawful permanent residents without due process:

    “My colleagues’ trips to El Salvador serve as a forceful reminder that due process is a founding principle of American democracy. We are a nation that believes in the rule of law. Recent detentions of lawful permanent residents, union leaders, and others have rattled our communities. The Trump administration must follow the law, the courts, and the Constitutional protections for those living in the United States.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kugler, Transmission of Monetary Policy

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

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

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Cartel cocaine conspirator sentenced to 10 years in federal prison

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LAREDO, Texas – A Cartel del Noreste (CDN) operative has been ordered to federal prison for her role in a conspiracy to deliver over 10 kilograms of cocaine, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

    Rebeca Guzman-Rios, 39, Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, pleaded guilty Aug. 30, 2024.

    U.S. District Judge Diana Saldana has now sentenced Guzman-Rios to 120 months in federal prison. Also sentenced was Rogelio Garcia-Ayala, 65, who illegally resided in Laredo, and received 60 months. Not U.S. citizens, both are expected to face removal proceedings after completing their sentences.

    In April 2024, a CDN sicario aka hitman dispatched Guzman-Rios to Laredo to facilitate the sale of 10 kilograms of cocaine. She crossed into Laredo at the Gateway to the Americas International Bridge from Mexico and proceeded to downtown Laredo where Ana Maria Escobedo picked her up and drove her to the location of the drug transaction.

    Meanwhile, Cesar Gerardo Rodriguez Salazar and Brenda Odet Nery Castro retrieved the cocaine from their residence, which was being used as a CDN stash house, and provided it to Francisco Herrera-Moresco. Garcia-Ayala drove Herrera-Moresco and the drugs to the parking lot where Guzman-Rios and Escobedo were waiting.

    Salazar and Castro followed to observe.

    Herrera-Moresco was supposed to deliver the cocaine to the buyer Guzman-Rios had arranged, but believed the transaction had fallen through and left the area instead with Escobedo and the cocaine.  

    Law enforcement attempted to conduct a traffic stop, but Escobedo began to evade and led them on a pursuit, during which time the cocaine was thrown from the vehicle. After hitting a fence, the pair finally came to a stop and tried to flee, but authorities took them into custody as well as Salazar and Castro. They also arrested Guzman-Rios, who remained at the location of the drug transaction. Law enforcement was also able to retrieve the cocaine.

    “If you work with, work for, or assist CDN, or any other cartel, you will be arrested and prosecuted to full extent of the law, without exception,” said Ganjei. “The cartels are not welcome in Texas.”

    Mexican citizens Salazar, 42, Herrera-Moresco, 42, and Castro 37, were all previously sentenced to 87, 50 and 30 months, respectively, while Escobedo, 33, Laredo, was ordered to serve a 65-month-term of imprisonment.  

    All remain in custody.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration conducted the investigation with the assistance of Customs and Border Protection and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Assistant U.S. Attorney Manuel Cardenas is 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 and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and Project Safe Neighborhood.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: First Busey Corporation Announces 2025 First Quarter Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LEAWOOD, Kan., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — First Busey Corporation (Nasdaq: BUSE) reports first quarter results.

    Busey completed the transformative acquisition of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. on March 1, 2025, significantly impacting first quarter results and resetting the baseline for financial performance for future quarters in a multitude of positive ways.

    Net Income (Loss) Diluted EPS Net Interest Margin1 ROAA1 ROATCE1
    $(30.0) million $(0.44) 3.16% (0.82)% (7.99)%
    $39.9 million (adj)2 $0.57 (adj)2 3.08% (adj)2 1.09% (adj)2 10.64% (adj)2
    MESSAGE FROM OUR CHAIRMAN & CEO

    The transformative partnership between Busey and CrossFirst takes our organization to new heights, combining our growing commercial bank with the power of Busey’s core deposit franchise, wealth management platform, and payment technology solutions at FirsTech, Inc. As we build upon Busey’s forward momentum, we are grateful for the opportunities to consistently earn the business of our customers, based on the contributions of our talented associates and the continued support of our loyal shareholders.
    Van A. Dukeman 
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 


    PARTNERSHIP WITH CROSSFIRST

    Effective March 1, 2025, First Busey Corporation (“Busey,” “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”), the holding company for Busey Bank, completed its previously announced acquisition (the “Merger”) of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. (“CrossFirst”) (NASDAQ: CFB), the holding company for CrossFirst Bank, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 26, 2024, by and between Busey and CrossFirst (the “Merger Agreement”). This partnership creates a premier commercial bank in the Midwest, Southwest, and Florida, with 78 full-service locations across 10 states—Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The combined holding company will continue to operate under the First Busey Corporation name. Busey common stock will continue to trade on the Nasdaq under the “BUSE” stock ticker symbol.

    Upon completion of the acquisition, each share of CrossFirst common stock converted to the right to receive 0.6675 of a share of Busey’s common stock, with the result that holders of Busey’s common stock owned approximately 63.5% of the combined company and holders of CrossFirst’s common stock owned approximately 36.5% of the combined company, on a fully-diluted basis. Further, upon completion of the acquisition, each share of CrossFirst preferred stock converted to the right to receive one share of Busey preferred stock.

    CrossFirst Bank’s results of operations were included in Busey’s consolidated results of operations beginning March 1, 2025. Busey will operate CrossFirst Bank as a separate banking subsidiary until it is merged with and into Busey Bank, which is expected to occur on June 20, 2025. At the time of the bank merger, CrossFirst Bank locations will become banking centers of Busey Bank.

    The acquisition was accretive to tangible book value, exceeding initial projections of a six-month earn back period.

    Further details are included with Busey’s Current Report on Form 8‑K announcing completion of the acquisition, which was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 3, 2025.

    FINANCIAL RESULTS

    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (unaudited)
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income   $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Provision for credit losses     42,452       1,273       5,038  
    Total noninterest income     21,223       35,221       34,913  
    Total noninterest expense     115,171       78,167       70,769  
    Income (loss) before income taxes     (32,669 )     37,359       34,960  
    Income taxes     (2,679 )     9,254       8,735  
    Net income (loss)   $ (29,990 )   $ 28,105     $ 26,225  
                 
    Basic earnings (loss) per common share   $ (0.44 )   $ 0.49     $ 0.47  
    Diluted earnings (loss) per common share   $ (0.44 )   $ 0.49     $ 0.46  
    Effective income tax rate     8.20 %     24.77 %     24.99 %
     

    Busey’s results of operations for the first quarter of 2025 was a net loss of $(30.0) million, or $(0.44) per diluted common share, compared to net income of $28.1 million, or $0.49 per diluted common share, for the fourth quarter of 2024, and $26.2 million, or $0.46 per diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2024. Annualized return on average assets and annualized return on average tangible common equity2 were (0.82)% and (7.99)%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025.

    Busey views certain non-operating items, including acquisition-related expenses, restructuring charges, and one-time strategic events, as adjustments to net income reported under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). We also adjust for net securities gains and losses to align with industry and research analyst reporting. The objective of our presentation of adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings metrics is to allow investors and analysts to more clearly identify quarterly trends in core earnings performance. Non-operating pre-tax adjustments for acquisition and restructuring expenses2 in the first quarter of 2025 were $26.0 million. Further, $3.1 million other noninterest expense was recorded to establish an initial allowance for Unfunded Commitments2 and $42.4 million provision expense was recorded to establish an initial Allowance for Credit Losses for loans purchased without credit deterioration (“non-PCD” loans) immediately following the close of the acquisition in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 326-20-30-15. Additionally, net securities losses were $15.8 million, primarily related to the execution of a strategic balance sheet repositioning. Lastly, $4.6 million in one-time deferred tax valuation expense2 was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition, which is expected to lower our effective blended state tax rate in future periods but created a negative adjustment to the carrying value of our deferred tax asset in the current period. For more information and a reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures (which are identified with the endnote labeled as 2) in tabular form, see “Non-GAAP Financial Information.”

    Adjusted net income2, which excludes the impact of non-GAAP adjustments, was $39.9 million, or $0.57 per diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $30.9 million, or $0.53 per diluted common share, for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $25.7 million or $0.46 per diluted common share for the first quarter of 2024. Annualized adjusted return on average assets2 and annualized adjusted return on average tangible common equity2 were 1.09% and 10.64%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025.

    Pre-Provision Net Revenue2

    Pre-provision net revenue2 was $25.6 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $38.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $46.4 million for the first quarter of 2024. Pre-provision net revenue to average assets2 was 0.70% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 1.28% for the fourth quarter of 2024, and 1.55% for the first quarter of 2024.

    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue2 was $54.7 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $42.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $38.6 million for the first quarter of 2024. Adjusted pre-provision net revenue to average assets2 was 1.50% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 1.38% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 1.29% for the first quarter of 2024.

    Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin2

    Net interest income was $103.7 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $81.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $75.9 million in the first quarter of 2024.

    Net interest margin2 was 3.16% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.95% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.79% for the first quarter of 2024. Excluding purchase accounting accretion, adjusted net interest margin2 was 3.08% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.92% in the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.78% in the first quarter of 2024.

    Components of the 21 basis point increase in net interest margin2 during the first quarter of 2025, which includes approximately +12 basis points contributed by CrossFirst Bank, are as follows:

    • Increased loan portfolio and held for sale loan yields contributed +36 basis points
    • Increased purchase accounting accretion contributed +5 basis points
    • Decreased borrowing expense contributed +3 basis points
    • Decreased expense on rate swaps contributed +2 basis points
    • Increased non-maturity deposit funding costs contributed -17 basis points
    • Decreased cash and securities portfolio yield contributed -8 basis points

    Based on our most recent Asset Liability Management Committee (“ALCO”) model, a +100 basis point parallel rate shock is expected to increase net interest income by 1.8% over the subsequent twelve-month period. Busey continues to evaluate and execute off-balance sheet hedging and balance sheet repositioning strategies as well as embedding rate protection in our asset originations to provide stabilization to net interest income in lower rate environments. Time deposit and savings specials have provided funding flows, and we had excess earning cash during the first quarter of 2025. A portion of the acquired CrossFirst Bank securities portfolio was liquidated when the acquisition was finalized, providing additional excess cash that will allow us to unwind non-core funding. As brokered CDs mature, Busey will continue to deploy excess cash to reduce wholesale funding levels during subsequent quarters. Total deposit cost of funds increased from 1.75% during the fourth quarter of 2024 to 1.91% during the first quarter of 2025. Deposit betas increased with the higher mix of acquired indexed and wholesale deposits and a full quarter of the consolidated Company’s funding base is projected to increase total deposit cost of funds during the second quarter of 2025. With the expectation of Busey paying down non-core funding, the deposit beta will lessen during the year and is expected to normalize in the 45% to 50% beta range. Growth in higher yielding earning assets is expected to offset the increased cost of funds pressure and we project further net interest margin expansion during the second quarter of 2025.

    Noninterest Income

      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    NONINTEREST INCOME          
    Wealth management fees $ 17,364     $ 16,786     $ 15,549  
    Fees for customer services   8,128       7,911       7,056  
    Payment technology solutions   5,073       5,094       5,709  
    Mortgage revenue   329       496       746  
    Income on bank owned life insurance   1,446       1,080       1,419  
    Realized net gains (losses) on the sale of mortgage servicing rights   —       —       7,465  
    Net securities gains (losses)   (15,768 )     (196 )     (6,375 )
    Other noninterest income   4,651       4,050       3,344  
    Total noninterest income $ 21,223     $ 35,221     $ 34,913  
       

    Total noninterest income decreased by 39.7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and decreased by 39.2% compared to the first quarter of 2024, primarily due to net securities losses that were recorded in connection with a strategic balance sheet repositioning.

    Excluding the impact of net securities gains and losses and the gains on the sale of mortgage servicing rights, adjusted noninterest income2 increased by 4.4% to $37.0 million, or 26.3% of operating revenue2, during the first quarter of 2025, compared to $35.4 million, or 30.3% of operating revenue2, for the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, adjusted noninterest income2 increased by 9.4% from $33.8 million, or 30.8% of operating revenue2.

    Our fee-based businesses continue to add revenue diversification. Wealth management fees, wealth management referral fees included in other noninterest income, and payment technology solutions contributed 61.1% of adjusted noninterest income2 for the first quarter of 2025.

    Noteworthy components of noninterest income are as follows:

    • Wealth management fees increased by 3.4% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024 wealth management fees increased by 11.7%. Busey’s Wealth Management division ended the first quarter of 2025 with $13.68 billion in assets under care, compared to $13.83 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024 and $12.76 billion at the end of the first quarter of 2024. Our portfolio management team continues to focus on long-term returns and managing risk in the face of volatile markets and has outperformed its blended benchmark3 over the last three and five years. The Wealth Management segment reported another quarter of record high revenue for the first quarter of 2025.
    • Payment technology solutions revenue decreased slightly compared the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, payment technology solutions revenue decreased by 11.1% primarily due to decreases in income from electronic, online, and interactive voice response payments, partially offset by increases in lockbox and merchant services income.
    • Fees for customer services increased by 2.7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 primarily due to increases in income from analysis charges and interchange fees, offset by lower non-sufficient funds charges. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, fees for customer services increased by 15.2% primarily due to increases in analysis charges, automated teller machine fees, and interchange fees, offset by lower non-sufficient funds charges. Increases in fees for customer services are primarily attributable to the inclusion of one month of CrossFirst’s income in our first quarter results.
    • Other noninterest income increased by 14.8% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and by 39.1% compared to the first quarter of 2024. The increase for both periods was driven by increases in swap origination fee income, commercial loan sales gains, letter of credit fee income, and other real estate owned income, offset by decreases in venture capital income.

    Operating Efficiency

      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    NONINTEREST EXPENSE          
    Salaries, wages, and employee benefits $ 67,563   $ 45,458   $ 42,090
    Data processing expense   9,575     6,564     6,550
    Net occupancy expense of premises   5,799     4,794     4,720
    Furniture and equipment expense   1,744     1,650     1,813
    Professional fees   9,511     4,938     2,253
    Amortization of intangible assets   3,083     2,471     2,409
    Interchange expense   1,343     1,305     1,611
    FDIC insurance   2,167     1,330     1,400
    Other noninterest expense   14,386     9,657     7,923
    Total noninterest expense $ 115,171   $ 78,167   $ 70,769
     

    Total noninterest expense increased by 47.3% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and increased by 62.7% compared to the first quarter of 2024. Growth in noninterest expense was primarily attributable to one-time acquisition expenses related to the CrossFirst acquisition as well as added costs for operating expenses for two banks during one month of the quarter. Annual pre-tax expense synergy estimates resulting from the CrossFirst acquisition remain on track at $25.0 million. Busey anticipates a 50% rate of synergy realization in 2025 and 100% in 2026.

    Adjusted noninterest expense2, which excludes acquisition and restructuring expenses, amortization of intangible assets, and the provision for unfunded commitments, was $82.9 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $72.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $68.6 million in the first quarter of 2024. As our business grows, Busey remains focused on prudently managing our expense base and operating efficiency.

    Noteworthy components of noninterest expense are as follows:

    • Salaries, wages, and employee benefits expenses increased by $22.1 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $25.5 million compared to the first quarter of 2024, of which $15.6 million and $15.8 million, respectively, was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses, with additional severance, retention, and stock-based compensation. Busey has added 501 full time equivalent associates (“FTEs”) over the past year, mostly as a result of acquisitions, including 437 CrossFirst Bank FTEs added in March 2025 and 46 Merchants & Manufacturers Bank FTEs added in April 2024.
    • Data processing expense increased by $3.0 million compared to both the fourth quarter of 2024 and the first quarter of 2024, of which $2.3 million and $2.2 million, respectively, was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses. Busey has continued to make investments in technology enhancements and has also experienced inflation-driven price increases.
    • Professional fees increased by $4.6 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, of which $4.3 million was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, professional fees increased by $7.3 million, of which $7.2 million was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses.
    • Amortization of intangible assets increased by $0.6 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $0.7 million compared to the first quarter of 2024. The CrossFirst acquisition added an estimated $81.8 million of finite-lived intangible assets, which will be amortized using an accelerated amortization methodology.
    • Other noninterest expense increased by $4.7 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and increased by $6.5 million compared to the first quarter of 2024, of which $0.3 million and $0.5 million, respectively, resulted from increases in non-operating expenses related to acquisition and restructuring expenses. Further, $3.1 million of non-operating expenses was recorded for the Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments. Multiple expense items contributed to the remaining fluctuations in this expense category, including marketing, business development, regulatory expenses, mortgage servicing rights valuation expenses, and other real estate owned.

    Busey’s efficiency ratio2 was 79.3% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 64.5% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 58.1% for the first quarter of 2024. Our adjusted efficiency2 ratio was 58.7% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 61.8% for the fourth quarter of 2024, and 62.3% for the first quarter of 2024.

    Busey’s annualized ratio of adjusted noninterest expense to average assets was 2.27% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.39% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.30% for the first quarter of 2024.

    BALANCE SHEET STRENGTH

    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (unaudited)
               
      As of
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    ASSETS          
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,200,292     $ 697,659     $ 591,071  
    Debt securities available for sale   2,273,874       1,810,221       1,898,072  
    Debt securities held to maturity   815,402       826,630       862,218  
    Equity securities   10,828       15,862       9,790  
    Loans held for sale   7,270       3,657       6,827  
    Portfolio loans   13,868,357       7,697,087       7,588,077  
    Allowance for credit losses   (195,210 )     (83,404 )     (91,562 )
    Restricted bank stock   53,518       49,930       6,000  
    Premises and equipment, net   182,003       118,820       121,506  
    Right of use assets   40,594       10,608       10,590  
    Goodwill and other intangible assets, net   496,118       365,975       351,455  
    Other assets   711,206       533,677       533,414  
    Total assets $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
               
    LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY          
    Liabilities          
    Total deposits $ 16,459,470     $ 9,982,490     $ 9,960,191  
    Securities sold under agreements to repurchase   137,340       155,610       147,175  
    Short-term borrowings   11,209       —       —  
    Long-term debt   306,509       227,723       223,100  
    Junior subordinated debt owed to unconsolidated trusts   77,117       74,815       72,040  
    Lease liabilities   41,111       11,040       10,896  
    Other liabilities   251,890       211,775       191,405  
    Total liabilities   17,284,646       10,663,453       10,604,807  
               
    Stockholders’ equity          
    Retained earnings   249,484       294,054       248,412  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)   (172,810 )     (207,039 )     (222,190 )
    Other stockholders’ equity1   2,102,932       1,296,254       1,256,429  
    Total stockholders’ equity   2,179,606       1,383,269       1,282,651  
    Total liabilities & stockholders’ equity $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
               
    SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS          
    Book value per common share2 $ 24.13     $ 24.31     $ 23.19  
    Tangible book value per common share2 $ 18.62     $ 17.88     $ 16.84  
    Ending number of common shares outstanding   90,008,178       56,895,981       55,300,008  

    ___________________________________________
    1. Net balance of preferred stock ($0.001 par value), common stock ($0.001 par value), additional paid-in capital, and treasury stock.
    2. See “Non-GAAP Financial Information” for reconciliation.

    AVERAGE BALANCES (unaudited)
               
      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    ASSETS          
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 861,021   $ 776,572   $ 594,193
    Investment securities   2,782,435     2,597,309     2,907,144
    Loans held for sale   3,443     6,306     4,833
    Portfolio loans   9,838,337     7,738,772     7,599,316
    Interest-earning assets   13,363,594     11,048,350     11,005,903
    Total assets   14,831,298     12,085,993     12,024,208
               
    LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY          
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   3,036,127     2,724,344     2,708,586
    Interest-bearing deposits   9,142,781     7,325,662     7,330,105
    Total deposits   12,178,908     10,050,006     10,038,691
    Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase   144,838     135,728     178,659
    Interest-bearing liabilities   9,627,841     7,763,729     7,831,655
    Total liabilities   12,896,222     10,689,054     10,748,484
    Stockholders’ equity – preferred   2,669     —     —
    Stockholders’ equity – common   1,932,407     1,396,939     1,275,724
    Tangible common equity1   1,521,387     1,029,539     922,710

    ___________________________________________
    1. See “Non-GAAP Financial Information” for reconciliation.

    Busey’s financial strength is built on a long-term conservative operating approach. That focus will not change now or in the future.

    Total assets were $19.46 billion as of March 31, 2025, compared to $12.05 billion as of December 31, 2024, and $11.89 billion as of March 31, 2024. Average interest-earning assets were $13.36 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $11.05 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024, and $11.01 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

    Portfolio Loans

    We remain steadfast in our conservative approach to underwriting and our disciplined approach to pricing, particularly given our outlook for the economy in the coming quarters. Portfolio loans totaled $13.87 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $7.70 billion at December 31, 2024, and $7.59 billion at March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s portfolio loans grew by $133.6 million during the first quarter of 2025, with growth centered in the commercial category. In addition, as of March 31, 2024, CrossFirst Bank added $6.04 billion in loans to Busey’s loan portfolio.

    Average portfolio loans were $9.84 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $7.74 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $7.60 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

    Asset Quality

    Asset quality continues to be strong. Busey Bank maintains a well-diversified loan portfolio and, as a matter of policy and practice, limits concentration exposure in any particular loan segment. CrossFirst Bank’s policies are similar in nature to Busey Bank’s policies and Busey is in the process of migrating the legacy CrossFirst portfolio toward Busey Bank’s policies.

    ASSET QUALITY (unaudited)
               
      As of
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Total assets $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
    Portfolio loans   13,868,357       7,697,087       7,588,077  
    Loans 30 – 89 days past due   18,554       8,124       7,441  
    Non-performing loans:          
    Non-accrual loans   48,647       22,088       17,465  
    Loans 90+ days past due and still accruing   6,077       1,149       88  
    Non-performing loans   54,724       23,237       17,553  
    Other non-performing assets   4,757       63       65  
    Non-performing assets   59,481       23,300       17,618  
    Substandard (excludes 90+ days past due)   131,078       62,023       87,830  
    Classified assets $ 190,559     $ 85,323     $ 105,448  
               
    Allowance for credit losses $ 195,210     $ 83,404     $ 91,562  
               
    RATIOS          
    Non-performing loans to portfolio loans   0.39 %     0.30 %     0.23 %
    Non-performing assets to total assets   0.31 %     0.19 %     0.15 %
    Non-performing assets to portfolio loans and other non-performing assets   0.43 %     0.30 %     0.23 %
    Allowance for credit losses to portfolio loans   1.41 %     1.08 %     1.21 %
    Coverage ratio of the allowance for credit losses to non-performing loans 3.57 x   3.59 x   5.22 x
    Classified assets to Bank Tier 1 capital1and reserves   8.40 %     5.61 %     7.24 %

    ___________________________________________
    1. Capital amounts for the first quarter of 2025 are not yet finalized and are subject to change.

    Loans 30-89 days past due increased by $10.4 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $11.1 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s loans 30-89 days past due were $6.1 million, a decrease of $2.0 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s loans 30-89 days past due were $12.5 million as of March 31, 2025.

    Non-performing loans increased by $31.5 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $37.2 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s non-performing loans were $6.8 million, a decrease of $16.4 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s non-performing loans were $47.9 million as of March 31, 2025. Continued disciplined credit management resulted in non-performing loans as a percentage of portfolio loans of 0.39% as of March 31, 2025, a 9 basis point increase from December 31, 2024, and a 16 basis point increase from March 31, 2024.

    Non-performing assets increased by $36.2 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $41.9 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s non-performing assets were $7.1 million, a decrease of $16.2 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s non-performing assets were $52.4 million as of March 31, 2025. Non-performing assets represented 0.31% of total assets as of March 31, 2025, a 12 basis point increase from December 31, 2024, and a 16 basis point increase from March 31, 2024.

    Classified assets increased by $105.2 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $85.1 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s classified assets were $81.3 million, a decrease of $4.0 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s classified assets were $109.3 million as of March 31, 2025.

    The allowance for credit losses was $195.2 million as of March 31, 2025, representing 1.41% of total portfolio loans outstanding, and providing coverage of 3.57 times our non-performing loans balance. In connection with the CrossFirst acquisition, the Day 1 allowance recorded for loans that were purchased with credit deterioration (“PCD” loans) was $100.8 million. The Day 1 PCD allowance was recorded as an adjustment to the fair value of the PCD loans.

    NET CHARGE-OFFS (RECOVERIES) AND PROVISION EXPENSE (RELEASE) (unaudited)
               
      Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net charge-offs (recoveries) $ 31,429   $ 2,850   $ 5,216
    Provision expense (release)   42,452     1,273     5,038
                     

    Net charge-offs increased by $28.6 million when compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $26.2 million when compared with the first quarter of 2024. Net charge-offs include $29.6 million related to PCD loans acquired from CrossFirst Bank, which were fully reserved at acquisition and did not require recording additional provision expense.

    Busey’s results for the first quarter of 2025 include $42.5 million provision expense for credit losses, which includes $42.4 million that was recorded to establish an initial allowance for credit losses on non-PCD acquired loans.

    Deposits

    Total deposits were $16.46 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $9.98 billion at December 31, 2024, and $9.96 billion at March 31, 2024. Average deposits were $12.18 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $10.05 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $10.04 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

    Core deposits2 accounted for 89.7% of total deposits as of March 31, 2025. The quality of our core deposit franchise is a critical value driver of our institution. We estimated that 32% of our deposits were uninsured and uncollateralized4 as of March 31, 2025, and we have sufficient on- and off-balance sheet liquidity to manage deposit fluctuations and the liquidity needs of our customers.

    We have executed various deposit campaigns to attract term funding and savings accounts at a lower rate than our marginal cost of funds. New certificate of deposit production in the first quarter of 2025 had a weighted average term of 7.8 months at a rate of 3.58%, which was 96 basis points below our average marginal wholesale equivalent-term funding cost during the quarter.

    Borrowings

    As of March 31, 2025, Busey Bank held $16.7 million of long-term Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) borrowings. In comparison, Busey Bank had no short-term or long-term FHLB borrowings as of December 31, 2024, or March 31, 2024. As of March 31, 2025, CrossFirst Bank held $11.2 million of short-term FHLB borrowings and $61.9 million of long-term FHLB borrowings.

    In addition, associated with the CrossFirst acquisition, Busey assumed trust preferred securities with a recorded balance of $2.2 million as of March 31, 2025.

    Liquidity

    As of March 31, 2025, our available sources of on- and off-balance sheet liquidity5 totaled $8.55 billion. Furthermore, our balance sheet liquidity profile continues to be aided by the cash flows we expect from our relatively short-duration securities portfolio. Those cash flows were approximately $119.7 million in the first quarter of 2025. Cash flows from maturing securities within our portfolio are expected to be approximately $302.3 million for the remainder of 2025, with a current book yield of 2.55%, and approximately $308.1 million for 2026, with a current book yield of 2.59%.

    Capital Strength

    The strength of our balance sheet is also reflected in our capital foundation. Although impacted by the strategic deployment of capital for the CrossFirst acquisition, our capital ratios remain strong, and as of March 31, 2025, our regulatory capital ratios continued to provide a buffer of more than $630 million above levels required to be designated well-capitalized. Busey’s Common Equity Tier 1 ratio is estimated6 to be 11.99% at March 31, 2025, compared to 14.10% at December 31, 2024, and 13.45% at March 31, 2024. Our Total Capital to Risk Weighted Assets ratio is estimated6 to be 14.87% at March 31, 2025, compared to 18.53% at December 31, 2024, and 17.95% at March 31, 2024.

    Busey’s tangible common equity2 was $1.68 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $1.02 billion at December 31, 2024, and $931.2 million at March 31, 2024. Tangible common equity2 represented 8.83% of tangible assets at March 31, 2025, compared to 8.71% at December 31, 2024, and 8.07% at March 31, 2024.

    Busey’s tangible book value per common share2 was $18.62 at March 31, 2025, compared to $17.88 at December 31, 2024, and $16.84 at March 31, 2024, reflecting a 10.6% year-over-year increase. The ratios of tangible common equity to tangible assets2 and tangible book value per common share have been impacted by the fair market valuation adjustment of Busey’s securities portfolio as a result of the current rate environment, which is reflected in the accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) component of shareholder’s equity.

    Busey’s strong capital levels, coupled with its earnings, have allowed the Company to provide a steady return to its stockholders through dividends. During the first quarter of 2025, we paid a dividend of $0.25 per share on Busey’s common stock, which represents a 4.2% increase from the previous quarterly dividend of $0.24 per share. Busey has consistently paid dividends to its common stockholders since the bank holding company was organized in 1980.

    During the first quarter of 2025, Busey resumed making stock repurchases under its stock repurchase plan, purchasing 220,000 shares of its common stock at a weighted average price of $21.98 per share for a total of $4.8 million. As of March 31, 2025, Busey had 1,699,275 shares remaining on its stock repurchase plan available for repurchase.

    FIRST QUARTER EARNINGS INVESTOR PRESENTATION

    For additional information on Busey’s financial condition and operating results, please refer to our Q1 2025 Earnings Investor Presentation furnished via Form 8‑K on April 22, 2025, in connection with this earnings release.

    CORPORATE PROFILE

    As of March 31, 2025, First Busey Corporation (Nasdaq: BUSE) was a $19.46 billion financial holding company headquartered in Leawood, Kansas.

    Busey Bank, a wholly-owned bank subsidiary of First Busey Corporation headquartered in Champaign, Illinois, had total assets of $11.98 billion as of March 31, 2025. Busey Bank currently has 62 banking centers, with 21 in Central Illinois markets, 17 in suburban Chicago markets, 20 in the St. Louis Metropolitan Statistical Area, three in Southwest Florida, and one in Indianapolis. More information about Busey Bank can be found at busey.com.

    CrossFirst Bank, a wholly-owned bank subsidiary of First Busey Corporation headquartered in Leawood, Kansas, had total assets of $7.45 billion as of March 31, 2025. CrossFirst Bank currently has 16 banking centers located across Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. More information about CrossFirst Bank can be found at crossfirstbank.com. It is anticipated that CrossFirst Bank will be merged with and into Busey Bank on June 20, 2025.

    Through Busey’s Wealth Management division, the Company provides a full range of asset management, investment, brokerage, fiduciary, philanthropic advisory, tax preparation, and farm management services to individuals, businesses, and foundations. Assets under care totaled $13.68 billion as of March 31, 2025. More information about Busey’s Wealth Management services can be found at busey.com/wealth-management.

    Busey Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiary, FirsTech, specializes in the evolving financial technology needs of small and medium-sized businesses, highly regulated enterprise industries, and financial institutions. FirsTech provides comprehensive and innovative payment technology solutions, including online, mobile, and voice-recognition bill payments; money and data movement; merchant services; direct debit services; lockbox remittance processing for payments made by mail; and walk-in payments at retail agents. Additionally, FirsTech simplifies client workflows through integrations enabling support with billing, reconciliation, bill reminders, and treasury services. More information about FirsTech can be found at firstechpayments.com.

    For the fourth consecutive year, Busey was named among 2025’s America’s Best Banks by Forbes. Ranked 88th overall, Busey was one of seven banks headquartered in Illinois included on this year’s list. Busey was also named among the 2024 Best Banks to Work For by American Banker, the 2024 Best Places to Work in Money Management by Pensions and Investments, the 2024 Best Places to Work in Illinois by Daily Herald Business Ledger, the 2025 Best Places to Work in Indiana by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, and the 2024 Best Companies to Work For in Florida by Florida Trend magazine. We are honored to be consistently recognized globally, nationally and locally for our engaged culture of integrity and commitment to community development.

    NON-GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION

    This earnings release contains certain financial information determined by methods other than GAAP. Management uses these non-GAAP measures, together with the related GAAP measures, in analysis of Busey’s performance and in making business decisions, as well as for comparison to Busey’s peers. Busey believes the adjusted measures are useful for investors and management to understand the effects of certain non-core and non-recurring items and provide additional perspective on Busey’s performance over time.

    The following tables present reconciliations between these non-GAAP measures and what management believes to be the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures.

    These non-GAAP disclosures have inherent limitations and are not audited. They should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for operating results reported in accordance with GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other companies. Tax effected numbers included in these non-GAAP disclosures are based on estimated statutory rates, estimated federal income tax rates, or effective tax rates, as noted with the tables below.

    RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES (Unaudited)
     
    Pre-Provision Net Revenue and Related Measures
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income (GAAP)   $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Total noninterest income (GAAP)     21,223       35,221       34,913  
    Net security (gains) losses (GAAP)     15,768       196       6,375  
    Total noninterest expense (GAAP)     (115,171 )     (78,167 )     (70,769 )
    Pre-provision net revenue (Non-GAAP) [a]   25,551       38,828       46,373  
    Acquisition and restructuring expenses     26,026       3,585       408  
    Provision for unfunded commitments1     3,141       (455 )     (678 )
    Realized (gain) loss on the sale of mortgage service rights     —       —       (7,465 )
    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue (Non-GAAP) [b] $ 54,718     $ 41,958     $ 38,638  
                 
    Average total assets [c]   14,831,298       12,085,993       12,024,208  
                 
    Pre-provision net revenue to average total assets (Non-GAAP)2 [a÷c]   0.70 %     1.28 %     1.55 %
    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue to average total assets (Non-GAAP)2 [b÷c]   1.50 %     1.38 %     1.29 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the provision for unfunded commitments included Day 2 provision expense of $3.139 million recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition.
    2. Annualized measure.
    Adjusted Net Income, Average Tangible Common Equity, and Related Ratios
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net income (loss) (GAAP) [a] $ (29,990 )   $ 28,105     $ 26,225  
    Acquisition expenses     26,026       2,469       285  
    Restructuring expenses     —       1,116       123  
    Day 2 provision for credit losses1     42,433       —       —  
    Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments2     3,139       —       —  
    Net securities (gains) losses     15,768       196       6,375  
    Realized net (gains) losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights     —       —       (7,465 )
    Related tax (benefit) expense3     (22,069 )     (1,014 )     170  
    One-time deferred tax valuation adjustment4     4,591       —       —  
    Adjusted net income (Non-GAAP)5 [b] $ 39,898     $ 30,872     $ 25,713  
                 
    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, diluted (GAAP) [c]   68,517,647       57,934,812       56,406,500  
    Diluted earnings (loss) per common share (GAAP) [a÷c] $ (0.44 )   $ 0.49     $ 0.46  
                 
    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, diluted (Non-GAAP)6 [d]   69,502,717       57,934,812       56,406,500  
    Adjusted diluted earnings per common share (Non-GAAP)5,6 [b÷d] $ 0.57     $ 0.53     $ 0.46  
                 
    Average total assets [e] $ 14,831,298     $ 12,085,993     $ 12,024,208  
    Return on average assets (Non-GAAP)7 [a÷e] (0.82 )%     0.93 %     0.88 %
    Adjusted return on average assets (Non-GAAP)5,7 [b÷e]   1.09 %     1.02 %     0.86 %
                 
    Average common equity   $ 1,932,407     $ 1,396,939     $ 1,275,724  
    Average goodwill and other intangible assets, net     (411,020 )     (367,400 )     (353,014 )
    Average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP) [f] $ 1,521,387     $ 1,029,539     $ 922,710  
                 
    Return on average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)7 [a÷f] (7.99 )%     10.86 %     11.43 %
    Adjusted return on average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)5,7 [b÷f]   10.64 %     11.93 %     11.21 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. The Day 2 allowance for credit losses was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition to establish an allowance on non-PCD loans and is reflected within the provision for credit losses line on the Statement of Income.
    2. The Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition and is reflected within the other noninterest expense line, as a component of total noninterest expense, on the Statement of Income.
    3. Tax benefits were calculated using tax rates of 25.3%, 26.8%, and 24.9% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively.
    4. The deferred tax valuation adjustment was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition and relates to the expansion of Busey’s footprint into new states. The deferred tax valuation adjustment is reflected within the income taxes line on the Statement of Income.
    5. Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of adjusted net income for all periods presented to include, as applicable, adjustments for net securities gains and losses, realized net gains and losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights, and one-time deferred tax valuation adjustments. In 2024, these adjusting items were previously presented as further adjustments to adjusted net income.
    6. Dilution includes shares that would have been dilutive if there had been net income during the period.
    7. Annualized measure.
    Tax-Equivalent Net Interest Income, Adjusted Net Interest Income, Net Interest Margin, and Adjusted Net Interest Margin
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income (GAAP)   $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Tax-equivalent adjustment1     537       446       449  
    Tax-equivalent net interest income (Non-GAAP) [a]   104,268       82,024       76,303  
    Purchase accounting accretion related to business combinations     (2,728 )     (812 )     (204 )
    Adjusted net interest income (Non-GAAP) [b] $ 101,540     $ 81,212     $ 76,099  
                 
    Average interest-earning assets (Non-GAAP) [c] $ 13,363,594     $ 11,048,350     $ 11,005,903  
                 
    Net interest margin (Non-GAAP)2 [a÷c]   3.16 %     2.95 %     2.79 %
    Adjusted net interest margin (Non-GAAP)2 [b÷c]   3.08 %     2.92 %     2.78 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. Tax-equivalent adjustments were calculated using an estimated federal income tax rate of 21%, applied to non-taxable interest income on investments and loans.
    2. Annualized measure.
    Adjusted Noninterest Income, Revenue Measures, Adjusted Noninterest Expense, Efficiency Ratios, and Adjusted Noninterest Expense to Average Assets
                 
        Three Months Ended
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net interest income (GAAP) [a] $ 103,731     $ 81,578     $ 75,854  
    Tax-equivalent adjustment1     537       446       449  
    Tax-equivalent net interest income (Non-GAAP) [b]   104,268       82,024       76,303  
                 
    Total noninterest income (GAAP)     21,223       35,221       34,913  
    Net security (gains) losses     15,768       196       6,375  
    Noninterest income excluding net securities gains and losses (Non-GAAP) [c]   36,991       35,417       41,288  
    Realized net (gains) losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights     —       —       (7,465 )
    Adjusted noninterest income (Non-GAAP) [d] $ 36,991     $ 35,417     $ 33,823  
                 
    Tax-equivalent revenue (Non-GAAP) [e = b+c] $ 141,259     $ 117,441     $ 117,591  
    Adjusted tax-equivalent revenue (Non-GAAP) [f = b+d] $ 141,259     $ 117,441     $ 110,126  
    Operating revenue (Non-GAAP) [g = a+d] $ 140,722     $ 116,995     $ 109,677  
                 
    Adjusted noninterest income to operating revenue (Non-GAAP) [d÷g]   26.29 %     30.27 %     30.84 %
                 
    Total noninterest expense (GAAP)   $ 115,171     $ 78,167     $ 70,769  
    Amortization of intangible assets     (3,083 )     (2,471 )     (2,409 )
    Noninterest expense excluding amortization of intangible assets (Non-GAAP) [h]   112,088       75,696       68,360  
    Acquisition and restructuring expenses     (26,026 )     (3,585 )     (408 )
    Provision for unfunded commitments2     (3,141 )     455       678  
    Adjusted noninterest expense (Non-GAAP)3 [i] $ 82,921     $ 72,566     $ 68,630  
                 
    Efficiency ratio (Non-GAAP) [h÷e]   79.35 %     64.45 %     58.13 %
    Adjusted efficiency ratio (Non-GAAP)3 [i÷f]   58.70 %     61.79 %     62.32 %
                 
    Average total assets [j] $ 14,831,298     $ 12,085,993     $ 12,024,208  
    Adjusted noninterest expense to average assets (Non-GAAP)4 [i÷j]   2.27 %     2.39 %     2.30 %

    ___________________________________________

    1. Tax-equivalent adjustments were calculated using an estimated federal income tax rate of 21%, applied to non-taxable interest income on investments and loans.
    2. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the provision for unfunded commitments included Day 2 provision expense of $3.139 million recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition.
    3. Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of adjusted noninterest expense and the adjusted efficiency ratio for all periods presented to include, as applicable, adjustments for the provision for unfunded commitments. In 2024, these adjustments were previously presented as adjustments for adjusted core expense and the adjusted core efficiency ratio.
    4. Annualized measure.
    Tangible Assets, Tangible Common Equity, and Related Measures and Ratio
                 
        As of
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Total assets (GAAP)   $ 19,464,252     $ 12,046,722     $ 11,887,458  
    Goodwill and other intangible assets, net     (496,118 )     (365,975 )     (351,455 )
    Tangible assets (Non-GAAP)1 [a] $ 18,968,134     $ 11,680,747     $ 11,536,003  
                 
    Total stockholders’ equity (GAAP)   $ 2,179,606     $ 1,383,269     $ 1,282,651  
    Preferred stock and additional paid in capital on preferred stock     (7,750 )     —       —  
    Common equity [b]   2,171,856       1,383,269       1,282,651  
    Goodwill and other intangible assets, net     (496,118 )     (365,975 )     (351,455 )
    Tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)1 [c] $ 1,675,738     $ 1,017,294     $ 931,196  
                 
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets (Non-GAAP)1 [c÷a]   8.83 %     8.71 %     8.07 %
                 
    Ending number of common shares outstanding (GAAP) [d]   90,008,178       56,895,981       55,300,008  
    Book value per common share (Non-GAAP) [b÷d] $ 24.13     $ 24.31     $ 23.19  
    Tangible book value per common share (Non-GAAP) [c÷d] $ 18.62     $ 17.88     $ 16.84  

    ___________________________________________

    1. Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of tangible assets and tangible common equity for all periods presented to exclude any tax adjustment.
    Core Deposits and Related Ratio
                 
        As of
    (dollars in thousands)   March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Total deposits (GAAP) [a] $ 16,459,470     $ 9,982,490     $ 9,960,191  
    Brokered deposits, excluding brokered time deposits of $250,000 or more     (722,309 )     (13,090 )     (6,001 )
    Time deposits of $250,000 or more     (967,262 )     (334,503 )     (326,795 )
    Core deposits (Non-GAAP) [b] $ 14,769,899     $ 9,634,897     $ 9,627,395  
                 
    Core deposits to total deposits (Non-GAAP) [b÷a]   89.73 %     96.52 %     96.66 %
     

    FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

    This press release may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to Busey’s financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance, and business. Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of Busey’s management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “position,” or other similar expressions. Additionally, all statements in this document, including forward-looking statements, speak only as of the date they are made, and Busey undertakes no obligation to update any statement in light of new information or future events.

    A number of factors, many of which are beyond Busey’s ability to control or predict, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in any forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, the following: (1) the strength of the local, state, national, and international economies and financial markets (including effects of inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints); (2) changes in, and the interpretation and prioritization of, local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and governmental policies (including those concerning Busey’s general business); (3) the economic impact of any future terrorist threats or attacks, widespread disease or pandemics, or other adverse external events that could cause economic deterioration or instability in credit markets (including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East); (4) unexpected results of acquisitions, including the acquisition of CrossFirst, which may include the failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisitions and the possibility that the transaction and integration costs may be greater than anticipated; (5) the imposition of tariffs or other governmental policies impacting the value of products produced by Busey’s commercial borrowers; (6) new or revised accounting policies and practices as may be adopted by state and federal regulatory banking agencies, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; (7) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of Busey’s assets (including the impact of sustained elevated interest rates); (8) increased competition in the financial services sector (including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and fintech companies) and the inability to attract new customers; (9) changes in technology and the ability to develop and maintain secure and reliable electronic systems; (10) the loss of key executives or associates, talent shortages, and employee turnover; (11) unexpected outcomes and costs of existing or new litigation, investigations, or other legal proceedings, inquiries, and regulatory actions involving Busey (including with respect to Busey’s Illinois franchise taxes); (12) fluctuations in the value of securities held in Busey’s securities portfolio, including as a result of changes in interest rates; (13) credit risk and risk from concentrations (by type of borrower, geographic area, collateral, and industry), within Busey’s loan portfolio and large loans to certain borrowers (including commercial real estate loans); (14) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits and may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (15) the level of non-performing assets on Busey’s balance sheets; (16) interruptions involving information technology and communications systems or third-party servicers; (17) breaches or failures of information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents; (18) the economic impact on Busey and its customers of climate change, natural disasters, and exceptional weather occurrences such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, blizzards, and droughts; (19) the ability to successfully manage liquidity risk, which may increase dependence on non-core funding sources such as brokered deposits, and may negatively impact Busey’s cost of funds; (20) the ability to maintain an adequate level of allowance for credit losses on loans; (21) the effectiveness of Busey’s risk management framework; and (22) the ability of Busey to manage the risks associated with the foregoing. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements.

    Additional information concerning Busey and its business, including additional factors that could materially affect Busey’s financial results, is included in Busey’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    END NOTES

    1 Annualized measure.
    2 Represents a non-GAAP financial measure. For a reconciliation to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), see “Non-GAAP Financial Information.”
    3 The blended benchmark consists of 60% MSCI All Country World Index and 40% Bloomberg Intermediate US Government/Credit Total Return Index.
    4 Estimated uninsured and uncollateralized deposits consist of account balances in excess of the $250 thousand Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limit, less intercompany accounts, fully collateralized accounts (including preferred deposits), and pass-through accounts where clients have deposit insurance at the correspondent financial institution.
    5 On- and off-balance sheet liquidity is comprised of cash and cash equivalents, debt securities excluding those pledged as collateral, brokered deposits, and Busey’s borrowing capacity through its revolving credit facility, the FHLB, the Federal Reserve Bank, and federal funds purchased lines.
    6 Capital amounts and ratios for the first quarter of 2025 are not yet finalized and are subject to change.

    INVESTOR CONTACT: Scott A. Phillips, Interim Chief Financial Officer | 239-689-7167

    The MIL Network –