Category: Latin America

MIL-OSI: Baker Hughes Company Announces First-Quarter 2025 Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

First-quarter highlights

Orders of $6.5 billion, including $3.2 billion of IET orders.
RPO of $33.2 billion, including record IET RPO of $30.4 billion.
Revenue of $6.4 billion, consistent year-over-year.
Attributable net income of $402 million.
GAAP diluted EPS of $0.40 and adjusted diluted EPS* of $0.51.
Adjusted EBITDA* of $1,037 million, up 10% year-over-year.
Cash flows from operating activities of $709 million and free cash flow* of $454 million.
Returns to shareholders of $417 million, including $188 million of share repurchases.

HOUSTON and LONDON, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Baker Hughes Company (Nasdaq: BKR) (“Baker Hughes” or the “Company”) announced results today for the first quarter of 2025.

“Baker Hughes started the year strong, building on the positive momentum from 2024 and setting multiple first-quarter records. Our continued transformation initiatives and strong execution continue to drive structural margin improvement across both segments. The operational transformation and streamlining efforts have created a solid foundation to optimize margins and enhance returns, even in a challenging environment,” said Lorenzo Simonelli, Baker Hughes chairman and chief executive officer.

“In our IET segment, we booked $3.2 billion of orders, including our first data center awards, totaling more than 350 MW of power solutions for this rapidly evolving market. In addition to expanding opportunities for data centers, we have a strong pipeline of LNG, FPSO and gas infrastructure projects that support our order outlook for this year.”

“In OFSE, EBITDA remained resilient as our margins saw noticeable improvement compared to last year even while segment revenue fell. This is a testament to the team’s hard work in changing the way the business operates.”

“Although our outlook is tempered by broader macro and trade policy uncertainty, we remain confident in our strategy and the resilience of our portfolio. We believe Baker Hughes is well positioned to navigate near-term challenges and deliver sustainable growth in shareholder value.”

“I want to thank our employees, whose hard work, dedication and focus have been instrumental to the continued success of Baker Hughes. As we continue to execute our strategy amidst an uncertain macro backdrop, we remain committed to our customers, shareholders and employees,” concluded Simonelli.

* Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

	Three Months Ended						Variance
(in millions except per share amounts)	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
Orders	$	6,459	$	7,496	$	6,542	(14	%)	(1	%)
Revenue		6,427		7,364		6,418	(13	%)	—	%
Net income attributable to Baker Hughes		402		1,179		455	(66	%)	(12	%)
Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes*		509		694		429	(27	%)	19	%
Adjusted EBITDA*		1,037		1,310		943	(21	%)	10	%
Diluted earnings per share (EPS)		0.40		1.18		0.45	(66	%)	(11	%)
Adjusted diluted EPS*		0.51		0.70		0.43	(27	%)	19	%
Cash flow from operating activities		709		1,189		784	(40	%)	(10	%)
Free cash flow*		454		894		502	(49	%)	(10	%)

* Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

Certain columns and rows in our tables and financial statements may not sum up due to the use of rounded numbers.

Quarter Highlights

Baker Hughes expanded its leadership position in liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) in the first quarter, including a liquefaction train award from Bechtel for a project in North America, where the Company will provide four main refrigerant compressors driven by LM6000+ gas turbines and four expander-compressors. This award builds on the previously announced December 2024 award and further demonstrates the strength of the Company’s collaboration with Bechtel to support North America LNG development.

During the quarter, Industrial & Energy Technology (“IET”) signed key strategic framework agreements with LNG operators. The Company agreed to provide gas turbines and refrigerant compressor technology, along with maintenance services, for Trains 4 to 8 of NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG Facility. Baker Hughes also reached an agreement with Argent LNG to provide liquefaction and power solutions and related aftermarket services for its proposed 24 MTPA LNG export facility in Louisiana. The project will employ Baker Hughes’ NMBL™ modularized LNG solution, driven by the LM9000 gas turbine, while also utilizing the Company’s iCenter™ and Cordant™ digital solution, to enhance the plant’s operational efficiency.

Baker Hughes also demonstrated its continuous commitment to critical gas infrastructure projects with a strategic win in the North America pipeline compression market. The award includes the provision of two gas compression stations for a total of 10 Frame 5/2E gas turbines and 10 centrifugal compressors, anti-surge valves and critical spare parts.

In the first quarter, Baker Hughes made significant progress in reliable and sustainable power solutions deployment for data centers. In addition to being awarded over 350 MW of NovaLT™ turbines to power data centers with various other customers, the Company partnered with Frontier Infrastructure to accelerate the development of large-scale carbon capture and storage (“CCS”) and power solutions for data centers and industrial customers in the U.S. This partnership will leverage technologies and services across the Baker Hughes enterprise by providing CO₂ compression, NovaLT™ gas turbines, digital monitoring solutions, well construction and completion services.

In continued demonstration of Gas Technology’s lifecycle offerings in IET, the Company received several aftermarket service awards during the quarter. In Algeria, the Gas Technology Services (“GTS”) team is partnering with SONATRACH to deliver an upgrade solution for the modernization of a key compressor station. In the Middle East, Gas Technology received multiple equipment and services awards to support one of the world’s largest gas processing plants. The scope includes rejuvenation of two existing gas turbines to drive new compressors and the supply of a third compression train to support production expansion.

IET’s Industrial Solutions gained momentum with its Cordant™ Asset Performance Management (“APM”) solution, securing several contracts with customers across multiple regions. ADNOC Offshore will deploy the full APM suite to enhance production availability and efficiency. In the Americas, a large international oil company will conduct a proof of concept across multiple equipment trains, to support a shift from proactive to predictive maintenance. In Australia, the Company signed agreements to develop asset maintenance strategies for new mine sites supporting truck fleet maintenance.

Oilfield Services & Equipment (“OFSE”) received a significant award from ExxonMobil Guyana to provide specialty chemicals and related services for its Uaru and Whiptail offshore greenfield developments in the country’s prolific Stabroek Block, highlighting the differentiated capabilities of our Production Solutions offering. For this multi-year contract, the scope will cover topsides, subsea, water injection and utility chemicals to help ExxonMobil Guyana achieve optimal production.

OFSE continues to leverage the Company’s innovative solutions to help Petrobras unlock Brazil’s vast energy supply. In the quarter and following an open tender, Baker Hughes received a significant, multi-year fully integrated completions systems contract from Petrobras across multiple deepwater fields. A range of Baker Hughes’ technologies, including the new SureCONTROL^TM Premium interval control valve, has been specifically tailored to meet the needs of the country’s offshore developments.

OFSE secured a multi-year contract with Dubai Petroleum Establishment, for and on behalf of Dubai Supply Authority, to provide integrated coiled-tubing drilling services for the Company’s Margham Gas storage project. This follows a third-quarter 2024 IET award for integrated compressor line units for the same project, demonstrating growing commercial synergies across Baker Hughes’ diverse portfolio.

The Company drove growth in Mature Assets Solutions, signing a multi-year framework agreement with Equinor to help establish a new Center of Excellence for Plug & Abandonment work in the North Sea. Based within OFSE’s operations in Bergen and Stavanger, Norway, this hub will ensure economical, reliable solutions are implemented to responsibly abandon each well, allowing Equinor to maximize value of their assets and allocate more resources to exploration and discovery.

On the digital front, OFSE received an award from the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (“SOCAR”) to expand deployment of Leucipa™ automated field production solution for all its wells, including those with non-Baker Hughes electric submersible pumps, in the Absheron and Gunseli fields. Leucipa also marked its first deployment in Sub-Saharan Africa through an agreement with the NNPC/FIRST E&P joint venture, which will utilize the platform across its offshore wells in the Niger Delta.

Consolidated Financial Results

Revenue for the quarter was $6,427 million, a decrease of 13% sequentially and up $9 million year-over-year. The increase in revenue year-over-year was driven by an increase in IET and partially offset by a decrease in OFSE.

The Company’s total book-to-bill ratio in the first quarter of 2025 was 1.0; the IET book-to-bill ratio was 1.1.

Net income as determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), for the first quarter of 2025 was $402 million. Net income decreased $777 million sequentially and decreased $53 million year-over-year.

Adjusted net income (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the first quarter of 2025 was $509 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $108 million. A list of the adjusting items and associated reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1b in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted net income for the first quarter of 2025 was down 27% sequentially and up 19% year-over-year.

Depreciation and amortization for the first quarter of 2025 was $285 million.

Adjusted EBITDA (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the first quarter of 2025 was $1,037 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $140 million. See Table 1a in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter was down 21% sequentially and up 10% year-over-year.

The sequential decrease in adjusted net income and adjusted EBITDA was primarily driven by lower volume in both segments, partially offset by productivity and structural cost-out initiatives. The year-over-year increase in adjusted net income and adjusted EBITDA was driven by increased volume in IET including higher proportionate growth in Gas Technology Equipment (“GTE”) and productivity, structural cost-out initiatives and higher pricing in both segments, partially offset by decreased volume and business mix in OFSE and cost inflation in both segments.

Other Financial Items

Remaining Performance Obligations (“RPO”) in the first quarter of 2025 ended at $33.2 billion, a decrease of $0.1 billion from the fourth quarter of 2024. OFSE RPO was $2.8 billion, down 7% sequentially, while IET RPO was $30.4 billion, up $300 million sequentially. Within IET RPO, GTE RPO was $11.9 billion and GTS RPO was $15.1 billion.

Income tax expense in the first quarter of 2025 was $152 million.

Other (income) expense, net in the first quarter of 2025 was $140 million, primarily related to changes in fair value for equity securities of $140 million.

GAAP diluted earnings per share was $0.40. Adjusted diluted earnings per share (a non-GAAP financial measure) was $0.51. Excluded from adjusted diluted earnings per share were all items listed in Table 1b in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

Cash flow from operating activities was $709 million for the first quarter of 2025. Free cash flow (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the quarter was $454 million. A reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1c in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

Capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets, were $255 million for the first quarter of 2025, of which $158 million was for OFSE and $83 million was for IET.

Results by Reporting Segment

The following segment discussions and variance explanations are intended to reflect management’s view of the relevant comparisons of financial results on a sequential or year-over-year basis, depending on the business dynamics of the reporting segments.

Oilfield Services & Equipment

(in millions)	Three Months Ended									Variance
Segment results	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024			Sequential		Year-over- year
Orders	$	3,281		$	3,740		$	3,624		(12	%)	(9	%)
Revenue	$	3,499		$	3,871		$	3,783		(10	%)	(8	%)
EBITDA	$	623		$	755		$	644		(18	%)	(3	%)
EBITDA margin		17.8	%		19.5	%		17.0	%	-1.7pts		0.8pts

(in millions)	Three Months Ended						Variance
Revenue by Product Line	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
Well Construction	$	892	$	943	$	1,061	(5	%)	(16	%)
Completions, Intervention, and Measurements		925		1,022		1,006	(9	%)	(8	%)
Production Solutions		899		974		945	(8	%)	(5	%)
Subsea & Surface Pressure Systems		782		932		771	(16	%)	1	%
Total Revenue	$	3,499	$	3,871	$	3,783	(10	%)	(8	%)

(in millions)	Three Months Ended						Variance
Revenue by Geographic Region	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
North America	$	922	$	971	$	990	(5	%)	(7	%)
Latin America		568		661		637	(14	%)	(11	%)
Europe/CIS/Sub-Saharan Africa		580		740		750	(22	%)	(23	%)
Middle East/Asia		1,429		1,499		1,405	(5	%)	2	%
Total Revenue	$	3,499	$	3,871	$	3,783	(10	%)	(8	%)

North America	$	922	$	971	$	990	(5	%)	(7	%)
International	$	2,577	$	2,900	$	2,793	(11	%)	(8	%)

EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortization of $226 million, $229 million, and $222 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively. EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

OFSE orders of $3,281 million for the first quarter of 2025 decreased by 12% sequentially. Subsea and Surface Pressure Systems orders were $532 million, down 34% sequentially, and down 16% year-over-year.

OFSE revenue of $3,499 million for the first quarter of 2025 was down 10% sequentially, and down 8% year-over-year.

North America revenue was $922 million, down 5% sequentially. International revenue was $2,577 million, down 11% sequentially, with declines across all regions.

Segment EBITDA for the first quarter of 2025 was $623 million, a decrease of $132 million, or 18% sequentially. The sequential decrease in EBITDA was primarily driven by lower volume, partially mitigated by productivity from structural cost-out initiatives.

Industrial & Energy Technology

(in millions)	Three Months Ended									Variance
Segment results	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024			Sequential		Year-over- year
Orders	$	3,178		$	3,756		$	2,918		(15	%)	9	%
Revenue	$	2,928		$	3,492		$	2,634		(16	%)	11	%
EBITDA	$	501		$	639		$	386		(22	%)	30	%
EBITDA margin		17.1	%		18.3	%		14.7	%	-1.2pts		2.4pts

(in millions)	Three Months Ended						Variance
Orders by Product Line	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
Gas Technology Equipment	$	1,335	$	1,865	$	1,230	(28	%)	9	%
Gas Technology Services		913		902		692	1	%	32	%
Total Gas Technology		2,248		2,767		1,922	(19	%)	17	%
Industrial Products		501		515		546	(3	%)	(8	%)
Industrial Solutions		281		320		257	(12	%)	10	%
Total Industrial Technology		782		835		803	(6	%)	(3	%)
Climate Technology Solutions		148		154		193	(4	%)	(23	%)
Total Orders	$	3,178	$	3,756	$	2,918	(15	%)	9	%

(in millions)	Three Months Ended						Variance
Revenue by Product Line	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
Gas Technology Equipment	$	1,456	$	1,663	$	1,210	(12	%)	20	%
Gas Technology Services		592		796		614	(26	%)	(4	%)
Total Gas Technology		2,047		2,459		1,824	(17	%)	12	%
Industrial Products		445		548		462	(19	%)	(4	%)
Industrial Solutions		258		282		265	(8	%)	(2	%)
Total Industrial Technology		703		830		727	(15	%)	(3	%)
Climate Technology Solutions		178		204		83	(13	%)	114	%
Total Revenue	$	2,928	$	3,492	$	2,634	(16	%)	11	%

EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortization of $53 million, $56 million, and $56 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively. EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

IET orders of $3,178 million for the first quarter of 2025 increased by $260 million, or 9% year-over-year. The increase was driven primarily by Gas Technology, up $326 million or 17% year-over-year.

IET revenue of $2,928 million for the first quarter of 2025 increased $294 million, or 11% year-over-year. The increase was driven by Gas Technology Equipment, up $246 million or 20% year-over-year, and Climate Technology Solutions, up $95 million or 114% year-over-year.

Segment EBITDA for the quarter was $501 million, an increase of $114 million, or 30% year-over-year. The year-over-year increase in segment EBITDA was driven by productivity, positive pricing and increased volume including higher proportionate growth in GTE, partially offset by cost inflation.

Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures

Management provides non-GAAP financial measures because it believes such measures are widely accepted financial indicators used by investors and analysts to analyze and compare companies on the basis of operating performance (including adjusted EBITDA; adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes; and adjusted diluted earnings per share) and liquidity (free cash flow) and that these measures may be used by investors to make informed investment decisions. Management believes that the exclusion of certain identified items from several key operating performance measures enables us to evaluate our operations more effectively, to identify underlying trends in the business, and to establish operational goals for certain management compensation purposes. Management also believes that free cash flow is an important supplemental measure of our cash performance but should not be considered as a measure of residual cash flow available for discretionary purposes, or as an alternative to cash flow from operating activities presented in accordance with GAAP.

Table 1a. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to Adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA

	Three Months Ended
(in millions)	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP)	$	402	$	1,179		$	455
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests		7		11			8
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		152		(398	)		178
Interest expense, net		51		54			41
Depreciation & amortization		285		291			283
Restructuring		—		258			—
Inventory impairment⁽¹⁾		—		73			—
Change in fair value of equity securities⁽²⁾		140		(196	)		(52	)
Other charges and credits⁽²⁾		—		38			30
Adjusted EBITDA (non-GAAP)		1,037		1,310			943
Corporate costs		85		84			88
Other income / (expense) not allocated to segments		1		—			—
Total Segment EBITDA (non-GAAP)	$	1,124	$	1,394		$	1,030
OFSE		623		755			644
IET		501		639			386

⁽¹⁾ Charges for inventory impairments are reported in “Cost of goods sold” in the condensed consolidated statements of income (loss).

⁽²⁾ Change in fair value of equity securities and other charges and credits are reported in “Other (income) expense, net” on the condensed consolidated statements of income (loss).

Table 1a reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA. Adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA exclude the impact of certain identified items.

Table 1b. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to Adjusted Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes

	Three Months Ended
(in millions, except per share amounts)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP)	$	402		$	1,179		$	455
Restructuring		—			258			—
Inventory impairment		—			73			—
Change in fair value of equity securities		140			(196	)		(52	)
Other adjustments		—			30			32
Tax adjustments⁽¹⁾		(32	)		(650	)		(6	)
Total adjustments, net of income tax		108			(485	)		(26	)
Less: adjustments attributable to noncontrolling interests		—			—			—
Adjustments attributable to Baker Hughes		108			(485	)		(26	)
Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes (non-GAAP)	$	509		$	694		$	429

Denominator:
Weighted-average shares of Class A common stock outstanding diluted		999			999			1,004
Adjusted earnings per share – diluted (non-GAAP)	$	0.51		$	0.70		$	0.43

⁽¹⁾All periods reflect the tax associated with the other (income) loss adjustments.

Table 1b reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes. Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes excludes the impact of certain identified items.

Table 1c. Reconciliation of Net Cash Flows From Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow

	Three Months Ended
(in millions)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net cash flows from operating activities (GAAP)	$	709		$	1,189		$	784
Add: cash used for capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets		(255	)		(295	)		(282	)
Free cash flow (non-GAAP)	$	454		$	894		$	502

Table 1c reconciles net cash flows from operating activities, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to free cash flow. Free cash flow is defined as net cash flows from operating activities less expenditures for capital assets plus proceeds from disposal of assets.


Financial Tables (GAAP)

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss)

(Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended March 31,
(In millions, except per share amounts)		2025			2024
Revenue	$	6,427		$	6,418
Costs and expenses:
Cost of revenue		4,952			4,976
Selling, general and administrative		577			618
Research and development costs		146			164
Other (income) expense, net		140			(22	)
Interest expense, net		51			41
Income before income taxes		561			641
Provision for income taxes		(152	)		(178	)
Net income		409			463
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests		7			8
Net income attributable to Baker Hughes Company	$	402		$	455

Per share amounts:
Basic income per Class A common stock	$	0.41		$	0.46
Diluted income per Class A common stock	$	0.40		$	0.45

Weighted average shares:
Class A basic		992			998
Class A diluted		999			1,004

Cash dividend per Class A common stock	$	0.23		$	0.21

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position

(Unaudited)

(In millions)	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	3,277	$	3,364
Current receivables, net		6,710		7,122
Inventories, net		5,161		4,954
All other current assets		1,693		1,771
Total current assets		16,841		17,211
Property, plant and equipment, less accumulated depreciation		5,168		5,127
Goodwill		6,126		6,078
Other intangible assets, net		3,927		3,951
Contract and other deferred assets		1,680		1,730
All other assets		4,368		4,266
Total assets	$	38,110	$	38,363
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	4,465	$	4,542
Short-term debt		55		53
Progress collections and deferred income		5,589		5,672
All other current liabilities		2,485		2,724
Total current liabilities		12,594		12,991
Long-term debt		5,969		5,970
Liabilities for pensions and other postretirement benefits		985		988
All other liabilities		1,356		1,359
Equity		17,206		17,055
Total liabilities and equity	$	38,110	$	38,363

Outstanding Baker Hughes Company shares:
Class A common stock		990		990

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)
	Three Months Ended March 31,
(In millions)		2025			2024
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income	$	409		$	463
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flows from operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		285			283
Stock-based compensation cost		50			51
Change in fair value of equity securities		140			(52	)
Benefit for deferred income taxes		(53	)		(24	)
Working capital		218			209
Other operating items, net		(340	)		(146	)
Net cash flows provided by operating activities		709			784
Cash flows from investing activities:
Expenditures for capital assets		(300	)		(333	)
Proceeds from disposal of assets		45			51
Other investing items, net		(55	)		13
Net cash flows used in investing activities		(310	)		(269	)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Dividends paid		(229	)		(210	)
Repurchase of Class A common stock		(188	)		(158	)
Other financing items, net		(85	)		(59	)
Net cash flows used in financing activities		(502	)		(427	)
Effect of currency exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents		16			(17	)
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		(87	)		71
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		3,364			2,646
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	3,277		$	2,717
Supplemental cash flows disclosures:
Income taxes paid, net of refunds	$	207		$	108
Interest paid	$	50		$	48

Supplemental Financial Information

Supplemental financial information can be found on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com in the Financial Information section under Quarterly Results.

Conference Call and Webcast

The Company has scheduled an investor conference call to discuss management’s outlook and the results reported in today’s earnings announcement. The call will begin at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time, 8:30 a.m. Central time on Wednesday, April 23, 2025, the content of which is not part of this earnings release. The conference call will be broadcast live via a webcast and can be accessed by visiting the Events and Presentations page on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com. An archived version of the webcast will be available on the website for one month following the webcast.

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release (and oral statements made regarding the subjects of this release) may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (each a “forward-looking statement”). Forward-looking statements concern future circumstances and results and other statements that are not historical facts and are sometimes identified by the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “potential,” “intend,” “expect,” “would,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “overestimate,” “underestimate,” “believe,” “could,” “project,” “predict,” “continue,” “target,” “goal” or other similar words or expressions. There are many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are also affected by the risk factors described in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2024 and those set forth from time to time in other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The documents are available through the Company’s website at: www.investors.bakerhughes.com or through the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering and Analysis Retrieval system at: www.sec.gov. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, except as required by law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements.

Our expectations regarding our business outlook and business plans; the business plans of our customers; oil and natural gas market conditions; cost and availability of resources; economic, legal and regulatory conditions, and other matters are only our forecasts regarding these matters.

These forward-looking statements, including forecasts, may be substantially different from actual results, which are affected by many risks, along with the following risk factors and the timing of any of these risk factors:

Economic and political conditions – the impact of worldwide economic conditions and rising inflation; the impact of tariffs and the potential for significant increases thereto; the impact of global trade policy and the potential for significant changes thereto; the effect that declines in credit availability may have on worldwide economic growth and demand for hydrocarbons; foreign currency exchange fluctuations and changes in the capital markets in locations where we operate; and the impact of government disruptions and sanctions.
Orders and RPO – our ability to execute on orders and RPO in accordance with agreed specifications, terms and conditions and convert those orders and RPO to revenue and cash.
Oil and gas market conditions – the level of petroleum industry exploration, development and production expenditures; the price of, volatility in pricing of, and the demand for crude oil and natural gas; drilling activity; drilling permits for and regulation of the shelf and the deepwater drilling; excess productive capacity; crude and product inventories; liquefied natural gas supply and demand; seasonal and other adverse weather conditions that affect the demand for energy; severe weather conditions, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, that affect exploration and production activities; Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) policy and the adherence by OPEC nations to their OPEC production quotas.
Terrorism and geopolitical risks – war, military action, terrorist activities or extended periods of international conflict, particularly involving any petroleum-producing or consuming regions, including Russia and Ukraine; and the recent conflict in the Middle East; labor disruptions, civil unrest or security conditions where we operate; potentially burdensome taxation, expropriation of assets by governmental action; cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents or attacks; epidemic outbreaks.

About Baker Hughes:

Baker Hughes (Nasdaq: BKR) is an energy technology company that provides solutions to energy and industrial customers worldwide. Built on a century of experience and conducting business in over 120 countries, our innovative technologies and services are taking energy forward – making it safer, cleaner and more efficient for people and the planet. Visit us at bakerhughes.com.

For more information, please contact:

Investor Relations

Chase Mulvehill
+1 346-297-2561
investor.relations@bakerhughes.com

Media Relations

Adrienne Lynch
+1 713-906-8407
adrienne.lynch@bakerhughes.com

The MIL Network –

April 23, 2025

MIL-OSI Security: BROUSSARD MAN PLEADS GUILTY IN MULTI-STATE VEHICLE THEFT, FIREARM TRAFFICKING, AND IDENTITY THEFT CONSPIRACY IN MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL OPERATION
Source: Office of United States Attorneys

Acting United States Attorney April M. Leon announced that Christopher Don Byerley, age 45, of Broussard, Louisiana, pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson to conspiracy to transport a stolen motor vehicle; altering, removing and obliterating a vehicle identification number; possession of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices; conspiracy to trafficking a firearm and receipt of a trafficked firearm; receipt of a trafficked firearm; and possession of an unregistered silencer.

According to admissions made as part of his guilty plea, between October 2021 and March 2022, Byerley and his co-conspirators, Robert Gregory Brazell, Adrienne Marie King, and Dennis Loyd Sizemore, carried out a coordinated and complex operation extending across Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, in which the group stole, and subsequently used or sold the stolen and altered vehicles, including tractors, excavators, forklifts, and a pickup truck, with a total value of over $250,000.

The scheme involved fraudulent documentation, a “chop shop” for equipment disassembly and tampering, a false business front such as “Hevyquip L.L.C.” to sell stolen equipment, altering Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs), and the use of surveillance evasion tools, such as GPS signal blockers, vehicle plate flippers, and fake driver’s licenses. To further conceal their activities, the conspirators utilized over 400 identities and access devices to evade detection.

During the investigation, it was determined that Byerley, a convicted felon, used a third party to illegally purchase a firearm, which was later fitted with the unregistered silencer.

In February 2022, an investigation of a shoplifting incident in the Juban Crossing Shopping Center led Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office detectives to uncover items from a stolen pickup truck being operated by Byerley:
- A functional, unregistered firearm silencer;
- A FN Model 509 9mm pistol and ammunition;
- Documentation detailing parts orders for silencers all in Byerley’s handwriting;
- Multiple text messages and photographs pointing to intent to traffic firearms and circumvent federal regulations; and
- Numerous documents, records, emails, text messages and photos that led law enforcement to uncover the conspiracy and far-reaching criminal enterprise.
Acting U.S. Attorney Leon stated, “These guilty pleas reflect the commitment of our office and federal law enforcement in partnership with our state and local law enforcement agencies to dismantle sophisticated criminal organizations and hold accountable those who pose a significant threat to public safety. We commend the prosecutors and investigators for their hard work and relentless pursuit of the members of this criminal enterprise and are appreciative of their efforts in solving these crimes—even with many attempts at evasion—and returned the stolen equipment to their rightful owners.”

“The Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office is committed to conducting thorough investigations and to working with our local and federal agencies. This investigation is a great example of detectives working a shoplifting incident and that turning into a major investigation across this state and others,” said Livingston Parish Sheriff Jason Ard.

“Homeland Security Investigations congratulates our law enforcement partners on this important outcome, which was supported by HSI Baton Rouge’s Louisiana Organized Retail Crime Task Force and its partner agencies. The investigations of these sophisticated crimes are most effectively accomplished through the coordination of multiple law enforcement agencies and across several jurisdictional boundaries, such as what occurred in this investigation. HSI remains committed to protecting the American consumer and safeguarding public safety by disrupting criminal networks that drive up prices and endanger our communities,” said Adam Parks, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Louisiana Division, Homeland Security Investigations.

“The ATF is working closely with local and state police agencies to address firearm trafficking by getting guns out of the hands of criminals, such as this individual,” said ATF New Orleans Special Agent in Charge Joshua Jackson. “This guilty plea sends a message to the community that illegal possession of firearms will be held accountable as we work to keep our neighborhoods safe as a top priority to ensure public safety for ATF.”

This matter was investigated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Baton Rouge and Lafayette Field Divisions), Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General, Louisiana State Police (Latent Print Section and the Bureau of Identification and Information), Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office, Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office, East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, Saint Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office, Saint Landry Parish Sheriff’s Office, Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office, Iberia Sheriff’s Department, and Lafayette Police Department.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lyman E. Thornton III from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana. To address the firearm trafficking charges, AUSA Thornton was appointed as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of Louisiana, where he worked in conjunction with Assistant United States Attorney John Nickel.

MIL Security OSI –
April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: U.S. Attorney’s Office Charges Multiple Defendants with Immigration-Related Violations

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (c)

CLEVELAND – The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) has announced that federal grand juries in the Northern District of Ohio have returned indictments for the following individuals on charges of immigration-related law violations. These are separate cases and are not related.

Ana Alvarez-Limonche, 20, a citizen of Venezuela, was indicted on two charges of fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents for having fraudulent permanent resident and Social Security cards. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).

Gildardo Alvarez-Rodriguez, 59, a citizen of Mexico, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Sept. 24, 2020. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP.

Franklin Calix-Romero, 34, a citizen of Honduras, has been charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person for possessing a Ruger 9mm semiautomatic pistol and 9mm ammunition. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by a joint FBI/State/Local Task Force.

Jose Cruz-Aguilar, 41, a citizen of Mexico, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Feb. 27, 2017. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by a joint FBI/State/Local Task Force.

Carlos Garcia-Garcia, 45, a citizen of Mexico, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Feb. 19, 2005. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP.

Jhofran Andres Laya-Gutierrez, 28, a citizen of Venezuela, has been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer; destruction, alteration, or falsification or records; fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents; and misrepresentation of a Social Security number. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP and the FBI Toledo Field Office.

Jeyson Martinez, aka, Jayson Martinez-Juarez, 32, a citizen of Honduras, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being Nov. 23, 2018. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by CBP.

Jose Maximiliano Zepeda-Gutierrez, 45, a citizen of Guatemala, has been charged with illegal reentry. He was previously removed from the United States on at least one occasion with the last being July 10, 2019. The defendant was previously convicted in 2018 for conspiracy to transport an undocumented alien. The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by the FBI Toledo Field Office.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. Each defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after a review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal records, if any, the defendant’s role in the offense and the characteristics of the violation. In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum and in most cases, it will be less than the maximum.

A team of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the USAO’s criminal division are prosecuting these cases.

These cases are 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 communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025

MIL-OSI: Weatherford Announces First Quarter 2025 Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

First quarter revenue of $1,193 million decreased 12% year-over-year
First quarter operating income of $142 million decreased 39% year-over-year
First quarter net income of $76 million, a 6.4% margin, decreased 32% year-over-year
First quarter adjusted EBITDA* of $253 million, a 21.2% margin, decreased 25%, or 354 basis points, year-over-year
First quarter cash provided by operating activities of $142 million and adjusted free cash flow* of $66 million
Repurchased $34 million of 8.625% Senior Notes due 2030 in the first quarter of 2025
Shareholder return of $71 million for the quarter, which included dividend payments of $18 million and share repurchases of $53 million
Board approved quarterly cash dividend of $0.25 per share, payable on June 5, 2025, to shareholders of record as of May 6, 2025
As part of its portfolio optimization strategy, Weatherford completed the sale of its Pressure Pumping business in Argentina on April 1, 2025
Signed a strategic agreement with Abu Dhabi-based AIQ to bring transformative efficiency to energy production, leveraging advanced automation, data-driven insights, and the power of AI technology

_{*Non-GAAP – refer to the section titled Non-GAAP Financial Measures Defined and GAAP to Non-GAAP Financial Measures Reconciled}

HOUSTON, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Weatherford International plc (NASDAQ: WFRD) (“Weatherford” or the “Company”) announced today its results for the first quarter of 2025.

Revenues for the first quarter of 2025 were $1,193 million, a decrease of 12% year-over-year and 11% sequentially. Operating income was $142 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $233 million in the first quarter of 2024 and $198 million in the fourth quarter of 2024. Net income in the first quarter of 2025 was $76 million, with a 6.4% margin, a decrease of 32%, or 188 basis points year-over-year and 32%, or 198 basis points, sequentially. Adjusted EBITDA* was $253 million, a 21.2% margin, a decrease of 25%, or 354 basis points, year-over-year and 22%, or 310 basis points, sequentially. Basic income per share in the first quarter of 2025 was $1.04, compared to $1.54 in the first quarter of 2024 and $1.54 in the fourth quarter of 2024. Diluted income per share in the first quarter of 2025 was $1.03, compared to $1.50 in the first quarter of 2024, and $1.50 in the fourth quarter of 2024.

First quarter 2025 cash flows provided by operating activities were $142 million, compared to $131 million in the first quarter of 2024, and $249 million in the fourth quarter of 2024. Adjusted free cash flow* was $66 million, a decrease of $16 million year-over-year and $96 million sequentially. Capital expenditures were $77 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $59 million in the first quarter of 2024, and $100 million in the fourth quarter of 2024.

Girish Saligram, President and Chief Executive Officer, commented, “The first quarter was marked by significant market softening across key geographies, especially Mexico, the United Kingdom and North America. This created headwinds for activity levels but the One Weatherford team continued to focus on the controllable elements of the business, driving execution to deliver results inline with expectations.

Over the past few weeks, the market conditions have skewed more negatively, as we continue to navigate uncertainty on customer activity levels stemming from macroeconomic factors, global trade and geopolitical tensions. However, our actions remain focused on our North Star of driving adjusted free cash flow and we are further accelerating efficiency and optimization programs to ensure that we are well positioned for any scenario that might unfold in the latter part of the year. We believe it to be prudent to scale back our expectations on activity levels through the rest of the year and are focused on minimizing decrementals and improving working capital efficiencies. Nonetheless, even at a significantly reduced level of customer activity, we remain confident in increasing our adjusted free cash flow conversion for the full year 2025, allowing progress on our capital allocation priorities.

The sale of our Pressure Pumping business in Argentina marks another key milestone in our portfolio optimization strategy to a more capital-efficient model and further builds liquidity to position us well for the upcoming period.”

_{*Non-GAAP – refer to the section titled Non-GAAP Financial Measures Defined and GAAP to Non-GAAP Financial Measures Reconciled}

Operational & Commercial Highlights

An International Oil Company (IOC) awarded Weatherford an eight-year contract extension to provide a comprehensive suite of services, including Intervention Services & Drilling Tools, Pipe Inspection, Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD), Tubular Running Services (TRS), Well Services, and Pipe Recovery in Kazakhstan.
PDO Oman awarded Weatherford a five-year Integrated Completions contract consisting of Completions, Liner Hangers and Cementation Products.
ADNOC Onshore awarded Weatherford a three-year contract for Well Services Production enhancement systems in the United Arab Emirates.
Eni Oman awarded Weatherford an open contract for onshore MPD services.
Petrobras awarded Weatherford a five-year contract for Liner Hangers systems and services in deepwater Brazil and amended its TRS contract, adding two Vero Mechanized Systems.
Sierracol Energy Andina LLC awarded Weatherford a six-month contract for Artificial Lift Systems in Colombia.
GeoPark Colombia S.A.S. awarded Weatherford a three-year contract for Wireline Open & Cased Hole Services.
Jadestone Energy (Malaysia) PTE LTD awarded Weatherford a contract for the Autonomous Inflow Control Device Screens and associated lower Completions equipment and services for the PM323 East Belumut Phase 9 Infill Drilling campaign.
Dragon Oil awarded Weatherford a three-year contract for Completions Equipment and Services in offshore Turkmenistan.
An IOC awarded Weatherford a one-year contract for Artificial Lift Equipment and Centro^® Well Construction Optimization Platform in Argentina.
An IOC in Turkey awarded Weatherford a five-year contract for Open Hole Wireline Tools.
An IOC awarded Weatherford a three-year contract for Artificial Lift Equipment in Australia.
A major integrated energy company awarded Weatherford a three-year, multi-rig contract for Vero^® Mechanized Systems in deepwater Gulf of America.
A National Oil Company (NOC) awarded Weatherford a two-year contract for Stage Tool Cementing Equipment in the Middle East.
An IOC awarded Weatherford a one-year contract for the SCADA Digital Platform in offshore United Arab Emirates.

Technology Highlights

Drilling & Evaluation (“DRE”)
- In the UK, Weatherford successfully delivered Logging While Drilling and Formation Pressure Services for Shell on a high-pressure, high temperature well. The well was drilled at 175°c and reached a total depth of 21,000 feet.
- In the Middle East, Weatherford successfully deployed GuideWave^® CLEAR in three wells for an NOC, enabling improved formation evaluation and more precise geo-steering.
Well Construction and Completions (“WCC”)
- In deepwater Brazil, Weatherford successfully installed the first OptiROSS^® RFID Multi-Cycle Sliding Sleeve Valve for Petrobras. This system enhances acid stimulation efficiency, improving production and boosting the reservoir’s oil recovery factor.
- In North America, Weatherford successfully completed 17 field trials of its SecureTrac™ technology with one of the largest multinational oil and gas companies. The tool’s more compact design enables a shorter shoe track, maximizing reservoir exposure and enhancing production potential.
- In the Middle East, Weatherford successfully deployed the first WidePak™ straddle solution for Gupco in Egypt. The well had been shut for 15 years due to a sustained tubing leak. Following Weatherford’s intervention, the well is now back online and delivering significant production.
Production and Intervention (“PRI”)
- In North America, Weatherford successfully deployed the ForeSite^® Regenerative Power for KODA, following a two-month pilot. The deployment delivered significant power savings, demonstrating the technology’s efficiency and value in the field.
- In North America, Weatherford deployed the ForeSite^® Power Regenerative variable-speed drive across key customers, following multiple successful pilots. The implementation delivered significant power savings and reduced carbon emissions. Due to its unique ability to recycle, store, and optimize power, this innovative solution helps control operating expenses for customers.

Shareholder Return

During the first quarter of 2025, Weatherford paid dividends of $18 million and repurchased shares for approximately $53 million, resulting in a total shareholder return of $71 million.

On April 17, 2025, our Board declared a cash dividend of $0.25 per share of the Company’s ordinary shares, payable on June 5, 2025, to shareholders of record as of May 6, 2025.

Results by Reportable Segment

Drilling and Evaluation (“DRE”)

	Three Months Ended									Variance
($ in Millions)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024			Seq.		YoY
Revenue	$	350		$	398		$	422		(12	)%	(17	)%
Segment Adjusted EBITDA	$	74		$	96		$	130		(23	)%	(43	)%
Segment Adj EBITDA Margin		21.1	%		24.1	%		30.8	%	(298	)bps	(966	)bps

First quarter 2025 DRE revenue of $350 million decreased by $72 million, or 17% year-over-year, primarily from lower Drilling-related services activity in Latin America, Europe/Sub-Sahara Africa/Russia and North America, partly offset by higher Drilling Services activity in Middle East/North Africa/Asia. Sequentially, DRE revenue decreased by $48 million, or 12%, primarily from lower international activity, especially in Latin America, partly offset by higher Wireline activity in North America.

First quarter 2025 DRE segment adjusted EBITDA of $74 million decreased by $56 million, or 43% year-over-year, primarily from lower activity, partly offset by higher Drilling Services activity in Middle East/North Africa/Asia. Sequentially, DRE segment adjusted EBITDA decreased by $22 million, or 23%, primarily from lower international activity, especially in Latin America, partly offset by higher Wireline activity in North America.

Well Construction and Completions (“WCC”)

	Three Months Ended									Variance
($ in Millions)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024			Seq.		YoY
Revenue	$	441		$	505		$	458		(13	)%	(4	)%
Segment Adjusted EBITDA	$	128		$	148		$	120		(14	)%	7	%
Segment Adj EBITDA Margin		29.0	%		29.3	%		26.2	%	(28)	bps	282	bps

First quarter 2025 WCC revenue of $441 million decreased by $17 million, or 4% year-over-year, primarily from lower activity in North America, Latin America and Europe/Sub-Sahara Africa/Russia, partly offset by higher activity in Middle East/North Africa/Asia. Sequentially, WCC revenues decreased by $64 million, or 13%, primarily from lower activity across all geographies.

First quarter 2025 WCC segment adjusted EBITDA of $128 million increased by $8 million, or 7% year-over-year, primarily from higher activity and fall through in Middle East/North Africa/Asia, partly offset by lower activity in North America, Latin America and Europe/Sub-Sahara Africa/Russia. Sequentially, WCC segment adjusted EBITDA decreased by $20 million, or 14%, primarily from lower activity across all geographies.

Production and Intervention (“PRI”)

	Three Months Ended									Variance
($ in Millions)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024			Seq.		YoY
Revenue	$	334		$	364		$	348		(8	)%	(4	)%
Segment Adjusted EBITDA	$	62		$	78		$	73		(21	)%	(15	)%
Segment Adj EBITDA Margin		18.6	%		21.4	%		21.0	%	(287	)bps	(241	)bps

First quarter 2025 PRI revenue of $334 million decreased by $14 million, or 4% year-over-year, as lower international activity was partly offset by higher activity in North America. Sequentially, PRI revenue decreased by $30 million, or 8%, primarily from lower Artificial Lift activity.

First quarter 2025 PRI segment adjusted EBITDA of $62 million decreased by $11 million, or 15% year-over-year, primarily from lower international activity, partly offset by higher fall through in North America. Sequentially, PRI segment adjusted EBITDA decreased by $16 million, or 21%, primarily from lower Artificial Lift activity, partly offset by higher fall through from Digital Solutions in North America.

Revenue by Geography

	Three Months Ended						Variance
*($ in Millions)*	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Seq.		YoY
North America	$	250	$	261	$	267	(4	)%	(6)	%

International	$	943	$	1,080	$	1,091	(13	)%	(14	)%
Latin America		241		312		370	(23	)%	(35	)%
Middle East/North Africa/Asia		503		542		497	(7	)%	1	%
Europe/Sub-Sahara Africa/Russia		199		226		224	(12	)%	(11	)%
Total Revenue	$	1,193	$	1,341	$	1,358	(11	)%	(12	)%

North America

First quarter 2025 North America revenue of $250 million decreased by $17 million, or 6% year-over-year, primarily from lower activity in DRE and WCC segments, partly offset by higher activity in PRI segment led by Pressure Pumping and Digital Solutions. Sequentially, North America decreased by $11 million, or 4%, primarily from lower US land and US offshore activity, partly offset by higher Wireline activity.

International

First quarter 2025 international revenue of $943 million decreased 14% year-over-year and decreased 13% sequentially.

First quarter 2025 Latin America revenue of $241 million decreased by $129 million, or 35% year-over-year, primarily from lower activity in Mexico, partly offset by MPD and Pressure Pumping activity. Sequentially, Latin America revenue decreased by $71 million, or 23%, primarily from lower activity in Mexico, partly offset by higher MPD and Completions activity.

First quarter 2025 Middle East/North Africa/Asia revenue of $503 million increased by $6 million, or 1% year-over-year, as higher activity from Completions and Drilling Services were partly offset by lower MPD and Integrated Services & Projects activity. Sequentially, the Middle East/North Africa/Asia revenue decreased by $39 million, or 7%, primarily from lower activity in all the segments, partly offset by higher Integrated Services & Projects and MPD activity.

First quarter 2025 Europe/Sub-Sahara Africa/Russia revenue of $199 million decreased by $25 million, or 11% year-over-year, primarily from lower activity across all the segments, partly offset by higher Well Services and MPD activity. Sequentially, Europe/Sub-Sahara Africa/Russia revenue decreased by $27 million, or 12%, primarily from lower activity across all the segments, partly offset by higher activity in Drilling Services.

About Weatherford
Weatherford delivers innovative energy services that integrate proven technologies with advanced digitalization to create sustainable offerings for maximized value and return on investment. Our world-class experts partner with customers to optimize their resources and realize the full potential of their assets. Operators choose us for strategic solutions that add efficiency, flexibility, and responsibility to any energy operation. The Company conducts business in approximately 75 countries and has approximately 18,000 team members representing more than 110 nationalities and 320 operating locations. Visit weatherford.com for more information and connect with us on social media.

Conference Call Details

Weatherford will host a conference call on Wednesday, April 23, 2025, to discuss the Company’s results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2025. The conference call will begin at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time (7:30 a.m. Central Time).

Listeners are encouraged to download the accompanying presentation slides which will be available in the investor relations section of the Company’s website.

Listeners can participate in the conference call via a live webcast at https://www.weatherford.com/investor-relations/investor-news-and-events/events/ or by dialing +1 877-328-5344 (within the U.S.) or +1 412-902-6762 (outside of the U.S.) and asking for the Weatherford conference call. Participants should log in or dial in approximately 10 minutes prior to the start of the call.

A telephonic replay of the conference call will be available until May 7, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. To access the replay, please dial +1 877-344-7529 (within the U.S.) or +1 412-317-0088 (outside of the U.S.) and reference conference number 6907941. A replay and transcript of the earnings call will also be available in the investor relations section of the Company’s website.

Contacts
For Investors:
Luke Lemoine
Senior Vice President, Corporate Development & Investor Relations
+1 713-836-7777
investor.relations@weatherford.com

For Media:
Kelley Hughes
Senior Director, Communications & Employee Engagement
media@weatherford.com

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release contains projections and forward-looking statements concerning, among other things, the Company’s quarterly adjusted EBITDA*, adjusted EBITDA margin*, adjusted free cash flow*, net leverage*, shareholder return program, forecasts or expectations regarding business outlook, prospects for its operations, capital expenditures, expectations regarding future financial results, and are also generally identified by the words “believe,” “project,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “outlook,” “budget,” “intend,” “strategy,” “plan,” “guidance,” “may,” “should,” “could,” “will,” “would,” “will be,” “will continue,” “will likely result,” and similar expressions, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Such statements are based upon the current beliefs of Weatherford’s management and are subject to significant risks, assumptions, and uncertainties. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those indicated in our forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are only estimates and may differ materially from actual future events or results, based on factors including but not limited to: global political, economic and market conditions, political disturbances, war or other global conflicts, terrorist attacks, changes in global trade policies, tariffs and sanctions, weak local economic conditions and international currency fluctuations; general global economic repercussions related to U.S. and global inflationary pressures and potential recessionary concerns; various effects from conflicts in the Middle East and the Russia Ukraine conflicts, including, but not limited to, nationalization of assets, extended business interruptions, sanctions, treaties and regulations (including changes in the regulatory environment) imposed by various countries, associated operational and logistical challenges, and impacts to the overall global energy supply; cybersecurity issues; our ability to comply with, and respond to, climate change, environmental, social and governance and other sustainability initiatives and future legislative and regulatory measures both globally and in specific geographic regions; the potential for a resurgence of a pandemic in a given geographic area and related disruptions to our business, employees, customers, suppliers and other partners; the price and price volatility of, and demand for, oil and natural gas; the macroeconomic outlook for the oil and gas industry; our ability to generate cash flow from operations to fund our operations; our ability to effectively and timely adapt our technology portfolio, products and services to remain competitive, and to address and participate in changes to the market demands, including for the transition to alternate sources of energy such as geothermal, carbon capture and responsible abandonment, including our digitalization efforts; our ability to effectively execute our capital allocation framework; our ability to return capital to shareholders, including those related to the timing and amounts (including any plans or commitments in respect thereof) of any dividends and share repurchases; and the realization of additional cost savings and operational efficiencies.

These risks and uncertainties are more fully described in Weatherford’s reports and registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the risk factors described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Accordingly, you should not place undue reliance on any of the Company’s forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and the Company undertakes no obligation to correct or update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law, and we caution you not to rely on them unduly.

_{*Non-GAAP – refer to the section titled Non-GAAP Financial Measures Defined and GAAP to Non-GAAP Financial Measures Reconciled}

Weatherford International plc
Selected Statements of Operations (Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
*($ in Millions, Except Per Share Amounts)*	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Revenues:
DRE Revenues	$	350		$	398		$	422
WCC Revenues		441			505			458
PRI Revenues		334			364			348
All Other		68			74			130
Total Revenues		1,193			1,341			1,358

Operating Income:
DRE Segment Adjusted EBITDA^[1]	$	74		$	96		$	130
WCC Segment Adjusted EBITDA^[1]		128			148			120
PRI Segment Adjusted EBITDA^[1]		62			78			73
All Other^[2]		4			11			27
Corporate^[2]		(15	)		(7	)		(14	)
Depreciation and Amortization		(62	)		(83	)		(85	)
Share-based Compensation		(7	)		(10	)		(13	)
Restructuring Charges		(29	)		(34	)		(3	)
Other Charges, Net		(13	)		(1	)		(2	)
Operating Income		142			198			233

Other Expense:
Interest Expense, Net of Interest Income of $11, $12, and $14		(26	)		(25	)		(29	)
Other Expense, Net		(20	)		(4	)		(22	)
Income Before Income Taxes		96			169			182
Income Tax Provision		(10	)		(45	)		(59	)
Net Income		86			124			123
Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests		10			12			11
Net Income Attributable to Weatherford	$	76		$	112		$	112

Basic Income Per Share	$	1.04		$	1.54		$	1.54
Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding		73.1			72.6			72.9

Diluted Income Per Share	$	1.03		$	1.50		$	1.50
Diluted Weighted Average Shares Outstanding		73.4			74.5			74.7

^[1]	^{Segment adjusted EBITDA is our primary measure of segment profitability under U.S. GAAP ASC 280 “Segment Reporting” and represents segment earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, share-based compensation, restructuring charges and other adjustments. Research and development expenses are included in segment adjusted EBITDA.}
^[2]	^{All Other includes results from non-core business activities (including integrated services and projects), and Corporate includes overhead support and centrally managed or shared facilities costs. All Other and Corporate do not individually meet the criteria for segment reporting.}

Weatherford International plc
Selected Balance Sheet Data (Unaudited)

*($ in Millions)*	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024
Assets:
Cash and Cash Equivalents	$	873	$	916
Restricted Cash		57		59
Accounts Receivable, Net		1,175		1,261
Inventories, Net		889		880
Property, Plant and Equipment, Net		1,103		1,061
Intangibles, Net		315		325

Liabilities:
Accounts Payable		714		792
Accrued Salaries and Benefits		249		302
Current Portion of Long-term Debt		22		17
Long-term Debt		1,583		1,617

Shareholders’ Equity:
Total Shareholders’ Equity		1,360		1,283

Weatherford International plc
Selected Cash Flows Information (Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
*($ in Millions)*	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:
Net Income	$	86		$	124		$	123
Adjustments to Reconcile Net Income to Net Cash Provided By Operating Activities:
Depreciation and Amortization		62			83			85
Foreign Exchange Losses (Gain)		13			(2	)		15
Gain on Disposition of Assets		(1	)		(2	)		(7	)
Deferred Income Tax Provision		7			—			14
Share-Based Compensation		7			10			13
Changes in Accounts Receivable, Inventory, Accounts Payable and Accrued Salaries and Benefits		(17	)		24			(152	)
Other Changes, Net		(15	)		12			40
Net Cash Provided By Operating Activities		142			249			131

Cash Flows From Investing Activities:
Capital Expenditures for Property, Plant and Equipment		(77	)		(100	)		(59	)
Proceeds from Disposition of Assets		1			13			10
Business Acquisitions, Net of Cash Acquired		—			—			(36	)
Proceeds from Sale of Investments		—			—			41
Other Investing Activities		(3	)		1			(10	)
Net Cash Used In Investing Activities		(79	)		(86	)		(54	)

Cash Flows From Financing Activities:
Repayments of Long-term Debt		(39	)		(23	)		(172	)
Distributions to Noncontrolling Interests		—			(20	)		—
Tax Remittance on Equity Awards		(20	)		(22	)		(8	)
Share Repurchases		(53	)		(49	)		—
Dividends Paid		(18	)		(18	)		—
Other Financing Activities		(3	)		(1	)		(7	)
Net Cash Used In Financing Activities	$	(133	)	$	(133	)	$	(187	)

Weatherford International plc

Non-GAAP Financial Measures Defined (Unaudited)

We report our financial results in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). However, Weatherford’s management believes that certain non-GAAP financial measures (as defined under the SEC’s Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K) may provide users of this financial information additional meaningful comparisons between current results and results of prior periods and comparisons with peer companies. The non-GAAP amounts shown in the following tables should not be considered as substitutes for results reported in accordance with GAAP but should be viewed in addition to the Company’s reported results prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Adjusted EBITDA* – Adjusted EBITDA* is a non-GAAP measure and represents consolidated income before interest expense, net, income taxes, depreciation and amortization expense, and excludes, among other items, restructuring charges, share-based compensation expense, as well as other charges and credits. Management believes adjusted EBITDA* is useful to assess and understand normalized operating performance and trends. Adjusted EBITDA* should be considered in addition to, but not as a substitute for consolidated net income and should be viewed in addition to the Company’s reported results prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Adjusted EBITDA margin* – Adjusted EBITDA margin* is a non-GAAP measure which is calculated by dividing consolidated adjusted EBITDA* by consolidated revenues. Management believes adjusted EBITDA margin* is useful to assess and understand normalized operating performance and trends. Adjusted EBITDA margin* should be considered in addition to, but not as a substitute for consolidated net income margin and should be viewed in addition to the Company’s reported results prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Adjusted Free Cash Flow* – Adjusted Free Cash Flow* is a non-GAAP measure and represents cash flows provided by (used in) operating activities, less capital expenditures plus proceeds from the disposition of assets. Management believes adjusted free cash flow* is useful to understand our performance at generating cash and demonstrates our discipline around the use of cash. Adjusted free cash flow* should be considered in addition to, but not as a substitute for cash flows provided by operating activities and should be viewed in addition to the Company’s reported results prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Net Debt* – Net Debt* is a non-GAAP measure that is calculated taking short and long-term debt less cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash. Management believes the net debt* is useful to assess the level of debt in excess of cash and cash and equivalents as we monitor our ability to repay and service our debt. Net debt* should be considered in addition to, but not as a substitute for overall debt and total cash and should be viewed in addition to the Company’s results prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Net Leverage* – Net Leverage* is a non-GAAP measure which is calculated by dividing by taking net debt* divided by adjusted EBITDA* for the trailing 12 months. Management believes the net leverage* is useful to understand our ability to repay and service our debt. Net leverage* should be considered in addition to, but not as a substitute for the individual components of above defined net debt* divided by consolidated net income attributable to Weatherford and should be viewed in addition to the Company’s reported results prepared in accordance with GAAP.

_{*Non-GAAP – as defined above and reconciled to the GAAP measures in the section titled GAAP to Non-GAAP Financial Measures Reconciled}

Weatherford International plc
GAAP to Non-GAAP Financial Measures Reconciled (Unaudited)


	Three Months Ended
*($ in Millions, Except Margin in Percentages)*	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Revenues	$	1,193		$	1,341		$	1,358
Net Income Attributable to Weatherford	$	76		$	112		$	112
Net Income Margin		6.4	%		8.4	%		8.2	%
Adjusted EBITDA*	$	253		$	326		$	336
Adjusted EBITDA Margin*		21.2	%		24.3	%		24.7	%

Net Income Attributable to Weatherford	$	76		$	112		$	112
Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests		10			12			11
Income Tax Provision		10			45			59
Interest Expense, Net of Interest Income of $11, $12, and $14		26			25			29
Other Expense, Net		20			4			22
Operating Income		142			198			233
Depreciation and Amortization		62			83			85
Other Charges, Net^[1]		13			1			2
Restructuring Charges		29			34			3
Share-Based Compensation		7			10			13
Adjusted EBITDA*	$	253		$	326		$	336

Net Cash Provided By Operating Activities	$	142		$	249		$	131
Capital Expenditures for Property, Plant and Equipment		(77	)		(100	)		(59	)
Proceeds from Disposition of Assets		1			13			10
Adjusted Free Cash Flow*	$	66		$	162		$	82

^[1]	^{Other Charges, Net in the three months ended March 31, 2025 primarily includes fees to third-party financial institutions related to collections of certain receivables from our largest customer in Mexico.}

_{*Non-GAAP – as reconciled to the GAAP measures above and defined in the section titled Non-GAAP Financial Measures Defined}

Weatherford International plc
GAAP to Non-GAAP Financial Measures Reconciled Continued (Unaudited)



*($ in Millions)*	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Current Portion of Long-term Debt	$	22		$	17		$	101
Long-term Debt		1,583			1,617			1,629
Total Debt	$	1,605		$	1,634		$	1,730

Cash and Cash Equivalents	$	873		$	916		$	824
Restricted Cash		57			59			113
Total Cash	$	930		$	975		$	937

Components of Net Debt
Current Portion of Long-term Debt	$	22		$	17		$	101
Long-term Debt		1,583			1,617			1,629
Less: Cash and Cash Equivalents		873			916			824
Less: Restricted Cash		57			59			113
Net Debt*	$	675		$	659		$	793

Net Income for trailing 12 months	$	470		$	506		$	457
*Adjusted EBITDA for trailing 12 months**	$	1,299		$	1,382		$	1,253

*Net Leverage (Net Debt/Adjusted EBITDA)**		0.52	x		0.48	x		0.63	x

_{*Non-GAAP – as reconciled to the GAAP measures above and defined in the section titled Non-GAAP Financial Measures Defined}

The MIL Network –

April 23, 2025

MIL-Evening Report: 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 buyout based on national security grounds.

But neither party has placed a dollar amount on a potential buyout, preferring to seek out private investors first. Any enforced acquisition would need to provide fair market value compensation to Landbridge.

The previous Northern Territory government leased the port to Landbridge for 99 years in 2015. The A$506 million contract was supported by the then Turnbull government.

Finding a buyer

This could put Australian taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. Private investors might baulk at taking on a port lease that has consistently lost money for many years.

It is not clear why the national security situation has changed. The latest government inquiry found there were no security risks requiring Landbridge to divest their lease.

The more pressing risk threatening the port is a financial one.

Troubled times

If Landbridge Group, which holds the lease through its Australian subsidiary, declares insolvency, it will no longer be able to sustain the port’s operations. And the terminal could not support itself.

Several hundred employees would lose their jobs, and serious disruptions to trade and cruise ship tourism would follow.

The closure of the port would cause significant disruptions.
Claudine Van Massenhove/Shutterstock

The Australian media reported last November that the Port of Darwin racked up losses of $34 million in the 2023–24 financial year. Yet this figure is overshadowed by the financial liabilities Landbridge has in China.

Where the problems started

The problems started with Landbridge Group’s ambitious expansion between 2014 and 2017.

In that time it shelled out almost $5 billion on international and Chinese assets. Purchases included Australian gas producer WestSide Corporation Ltd, ($180 million in 2014); the Port of Darwin lease ($506 million in 2015); and another port in Panama ($1.2 billion in 2016). Landbridge reportedly planned to plough a further $1.5 billion into that port.

In China, the Landbridge Group also signed a partnership deal with Beijing Gas Co in 2019 to construct a huge liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at its main port site in Rizhao City, Shandong Province. The planned co-investment was worth $1.4 billion.

Rushing to invest

This was a heady time for Chinese private firms to invest overseas. Their often charismatic founders took advantage of the central government’s devolution of approval powers to the provinces and dressed up their pet investment projects as Belt and Road initiatives.

Much of this breakneck expansion was funded by high-interest bonds issued on the Chinese commercial interbank debt markets or so-called shadow banking.

Most private Chinese firms did not have easy access to the generous bank loans available to state-owned enterprises.

Landbridge, a private firm controlled by Shandong entrepreneur Ye Cheng and his sister Ye Fang, was no exception. They borrowed heavily to fund their acquisitions.

Mounting debt

Unfortunately, Landbridge’s income from its Chinese and international operations has not kept pace with its debt obligations. As early as 2017, the group was already struggling to pay debts.

Landbridge has been struggling to pay down debt.
lovemydesigns/Shutterstock

By 2021, Landbridge had been sued by at least 14 major financial or trade creditors. Outstanding judgment debts were issued by the Shanghai People’s Court amounting to about $600 million.

Since then, all of the group’s main assets have been frozen in lieu of payment. Unpaid debts and interest amounting to more than $1 billion have been passed on to state asset management companies to collect or sell off at knockdown prices, an indication the group is effectively insolvent.

Time to restructure

In early 2025, a restructuring committee was formed by the local government in Rizhao City, where Landbridge is headquartered. Its job is to find a way to keep the company’s Rizhao Port operating and avoid losing thousands of local jobs.

As recently as 2021, Ye Cheng was still ranked among the top 300 richest entrepreneurs in China, with an estimated net worth of more than $3 billion.

He is currently on the hook for his company’s debts after mortgaging all his business assets and giving personal guarantees to major creditors. He has also been fined by China’s corporate regulator for failing to lodge any annual financial reports for Landbridge Group since 2021.

Landbridge’s plans to develop its Panama port were cut short and its lease there was terminated in 2021 due to financial shortfalls.

Ye’s next move?

Ye Cheng may be unwilling to sell off his remaining overseas assets as this would be an admission of defeat. Yet an enforced buyout of the Darwin Port lease arranged by Australia may provide his businesses with a temporary financial lifeline in China.

It would also absolve Landbridge of its previously announced commitments to invest about $35 million in expanding Darwin Port’s infrastructure.

Far from causing trade frictions between Australia and China, such an enforced buyout – or more accurately, a bail-out – should be privately welcomed by both Landbridge and the Chinese government.

Colin Hawes is a research associate at the Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney.

– ref. Port of Darwin’s struggling Chinese leaseholder may welcome an Australian buy-out – https://theconversation.com/port-of-darwins-struggling-chinese-leaseholder-may-welcome-an-australian-buy-out-254716

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Baldwin Demands Trump Administration Reverse Abrupt Cancellation of Funding for Rural School Districts

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) called on the Trump Administration to reverse its decision to terminate funding promised to Wisconsin school districts for their projects to keep communities safe. Specifically, Baldwin called for already-allocated resources from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which was established during the first Trump Administration, to be sent to Wisconsin school districts. The BRIC program helps keep communities safe and properly prepare for extreme weather by funding projects such as tornado-safe rooms in rural schools.
“This loss of promised funding poses a harmful setback for disaster mitigation in rural communities and wastes millions of dollars that communities have spent on local planning, engineering, and community outreach. I urge you to reverse FEMA’s decision to end the BRIC program and provide the funding that was promised to Wisconsin school districts to complete crucial mitigation projects that will keep our communities safe,” wrote Senator Baldwin in a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.
On April 4th, 2025, FEMA announced that it would end the BRIC program and canceled all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020 to 2023. This decision affects numerous Wisconsin school districts and surrounding communities where there are shovel ready projects, including Cuba City, Potosi, Phillips, Birchwood, Alma Center-Humbird-Merrillan, Melrose-Mindoro, Norwalk-Ontario-Wilton, and others, who were relying on this funding for projects entirely focused on disaster safety.
Full text of the letter is available here and below:
Dear Secretary Noem,
I write to urge you to reverse the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) decision to end the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. This misguided action will put people’s lives at risk, including Wisconsinites in rural areas who recently learned that the funding school districts were promised for their community-driven projects would be terminated.
Established during the first Trump Administration, the BRIC program supports states, local governments and Tribal Nations reduce their hazard risk through mitigation projects. Funding for this vital program helps communities properly prepare for extreme weather events and saves money for disaster recovery efforts when these events occur.
On April 4, 2025, FEMA announced that it would end the BRIC program and cancel all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020 to 2023. This decision affects numerous Wisconsin school districts and surrounding communities where there are shovel ready projects, including Cuba City, Potosi, Phillips, Birchwood, Alma Center-Humbird-Merrillan, Melrose-Mindoro, Norwalk-Ontario-Wilton and others. Despite the Administration’s claims that the BRIC program is “more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters,” this accusation could not be further from the truth when it comes to Wisconsin projects. These community-driven projects are entirely focused on disaster safety, many involving tornado safe rooms in rural schools.
This loss of promised funding poses a harmful setback for disaster mitigation in rural communities and wastes millions of dollars that communities have spent on local planning, engineering, and community outreach. I urge you to reverse FEMA’s decision to end the BRIC program and provide the funding that was promised to Wisconsin school districts to complete crucial mitigation projects that will keep our communities safe.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: SPC MD 516

Source: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

MD 0516 CONCERNING SEVERE POTENTIAL…WATCH LIKELY FOR SOUTHWESTERN TEXAS

Mesoscale Discussion 0516
NWS Storm Prediction Center Norman OK
0217 PM CDT Tue Apr 22 2025

Areas affected…southwestern Texas

Concerning…Severe potential…Watch likely

Valid 221917Z – 222115Z

Probability of Watch Issuance…80 percent

SUMMARY…Damaging wind and hail risk to increase through the
afternoon/evening.

DISCUSSION…Surface analysis shows the dryline extending across the
Texas Panhandle into far eastern New Mexico and southward to the
Texas Big Bend as on 19z. Daytime heating under mostly sunny skies
has led temperatures to rise into the 80s (some mid to upper 80s
further south near the Mexico border). Satellite data shows towering
cu, mainly near and adjacent to the higher terrain of the Cap Rock
and Stockton Plateau. Morning observed soundings from AMA and LUB
would suggest that convective temperatures are around 80-85 F, which
in combination with increase in towering cu suggests initiation over
the next 1-2 hours.

Initial development will likely be supercellular. Though flow aloft
and deep layer shear are more marginal, MLCAPE around 1500-2500 J/kg
and steep low to mid-level lapse rates will support potential for
large hail (some very large 2″+) and damaging wind. Where discrete
modes can interact with outflow/boundaries enhancing surface
vorticity, a tornado could be possible. As storms increase in
coverage this afternoon, clustering along outflows will tend to
create mixed mode of supercells and multi-cells, with an increase in
potential for damaging wind (some 70-80 mph). A watch will be needed
to cover these threats soon.

..Thornton/Hart.. 04/22/2025

…Please see www.spc.noaa.gov for graphic product…

ATTN…WFO…OUN…EWX…SJT…LUB…MAF…

LAT…LON 30330324 30810329 32170307 33380255 33460253 34230188
34610130 34640111 34370061 34050021 33809998 33559982
33259958 32669958 32059983 30800052 29750114 29760201
29730247 29540279 29650307 29910321 30330324

MOST PROBABLE PEAK TORNADO INTENSITY…UP TO 95 MPH
MOST PROBABLE PEAK WIND GUST…65-80 MPH
MOST PROBABLE PEAK HAIL SIZE…1.50-2.50 IN

Read more

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025

MIL-OSI: Enphase Energy Reports Financial Results for the First Quarter of 2025

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

FREMONT, Calif., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH), a global energy technology company and the world’s leading supplier of microinverter-based solar and battery systems, announced today financial results for the first quarter of 2025, which included the summary below from its President and CEO, Badri Kothandaraman.

We reported quarterly revenue of $356.1 million in the first quarter of 2025, along with 48.9% for non-GAAP gross margin. We shipped approximately 1.53 million microinverters, or 688.5 megawatts DC, and 170.1 megawatt hours (MWh) of IQ^® Batteries.

Highlights for the first quarter of 2025 are listed below:

Completed IQ^® Meter Collar testing with PG&E and four other U.S. utilities
Strong U.S. manufacturing: shipped approximately 1.21 million microinverters and 44.1 MWh of IQ Batteries
Revenue of $356.1 million
GAAP gross margin of 47.2%; non-GAAP gross margin of 48.9% with net IRA benefit
Non-GAAP gross margin of 38.3%, excluding net IRA benefit of 10.6%
GAAP operating income of $31.9 million; non-GAAP operating income of $94.6 million
GAAP net income of $29.7 million; non-GAAP net income of $89.2 million
GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.22; non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.68
Free cash flow of $33.8 million; ending cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and marketable securities of $1.53 billion

Our revenue and earnings for the first quarter of 2025 are provided below, compared with the prior quarter:

(In thousands, except per share and percentage data)

	GAAP									Non-GAAP
	Q1 2025			Q4 2024			Q1 2024			Q1 2025			Q4 2024			Q1 2024
Revenue	$	356,084		$	382,713		$	263,339		$	356,084		$	382,713		$	263,339
Gross margin		47.2	%		51.8	%		43.9	%		48.9	%		53.2	%		46.2	%
Operating expenses	$	136,319		$	143,489		$	144,607		$	79,423		$	83,322		$	82,587
Operating income (loss)	$	31,922		$	54,804		$	(29,099	)	$	94,637		$	120,434		$	38,994
Net income (loss)	$	29,730		$	62,160		$	(16,097	)	$	89,243		$	125,862		$	47,956
Basic EPS	$	0.23		$	0.46		$	(0.12	)	$	0.68		$	0.94		$	0.35
Diluted EPS	$	0.22		$	0.45		$	(0.12	)	$	0.68		$	0.94		$	0.35

Total revenue for the first quarter of 2025 was $356.1 million, compared to $382.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2024. Our revenue in the United States for the first quarter of 2025 decreased approximately 13%, compared to the fourth quarter. The decline was the result of seasonality and softening in U.S. demand, partially offset by safe harbor revenue of $54.3 million. Our revenue in Europe increased approximately 7% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to the fourth quarter. The increase in revenue was primarily due to higher battery sales as we ramped shipments of our IQ^® Battery 5P with FlexPhase.

Our non-GAAP gross margin was 48.9% in the first quarter of 2025, compared to 53.2% in the fourth quarter, primarily due to lower bookings of 45X production tax credits and product mix. Our non-GAAP gross margin, excluding net benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), was 38.3% in the first quarter of 2025, compared to 39.7% in the fourth quarter, primarily due to product mix.

Our non-GAAP operating expenses were $79.4 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $83.3 million in the fourth quarter. The decrease was the result of restructuring actions initiated in the fourth quarter of 2024. Our non-GAAP operating income was $94.6 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $120.4 million in the fourth quarter.

We exited the first quarter of 2025 with $1.53 billion in cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and marketable securities and generated $48.4 million in cash flow from operations in the first quarter. During the first quarter of 2025, we paid off the entire principal amount of $102.2 million in convertible senior notes that matured on March 1, 2025. Our capital expenditures were $14.6 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $8.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2024.

In the first quarter of 2025, we repurchased 1,594,105 shares of our common stock at an average price of $62.71 per share for a total of approximately $100.0 million. We also spent approximately $12.1 million by withholding shares to cover taxes for employee stock vesting that reduced the diluted shares by 203,358 shares.

We shipped 170.1 MWh of IQ Batteries in the first quarter of 2025, compared to 152.4 MWh in the fourth quarter. More than 10,900 installers worldwide are certified to install our IQ Batteries, compared to more than 10,300 installers worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2024.

During the first quarter of 2025, we shipped approximately 1.21 million microinverters from our contract manufacturers in the United States that we booked for 45X production tax credits. We continued to ship our IQ8HC™ Microinverters, IQ8P-3P™ Commercial Microinverters, and IQ^® Battery 5Ps from our contract manufacturers in the United States. When paired with other U.S.-made solar components, our products enable lease and power purchase agreement (PPA) providers to qualify for the domestic content bonus tax credit under the IRA.

We continued to make progress with recent product introductions. We are now shipping our IQ Battery 5P with FlexPhase into Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Poland. Customers appreciate the reliable backup power the product delivers for both single-and three-phase installations. Our IQ^® EV Charger 2, currently shipping to 14 countries in Europe, is our most advanced residential charger to date. This product can support up to 22 kW of three-phase charging and operate either as a standalone charger or fully integrated with Enphase microinverters and batteries. Finally, our customers are enjoying the plug-and-play simplicity of our IQ^® PowerPack 1500, our first foray into the portable consumer market.

In the second quarter of 2025, we expect to introduce our fourth-generation IQ^® Battery 10C, IQ Meter Collar, and IQ^® Combiner 6C products in the United States. Together, these products will make backup installations easy and help reduce costs. We also expect to launch our IQ^® Balcony Solar Kit, a simple and efficient solution for harnessing solar energy from panels installed on apartment balconies, in Germany and Belgium.

BUSINESS HIGHLIGHTS

On April 8 and 9, 2025, Enphase Energy announced the launch of its IQ Battery 5P with FlexPhase with backup capability for customers in Luxembourg and Poland.

On April 3, 2025, Enphase Energy announced the introduction of its IQ^® System Controller in France and the Netherlands, enabling backup power.

On April 1, 2025, Enphase Energy announced that more than 2,500 SunPower customers have transitioned to Enphase monitoring since SunPower’s bankruptcy filing in August 2024.

On March 18, 2025, Enphase Energy welcomed Brazil’s ABNT NBR 17193 fire safety standard, which outlines stringent recommendations like rapid shutdown requirements for solar installations in all buildings.

On March 11, 2025, Enphase Energy announced production shipments of its newest electric vehicle (EV) charger, the IQ EV Charger 2, in 14 European markets.

On March 3, 2025, Enphase Energy announced increased deployments of its solution for expanding legacy net energy metering (NEM) solar energy systems in California as utilities streamline their approval process.

On Feb. 11, 2025, Enphase Energy announced the launch of an expanded IQ Battery 5P product with support for both single-phase 120/208 V and split-phase 120/240 V, for new home projects in California.

On Feb. 6, 2025, Enphase Energy announced that it is expanding its support for grid services programs – or virtual power plants (VPPs) – in Puerto Rico, Colorado, and Nova Scotia, Canada, powered by the IQ Battery 5P.

SECOND QUARTER 2025 FINANCIAL OUTLOOK

For the second quarter of 2025, Enphase Energy estimates both GAAP and non-GAAP financial results as follows:

Revenue to be within a range of $340.0 million to $380.0 million, which includes shipments of 160 to 180 MWh of IQ Batteries. The second quarter of 2025 financial outlook includes approximately $40.0 million of safe harbor revenue. We define safe harbor revenue as any sales made to customers who plan to install the inventory over more than one year.
GAAP gross margin to be within a range of 42.0% to 45.0% with net IRA benefit, including approximately two percentage points of new tariff impact.
Non-GAAP gross margin to be within a range of 44.0% to 47.0% with net IRA benefit and 35.0% to 38.0% excluding net IRA benefit, including approximately two percentage points of new tariff impact. Non-GAAP gross margin excludes stock-based compensation expense and acquisition related amortization.
Net IRA benefit to be within a range of $30.0 million to $33.0 million based on estimated shipments of 1,000,000 units of U.S. manufactured microinverters.
GAAP operating expenses to be within a range of $136.0 million to $140.0 million.
Non-GAAP operating expenses to be within a range of $78.0 million to $82.0 million, excluding $58.0 million estimated for stock-based compensation expense, acquisition related expenses and amortization, restructuring and asset impairment charges.

For 2025, Enphase expects a GAAP tax rate of 21-23% and a non-GAAP tax rate of 15-17%, including IRA benefits.

Follow Enphase Online

Use of non-GAAP Financial Measures

Enphase Energy has presented certain non-GAAP financial measures in this press release. Generally, a non-GAAP financial measure is a numerical measure of a company’s performance, financial position, or cash flows that either exclude or include amounts that are not normally excluded or included in the most directly comparable measure calculated and presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (GAAP). Reconciliation of each non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure can be found in the accompanying tables to this press release. Non-GAAP financial measures presented by Enphase Energy include non-GAAP gross profit, gross margin, operating expenses, income from operations, net income, net income per share (basic and diluted), net IRA benefit, and free cash flow.

These non-GAAP financial measures do not reflect a comprehensive system of accounting, differ from GAAP measures with the same captions and may differ from non-GAAP financial measures with the same or similar captions that are used by other companies. In addition, these non-GAAP measures have limitations in that they do not reflect all of the amounts associated with Enphase Energy’s results of operations as determined in accordance with GAAP. As such, these non-GAAP measures should be considered as a supplement to, and not as a substitute for, or superior to, financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. Enphase Energy uses these non-GAAP financial measures to analyze its operating performance and future prospects, develop internal budgets and financial goals, and to facilitate period-to-period comparisons. Enphase Energy believes that these non-GAAP financial measures reflect an additional way of viewing aspects of its operations that, when viewed with its GAAP results, provide a more complete understanding of factors and trends affecting its business.

As presented in the “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” tables below, each of the non-GAAP financial measures excludes one or more of the following items for purposes of calculating non-GAAP financial measures to facilitate an evaluation of Enphase Energy’s current operating performance and a comparison to its past operating performance:

Stock-based compensation expense. Enphase Energy excludes stock-based compensation expense from its non-GAAP measures primarily because they are non-cash in nature. Moreover, the impact of this expense is significantly affected by Enphase Energy’s stock price at the time of an award over which management has limited to no control.

Acquisition related expenses and amortization. This item represents expenses incurred related to Enphase Energy’s business acquisitions, which are non-recurring in nature, and amortization of acquired intangible assets, which is a non-cash expense. Acquisition related expenses and amortization of acquired intangible assets are not reflective of Enphase Energy’s ongoing financial performance.

Restructuring and asset impairment charges. Enphase Energy excludes restructuring and asset impairment charges due to the nature of the expenses being unusual and arising outside the ordinary course of continuing operations. These costs primarily consist of fees paid for cash-based severance costs, accelerated stock-based compensation expense and asset write-downs of property and equipment and acquired intangible assets, and other contract termination costs resulting from restructuring initiatives.

Non-cash interest expense. This item consists primarily of amortization of debt issuance costs and accretion of debt discount because these expenses do not represent a cash outflow for Enphase Energy except in the period the financing was secured and such amortization expense is not reflective of Enphase Energy’s ongoing financial performance.

Non-GAAP income tax adjustment. This item represents the amount adjusted to Enphase Energy’s GAAP tax provision or benefit to exclude the income tax effects of GAAP adjustments such as stock-based compensation, amortization of purchased intangibles, and other non-recurring items that are not reflective of Enphase Energy ongoing financial performance.

Non-GAAP net income per share, diluted. Enphase Energy excludes the dilutive effect of in-the-money portion of convertible senior notes as they are covered by convertible note hedge transactions that reduce potential dilution to our common stock upon conversion of the Notes due 2025, Notes due 2026, and Notes due 2028, and includes the dilutive effect of employee’s stock-based awards and the dilutive effect of warrants. Enphase Energy believes these adjustments provide useful supplemental information to the ongoing financial performance.

Net IRA benefit. This item represents the advanced manufacturing production tax credit (AMPTC) from the IRA for manufacturing microinverters in the United States, partially offset by the incremental manufacturing cost incurred in the United States relative to manufacturing in Mexico, India, and China. The AMPTC is accounted for by Enphase Energy as an income-based government grants that reduces cost of revenues in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Free cash flow. This item represents net cash flows from operating activities less purchases of property and equipment.

Conference Call Information

Enphase Energy will host a conference call for analysts and investors to discuss its first quarter 2025 results and second quarter 2025 business outlook today at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (1:30 p.m. Pacific Time). The call is open to the public by dialing (833) 634-5018. A live webcast of the conference call will also be accessible from the “Investor Relations” section of Enphase Energy’s website at https://investor.enphase.com. Following the webcast, an archived version will be available on the website for approximately one year. In addition, an audio replay of the conference call will be available by calling (877) 344-7529; replay access code 9557806, beginning approximately one hour after the call.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements, including statements related to Enphase Energy’s expectations as to its second quarter of 2025 financial outlook, including revenue, shipments of IQ Batteries by MWh, gross margin with net IRA benefit and excluding net IRA benefit, estimated shipments of U.S. manufactured microinverters, operating expenses, and annualized effective tax rate with IRA benefit; its expectations regarding the expected net IRA benefit; its expectations on the timing and introduction of new products and updates to existing products, including the IQ Battery 10C, IQ Meter Collar, and IQ Combiner 6C products in the United States, and the IQ Balcony Solar Kit in Germany and Belgium; its expectations regarding the domestic content bonus tax credit for its product offerings; and the capabilities, advantages, features, and performance of its technology and products. These forward-looking statements are based on Enphase Energy’s current expectations and inherently involve significant risks and uncertainties. Enphase Energy’s actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements as a result of certain risks and uncertainties including those risks described in more detail in its most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and other documents on file with the SEC from time to time and available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Enphase Energy undertakes no duty or obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this release as a result of new information, future events or changes in its expectations, except as required by law.

A copy of this press release can be found on the investor relations page of Enphase Energy’s website at https://investor.enphase.com.

About Enphase Energy, Inc.

Enphase Energy, a global energy technology company based in Fremont, CA, is the world’s leading supplier of microinverter-based solar and battery systems that enable people to harness the sun to make, use, save, and sell their own power—and control it all with a smart mobile app. The company revolutionized the solar industry with its microinverter-based technology and builds all-in-one solar, battery, and software solutions. Enphase has shipped approximately 81.5 million microinverters, and approximately 4.8 million Enphase-based systems have been deployed in over 160 countries. For more information, visit https://investor.enphase.com.

© 2025 Enphase Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. Enphase Energy, Enphase, the “e” logo, IQ, IQ8, and certain other marks listed at https://enphase.com/trademark-usage-guidelines are trademarks or service marks of Enphase Energy, Inc. Other names are for informational purposes and may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Contact:
Zach Freedman
Enphase Energy, Inc.
Investor Relations
ir@enphaseenergy.com


ENPHASE ENERGY, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (In thousands, except per share data) (Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net revenues	$	356,084		$	382,713		$	263,339
Cost of revenues		187,843			184,420			147,831
Gross profit		168,241			198,293			115,508
Operating expenses:
Research and development		50,174			50,390			54,211
Sales and marketing		48,948			51,799			53,307
General and administrative		34,035			31,901			35,182
Restructuring and asset impairment charges		3,162			9,399			1,907
Total operating expenses		136,319			143,489			144,607
Income (loss) from operations		31,922			54,804			(29,099	)
Other income, net
Interest income		17,032			18,417			19,709
Interest expense		(2,047	)		(2,252	)		(2,196	)
Other income (expense), net		(14	)		(1,270	)		87
Total other income, net		14,971			14,895			17,600
Income before income taxes		46,893			69,699			(11,499	)
Income tax provision		(17,163	)		(7,539	)		(4,598	)
Net income (loss)	$	29,730		$	62,160		$	(16,097	)
Net income (loss) per share:
Basic	$	0.23		$	0.46		$	(0.12	)
Diluted	$	0.22		$	0.45		$	(0.12	)
Shares used in per share calculation:
Basic		131,869			133,815			135,891
Diluted		136,208			138,128			135,891


ENPHASE ENERGY, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (In thousands) (Unaudited)

	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	350,077	$	369,110
Restricted cash		65,013		95,006
Marketable securities		1,116,780		1,253,480
Accounts receivable, net		225,625		223,749
Inventory		144,025		165,004
Prepaid expenses and other assets		295,725		220,735
Total current assets		2,197,245		2,327,084
Property and equipment, net		142,219		147,514
Intangible assets, net		37,408		42,398
Goodwill		212,359		211,571
Other assets		211,447		205,542
Deferred tax assets, net		305,408		315,567
Total assets	$	3,106,086	$	3,249,676
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	115,374	$	90,032
Accrued liabilities		212,169		196,887
Deferred revenues, current		167,771		237,225
Warranty obligations, current		33,298		34,656
Debt, current		630,677		101,291
Total current liabilities		1,159,289		660,091
Long-term liabilities:
Deferred revenues, non-current		333,704		341,982
Warranty obligations, non-current		170,149		158,233
Other liabilities		61,032		55,265
Debt, non-current		571,214		1,201,089
Total liabilities		2,295,388		2,416,660
Total stockholders’ equity		810,698		833,016
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	3,106,086	$	3,249,676


ENPHASE ENERGY, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (In thousands) (Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income (loss)	$	29,730		$	62,160		$	(16,097	)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		19,915			20,665			20,137
Net accretion of premium (discount) on marketable securities		3,512			(7,490	)		2,825
Provision (benefit) for doubtful accounts		62			2,206			(130	)
Asset impairment		27			4,702			332
Non-cash interest expense		1,679			2,188			2,132
Net gain from change in fair value of debt securities		(323	)		(3,697	)		(942	)
Stock-based compensation		55,633			51,830			60,833
Deferred income taxes		8,560			(30,675	)		(8,292	)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable		1,760			2,684			77,359
Inventory		20,979			(6,167	)		5,702
Prepaid expenses and other assets		(75,553	)		(16,487	)		(10,897	)
Accounts payable, accrued and other liabilities		54,232			(27,396	)		(66,284	)
Warranty obligations		10,558			8,657			(11,923	)
Deferred revenues		(82,357	)		104,112			(5,554	)
Net cash provided by operating activities		48,414			167,292			49,201
Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchases of property and equipment		(14,608	)		(8,064	)		(7,371	)
Investment in tax equity fund		(6,904	)		—			—
Purchases of marketable securities		(200,826	)		(93,138	)		(472,268	)
Maturities and sale of marketable securities		335,398			351,843			497,373
Net cash provided by investing activities		113,060			250,641			17,734
Cash flows from financing activities:
Settlement of Notes due 2025		(102,168	)		—			(2	)
Repurchase of common stock		(99,964	)		(199,666	)		(41,996	)
Payment of excise tax on net stock repurchases		—			(2,773	)		—
Proceeds from issuance of common stock under employee equity plans		67			4,719			1,186
Payment of withholding taxes related to net share settlement of equity awards		(12,110	)		(5,012	)		(60,042	)
Net cash used in financing activities		(214,175	)		(202,732	)		(100,854	)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash		3,675			(7,410	)		(1,177	)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash		(49,026	)		207,791			(35,096	)
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash—Beginning of period		464,116			256,325			288,748
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash—End of period	$	415,090		$	464,116		$	253,652


ENPHASE ENERGY, INC. RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES (In thousands, except per share data and percentages) (Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Gross profit (GAAP)	$	168,241		$	198,293		$	115,508
Stock-based compensation		4,239			3,678			4,182
Acquisition related amortization		1,580			1,784			1,891
Gross profit (Non-GAAP)	$	174,060		$	203,755		$	121,581

Gross margin (GAAP)		47.2	%		51.8	%		43.9	%
Stock-based compensation		1.2			0.9			1.6
Acquisition related amortization		0.5			0.5			0.7
Gross margin (Non-GAAP)		48.9	%		53.2	%		46.2	%

Operating expenses (GAAP)	$	136,319		$	143,489		$	144,607
Stock-based compensation⁽¹⁾		(50,885	)		(47,884	)		(56,651	)
Acquisition related expenses and amortization		(2,849	)		(2,884	)		(3,462	)
Restructuring and asset impairment charges⁽¹⁾		(3,162	)		(9,399	)		(1,907	)
Operating expenses (Non-GAAP)	$	79,423		$	83,322		$	82,587

⁽¹⁾Includes stock-based compensation as follows:
Research and development	$	21,647		$	20,951		$	24,550
Sales and marketing		16,396			15,893			18,178
General and administrative		12,842			11,041			13,923
Restructuring and asset impairment charges		509			267			—
Total	$	51,394		$	48,152		$	56,651

Income (loss) from operations (GAAP)	$	31,922		$	54,804		$	(29,099	)
Stock-based compensation		55,124			51,563			60,833
Acquisition related expenses and amortization		4,429			4,668			5,353
Restructuring and asset impairment charges		3,162			9,399			1,907
Income from operations (Non-GAAP)	$	94,637		$	120,434		$	38,994

Net income (loss) (GAAP)	$	29,730		$	62,160		$	(16,097	)
Stock-based compensation		55,124			51,563			60,833
Acquisition related expenses and amortization		4,429			4,668			5,353
Restructuring and asset impairment charges		3,162			9,399			1,907
Non-cash interest expense		1,678			2,188			2,132
Non-GAAP income tax adjustment		(4,880	)		(4,116	)		(6,172	)
Net income (Non-GAAP)	$	89,243		$	125,862		$	47,956

Net income (loss) per share, basic (GAAP)	$	0.23		$	0.46		$	(0.12	)
Stock-based compensation		0.42			0.39			0.45
Acquisition related expenses and amortization		0.04			0.03			0.04
Restructuring and asset impairment charges		0.02			0.07			0.01
Non-cash interest expense		0.01			0.02			0.02
Non-GAAP income tax adjustment		(0.04	)		(0.03	)		(0.05	)
Net income per share, basic (Non-GAAP)	$	0.68		$	0.94		$	0.35

Shares used in basic per share calculation GAAP and Non-GAAP		131,869			133,815			135,891

Net income (loss) per share, diluted (GAAP)	$	0.22		$	0.45		$	(0.12	)
Stock-based compensation		0.42			0.39			0.44
Acquisition related expenses and amortization		0.04			0.04			0.04
Restructuring and asset impairment charges		0.03			0.07			0.01
Non-cash interest expense		0.01			0.02			0.02
Non-GAAP income tax adjustment		(0.04	)		(0.03	)		(0.04	)
Net income per share, diluted (Non-GAAP)	$	0.68		$	0.94		$	0.35

Shares used in diluted per share calculation GAAP		136,208			138,128			135,891
Shares used in diluted per share calculation Non-GAAP		132,133			134,053			136,730

Income-based government grants (GAAP)	$	53,631		$	68,040		$	18,617
Incremental cost for manufacturing in U.S.		(15,773	)		(16,123	)		(4,882	)
Net IRA benefit (Non-GAAP)	$	37,858		$	51,917		$	13,735

Net cash provided by operating activities (GAAP)	$	48,414		$	167,292		$	49,201
Purchases of property and equipment		(14,608	)		(8,064	)		(7,371	)
Free cash flow (Non-GAAP)	$	33,806		$	159,228		$	41,830

This press release was published by a CLEAR® Verified individual.

The MIL Network –

April 23, 2025

MIL-OSI: National Bank Holdings Corporation Announces First Quarter 2025 Financial Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

NYSE Ticker: NBHC

DENVER, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — National Bank Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) reported:

	For the quarter⁽¹⁾									For the quarter – adjusted⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾
	1Q25			4Q24			1Q24			1Q25			4Q24			1Q24
Net income ($000’s)	$	24,231		$	28,184		$	31,391		$	24,231		$	33,232		$	31,391
Earnings per share – diluted	$	0.63		$	0.73		$	0.82		$	0.63		$	0.86		$	0.82
Return on average assets		0.99	%		1.13	%		1.28	%		0.99	%		1.33	%		1.28	%
Return on average tangible assets⁽²⁾		1.09	%		1.23	%		1.39	%		1.09	%		1.44	%		1.39	%
Return on average equity		7.42	%		8.59	%		10.30	%		7.42	%		10.13	%		10.30	%
Return on average tangible common equity⁽²⁾		10.64	%		12.31	%		15.14	%		10.64	%		14.40	%		15.14	%

(1)		Ratios are annualized.
(2)		See non-GAAP reconciliations below.

In announcing these results, Chief Executive Officer Tim Laney shared, “We delivered quarterly net income of $24.2 million and $0.63 of earnings per diluted share. The quarter’s results were negatively impacted by elevated provision primarily resulting from a loan charge-off involving suspected fraud by the borrower. Removing the impact of the fraud-related charge-off and a payroll tax credit benefit included in the quarter, earnings per share would have exceeded analysts’ median estimate for the quarter. It’s noteworthy that we delivered a return on tangible assets of 1.1% even in light of the charge-off. Further, past dues and non-performing loan ratios improved during the quarter. With a solid net interest margin of 3.93%, we drove 3.4% growth in our fully taxable equivalent net interest income over the same period last year.”

Mr. Laney added, “Our commitment to serve our clients, coupled with building a fortress balance sheet with strong capital, liquidity, and diversified sources of funding has led us to be recognized by Forbes as one of the best banks in the United States. Our Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio totaled 13.6% and tangible book value per share grew $0.66 during the quarter to $25.94 per share. We have built our Bank to withstand uncertain and volatile times, and we continue to make meaningful investments in technology and drive shareholders returns.”

First Quarter 2025 Results
(All comparisons refer to the fourth quarter of 2024, except as noted)

Net income totaled $24.2 million or $0.63 per diluted share, compared to $28.2 million or $0.73 per diluted share. The first quarter’s results were impacted by $10.2 million of provision expense recorded primarily to cover a charge-off on one credit driven by suspected fraudulent activity by the borrower. The return on average tangible assets totaled 1.09%, compared to 1.23%, and the return on average tangible common equity totaled 10.64%, compared to 12.31%.

Net Interest Income
Fully taxable equivalent net interest income totaled $88.6 million, compared to $92.0 million, decreasing $3.4 million due to two fewer business days in the first quarter and a decrease of $37.9 million in average earning assets. The fully taxable equivalent net interest margin narrowed six basis points to 3.93%, driven by a 13 basis point decrease in earning asset yields, partially offset by an eight basis point improvement in the cost of funds.

Loans
Loans totaled $7.6 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $7.8 billion. We generated quarterly loan fundings of $255.7 million, led by commercial loan fundings of $160.2 million. The first quarter weighted average rate on new loans at the time of origination was 7.3%, compared to the quarter’s weighted average yield of 6.4% on our loan portfolio.

Asset Quality and Provision for Credit Losses
The Company recorded $10.2 million of provision expense for credit losses during the first quarter, compared to $2.0 million. The current quarter’s provision expense was recorded primarily to cover the charge-off on one credit driven by suspected fraudulent activity by the borrower. Annualized net charge-offs totaled 0.80% of average total loans, compared to 0.11%. Non-performing loans decreased one basis point to 0.45% of total loans at March 31, 2025, and non-performing assets decreased one basis point to 0.46% of total loans and OREO at March 31, 2025. The allowance for credit losses as a percentage of loans totaled 1.18% at March 31, 2025, compared to 1.22% at December 31, 2024.

Deposits
Average total deposits decreased $111.6 million to $8.3 billion during the first quarter 2025, and average transaction deposits (defined as total deposits less time deposits) decreased $113.1 million to $7.2 billion. Transaction deposits on a spot basis grew $147.7 million to $7.4 billion at March 31, 2025. The loan to deposit ratio totaled 90.8% at March 31, 2025, compared to 94.1%. The mix of transaction deposits to total deposits was 87.4% at March 31, 2025, compared to 87.6%.

Non-Interest Income
Non-interest income totaled $15.4 million during the first quarter, compared to $11.1 million. Included in the prior quarter was $6.6 million of non-recurring loss on investment security sales. Mortgage banking income increased $1.0 million, compared to the prior quarter. Service charges and bank card fees decreased $0.7 million due to seasonality, and other non-interest income was $2.6 million lower due to lower SBA gains on sale and swap fee activity during the first quarter.

Non-Interest Expense
Non-interest expense decreased $2.5 million to $62.0 million during the first quarter. Salaries and benefits decreased $1.1 million primarily due to payroll tax credits realized in the first quarter. Data processing decreased $0.5 million, and professional services expense decreased $0.2 million driven by our continued disciplined expense management. Included within other non-interest expense in the prior quarter was $1.2 million of banking center consolidation-related expense. The fully taxable equivalent efficiency ratio was 57.7% at March 31, 2025, compared to 57.0%, excluding other intangible assets amortization and the prior quarter’s non-recurring loss on investment security sales.

Income tax expense decreased $0.9 million to $5.6 million, due to the first quarter’s lower pre-tax income. The effective tax rate was 18.8% for the first quarter, consistent with the prior quarter.

Capital
Capital ratios continue to be well in excess of federal bank regulatory agency “well capitalized” thresholds. The tier 1 leverage ratio totaled 10.89%, and the common equity tier 1 capital ratio totaled 13.61% at March 31, 2025. Shareholders’ equity increased $24.2 million to $1.3 billion at March 31, 2025, primarily driven by $13.1 million of growth in retained earnings from net income after covering the quarter’s dividend, and a $10.0 million improvement in accumulated other comprehensive loss due to changes in the interest rate environment.

Common book value per share increased $0.61 to $34.90 at March 31, 2025. Tangible common book value per share increased $0.66 to $25.94 driven by the quarter’s earnings after covering the quarterly dividend, and a $0.26 improvement in accumulated other comprehensive loss.

Year-Over-Year Review

(All comparisons refer to the first quarter of 2024, except as noted)

Net income totaled $24.2 million, or $0.63 per diluted share, compared to net income of $31.4 million, or $0.82 per diluted share in the same period prior year. The decrease compared to the prior year was largely driven by higher provision expense of $10.2 million. Fully taxable equivalent pre-provision net revenue increased $1.4 million to $42.0 million. The return on average tangible assets totaled 1.09%, compared to 1.39%, and the return on average tangible common equity was 10.64%, compared to 15.14%.

Fully taxable equivalent net interest income increased $2.9 million to $88.6 million. Average earning assets increased $12.6 million, including average loan growth of $29.3 million and average investment securities growth of $22.6 million. The fully taxable equivalent net interest margin widened 15 basis points to 3.93%, as an 18 basis point decrease in the cost of funds outpaced a three basis point decrease in earning asset yields. Average interest bearing liabilities increased $35.8 million due to higher average deposit balances, and the cost of funds totaled 2.07%, compared to 2.25% in the same period prior year.

Loans outstanding totaled $7.6 billion as of March 31, 2025, increasing $77.2 million or 1.0%. New loan fundings over the trailing twelve months totaled $1.6 billion, led by commercial fundings of $1.1 billion.

The Company recorded $10.2 million of provision expense for credit losses, compared to no provision expense for credit losses in the first quarter of 2024. The current quarter’s provision expense was recorded primarily to cover the charge-off on one credit driven by suspected fraudulent activity by the borrower. Annualized net charge-offs totaled 0.80% of average total loans, compared to minimal net charge-offs in the same period prior year. Non-performing loans decreased two basis points to 0.45% of total loans at March 31, 2025, and non-performing assets decreased seven basis points to 0.46% of total loans and OREO at March 31, 2025. The allowance for credit losses as a percentage of loans totaled 1.18% at March 31, 2025, compared to 1.29% at March 31, 2024.

Average total deposits increased $41.5 million or 0.5% to $8.3 billion, and average transaction deposits decreased $4.5 million. The mix of transaction deposits to total deposits was 87.4% at March 31, 2025, compared to 88.3%.

Non-interest income totaled $15.4 million, compared to $17.7 million, decreasing primarily due to $2.3 million lower other non-interest income driven by timing of SBA loan gain on sales and swap fee income activity, and a $0.6 million gain from the sale of a banking center building included in the first quarter of 2024.

Non-interest expense decreased $0.8 million to $62.0 million. Salaries and benefits decreased $2.2 million primarily due to payroll tax credits realized during the first quarter 2025, which was partially offset by increases in data processing and occupancy and equipment, driven by investments in technology.

Income tax expense totaled $5.6 million, a decrease of $1.9 million, driven by lower pre-tax income. The effective tax rate was 18.8%, compared to 19.3% in the first quarter of 2024.

Conference Call
Management will host a conference call to review the results at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 23, 2025. Interested parties may listen to this call by dialing (877) 400-0505 using the participant passcode of 7036929 and asking for the NBHC Q1 2025 Earnings Call. The earnings release and a link to the replay of the call will be available on the Company’s website at www.nationalbankholdings.com by visiting the investor relations area.

About National Bank Holdings Corporation
National Bank Holdings Corporation is a bank holding company created to build a leading community bank franchise, delivering high quality client service and committed to stakeholder results. Through its bank subsidiaries, NBH Bank and Bank of Jackson Hole Trust, National Bank Holdings Corporation operates a network of over 90 banking centers, serving individual consumers, small, medium and large businesses, and government and non-profit entities. Its banking centers are located in its core footprint of Colorado, the greater Kansas City region, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, New Mexico and Idaho. Its comprehensive residential mortgage banking group primarily serves the bank’s core footprint. Its trust and wealth management business is operated in its core footprint under the Bank of Jackson Hole Trust charter. NBH Bank operates under a single state charter through the following brand names as divisions of NBH Bank: in Colorado, Community Banks of Colorado and Community Banks Mortgage; in Kansas and Missouri, Bank Midwest and Bank Midwest Mortgage; in Texas, Utah, New Mexico and Idaho, Hillcrest Bank and Hillcrest Bank Mortgage; and in Wyoming, Bank of Jackson Hole and Bank of Jackson Hole Mortgage. Additional information about National Bank Holdings Corporation can be found at www.nationalbankholdings.com.

For more information visit: cobnks.com, bankmw.com, hillcrestbank.com, bankofjacksonhole.com, or nbhbank.com, or connect with any of our brands on LinkedIn.

About Non-GAAP Financial Measures
Certain of the financial measures and ratios we present, including “adjusted return on average assets,” “tangible assets,” “return on average tangible assets,” “adjusted return on average equity,” “tangible common equity,” “return on average tangible common equity,” “tangible common book value per share,” “tangible common equity to tangible assets,” “non-interest expense excluding other intangible assets amortization,” “non-interest income adjusted for the loss on security sales,” “efficiency ratio excluding other intangible assets amortization, adjusted for the loss on security sales,” “adjusted net income,” “adjusted earnings per share – diluted,” “net income excluding the impact of other intangible assets amortization expense, adjusted for the loss on security sales, after tax,” “net income adjusted for the loss on security sales, after tax,” “net income excluding the impact of other intangible assets amortization expense, after tax,” “adjusted return on average tangible assets,” “adjusted return on average tangible common equity,” “pre-provision net revenue,” “pre-provision net revenue, adjusted for the loss on security sales,” and “fully taxable equivalent” metrics, are supplemental measures that are not required by, or are not presented in accordance with, U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). We refer to these financial measures and ratios as “non-GAAP financial measures.” We consider the use of select non-GAAP financial measures and ratios to be useful for financial and operational decision making and useful in evaluating period-to-period comparisons. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures provide meaningful supplemental information regarding our performance by excluding certain expenditures or assets that we believe are not indicative of our primary business operating results or by presenting certain metrics on a fully taxable equivalent basis. We believe that management and investors benefit from referring to these non-GAAP financial measures in assessing our performance and when planning, forecasting, analyzing and comparing past, present and future periods.

These non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with GAAP and you should not rely on non-GAAP financial measures alone as measures of our performance. The non-GAAP financial measures we present may differ from non-GAAP financial measures used by our peers or other companies. We compensate for these limitations by providing the equivalent GAAP measures whenever we present the non-GAAP financial measures and by including a reconciliation of the impact of the components adjusted for in the non-GAAP financial measure so that both measures and the individual components may be considered when analyzing our performance. A reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to the comparable GAAP financial measures is included at the end of the financial statement tables.

Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements do not discuss historical facts but instead relate to expectations, beliefs, plans, predictions, forecasts, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance. Forward-looking statements are generally identified by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “can,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “may,” “predict,” “seek,” “potential,” “will,” “estimate,” “target,” “plan,” “project,” “continuing,” “ongoing,” “expect,” “intend,” “goal,” “focus,” “maintains,” “future,” “ultimately, ” “likely,” “anticipate,” “ensure,” “strategy,” “objective,” and similar words or phrases. These statements are only predictions and involve estimates, known and unknown risks, assumptions and uncertainties. We have based these statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, business strategy and growth prospects. Forward-looking statements involve certain important risks, uncertainties and other factors, any of which could cause actual results to differ materially from those in such statements and, therefore, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: business and economic conditions along with external events both generally and in the financial services industry; susceptibility to credit risk and fluctuations in the value of real estate and other collateral securing a significant portion of our loan portfolio, including with regards to real estate acquired through foreclosure, and the accuracy of appraisals related to such real estate; the allowance for credit losses and fair value adjustments may be insufficient to absorb losses in our loan portfolio; our ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to meet the requirements of deposit withdrawals and other business needs; changes impacting monetary supply and the businesses of our clients and counterparties, including levels of market interest rates, inflation, currency values, monetary and fiscal policies, and the volatility of trading markets; changes in the fair value of our investment securities and the ability of companies in which we invest to commercialize their technology or product concepts; the loss of certain executive officers and key personnel; any service interruptions, cyber incidents or other breaches relating to our technology systems, security systems or infrastructure or those of our third-party providers; the occurrence of fraud or other financial crimes within our business; competition from other financial institutions and financial services providers and the effects of disintermediation within the banking business including consolidation within the industry; changes to federal government lending programs like the Small Business Administration’s Preferred Lender Program and the Federal Housing Administration’s insurance programs, including the impact of a government shutdown on such programs; impairment of our mortgage servicing rights, disruption in the secondary market for mortgage loans, declines in real estate values, or being required to repurchase mortgage loans or reimburse investors; developments in technology, such as artificial intelligence, the success of our digital growth strategy, and our ability to incorporate innovative technologies in our business and provide products and services that satisfy our clients’ expectations for convenience and security; our ability to execute our organic growth and acquisition strategies; the accuracy of projected operating results for assets and businesses we acquire as well as our ability to drive organic loan growth to replace loans in our existing portfolio with comparable loans as loans are paid down; changes to federal, state and local laws and regulations along with executive orders applicable to our business, including tax laws; our ability to comply with and manage costs related to extensive government regulation and supervision, including current and future regulations affecting bank holding companies and depository institutions; the application of any increased assessment rates imposed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”); claims or legal action brought against us by third parties or government agencies; and other factors, risks, trends and uncertainties described elsewhere in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this press release, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which the statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events or circumstances, except as required by applicable law.

Contacts:
Analysts/Institutional Investors:
Emily Gooden, Chief Accounting Officer and Investor Relations Director, (720) 554-6640, ir@nationalbankholdings.com
Nicole Van Denabeele, Chief Financial Officer, (720) 529-3370, ir@nationalbankholdings.com

Media:
Jody Soper, Chief Marketing Officer, (303) 784-5925, Jody.Soper@nbhbank.com


NATIONAL BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION FINANCIAL SUMMARY Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) (Dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)

	For the three months ended
	March 31,		December 31,			March 31,
	2025		2024			2024
Total interest and dividend income	$	129,963	$	136,086		$	131,732
Total interest expense		43,272		45,955			47,702
Net interest income		86,691		90,131			84,030
Taxable equivalent adjustment		1,910		1,874			1,692
Net interest income FTE⁽¹⁾		88,601		92,005			85,722
Provision expense for credit losses		10,200		1,979			—
Net interest income after provision for credit losses FTE⁽¹⁾		78,401		90,026			85,722
Non-interest income:
Service charges		4,118		4,359			4,391
Bank card fees		4,194		4,671			4,578
Mortgage banking income		3,315		2,296			2,655
Other non-interest income		3,749		6,375			6,070
Loss on security sales		—		(6,582	)		—
Total non-interest income		15,376		11,119			17,694
Non-interest expense:
Salaries and benefits		34,362		35,459			36,520
Occupancy and equipment		10,837		10,193			9,941
Professional fees		1,423		1,599			1,646
Data processing		4,401		4,900			4,066
Other non-interest expense		9,017		10,418			8,653
Other intangible assets amortization		1,977		1,977			2,008
Total non-interest expense		62,017		64,546			62,834

Income before income taxes FTE⁽¹⁾		31,760		36,599			40,582
Taxable equivalent adjustment		1,910		1,874			1,692
Income before income taxes		29,850		34,725			38,890
Income tax expense		5,619		6,541			7,499
Net income	$	24,231	$	28,184		$	31,391
Earnings per share – basic	$	0.63	$	0.73		$	0.82
Earnings per share – diluted		0.63		0.73			0.82
Common stock dividend		0.29		0.29			0.27

(1)		Net interest income is presented on a GAAP basis and fully taxable equivalent (FTE) basis, as the Company believes this non-GAAP measure is the preferred industry measurement for this item. The FTE adjustment is for the tax benefit on certain tax exempt loans using the federal tax rate of 21% for each period presented.


NATIONAL BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition (Unaudited) (Dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)

	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	$	246,298		$	127,848		$	292,931
Investment securities available-for-sale		634,376			527,547			685,666
Investment securities held-to-maturity		706,912			533,108			570,850
Non-marketable securities		76,203			76,462			73,439
Loans		7,646,296			7,751,143			7,569,052
Allowance for credit losses		(90,192	)		(94,455	)		(97,607	)
Loans, net		7,556,104			7,656,688			7,471,445
Loans held for sale		11,885			24,495			14,065
Other real estate owned		615			662			4,064
Premises and equipment, net		204,567			196,773			168,956
Goodwill		306,043			306,043			306,043
Intangible assets, net		54,489			58,432			64,212
Other assets		301,378			299,635			315,805
Total assets	$	10,098,870		$	9,807,693		$	9,967,476
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Liabilities:
Non-interest bearing demand deposits	$	2,215,313		$	2,213,685		$	2,292,917
Interest bearing demand deposits		1,337,905			1,411,860			1,427,856
Savings and money market		3,812,312			3,592,312			3,801,013
Total transaction deposits		7,365,530			7,217,857			7,521,786
Time deposits		1,058,677			1,020,036			995,976
Total deposits		8,424,207			8,237,893			8,517,762
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase		20,749			18,895			19,577
Long-term debt		54,588			54,511			54,278
Federal Home Loan Bank advances		80,000			50,000			—
Other liabilities		190,018			141,319			144,029
Total liabilities		8,769,562			8,502,618			8,735,646
Shareholders’ equity:
Common stock		515			515			515
Additional paid in capital		1,168,433			1,167,431			1,163,773
Retained earnings		521,939			508,864			454,211
Treasury stock		(301,531	)		(301,694	)		(306,460	)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(60,048	)		(70,041	)		(80,209	)
Total shareholders’ equity		1,329,308			1,305,075			1,231,830
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	10,098,870		$	9,807,693		$	9,967,476
SHARE DATA
Average basic shares outstanding		38,068,455			38,327,964			38,031,358
Average diluted shares outstanding		38,229,869			38,565,164			38,188,480
Ending shares outstanding		38,094,105			38,054,482			37,806,148
Common book value per share	$	34.90		$	34.29		$	32.58
Tangible common book value per share⁽¹⁾(non-GAAP)		25.94			25.28			23.32
CAPITAL RATIOS
Average equity to average assets		13.35	%		13.10	%		12.40	%
Tangible common equity to tangible assets⁽¹⁾		10.13	%		10.16	%		9.17	%
Tier 1 leverage ratio		10.89	%		10.69	%		9.99	%
Common equity tier 1 risk-based capital ratio		13.61	%		13.20	%		12.35	%
Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio		13.61	%		13.20	%		12.35	%
Total risk-based capital ratio		15.49	%		15.11	%		14.30	%

(1)		Represents a non-GAAP financial measure. See non-GAAP reconciliations below.


NATIONAL BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION Loan Portfolio (Dollars in thousands)

Period End Loan Balances by Type

					March 31, 2025				March 31, 2025
					vs. December 31, 2024				vs. March 31, 2024
	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		% Change		March 31, 2024		% Change
Originated:
Commercial:
Commercial and industrial	$	1,871,301	$	1,881,570	(0.5	)%	$	1,777,328	5.3	%
Municipal and non-profit		1,116,724		1,106,865	0.9	%		1,062,287	5.1	%
Owner-occupied commercial real estate		1,026,692		1,048,481	(2.1	)%		875,303	17.3	%
Food and agribusiness		251,120		266,332	(5.7	)%		241,654	3.9	%
Total commercial		4,265,837		4,303,248	(0.9	)%		3,956,572	7.8	%
Commercial real estate non-owner occupied		1,136,176		1,123,718	1.1	%		1,092,780	4.0	%
Residential real estate		915,139		922,328	(0.8	)%		923,103	(0.9	)%
Consumer		11,955		12,773	(6.4	)%		14,936	(20.0	)%
Total originated		6,329,107		6,362,067	(0.5	)%		5,987,391	5.7	%

Acquired:
Commercial:
Commercial and industrial		105,493		114,255	(7.7	)%		132,532	(20.4	)%
Municipal and non-profit		271		277	(2.2	)%		294	(7.8	)%
Owner-occupied commercial real estate		198,339		215,663	(8.0	)%		234,486	(15.4	)%
Food and agribusiness		33,831		36,987	(8.5	)%		57,896	(41.6	)%
Total commercial		337,934		367,182	(8.0	)%		425,208	(20.5	)%
Commercial real estate non-owner occupied		659,680		688,620	(4.2	)%		767,419	(14.0	)%
Residential real estate		318,510		331,510	(3.9	)%		387,101	(17.7	)%
Consumer		1,065		1,764	(39.6	)%		1,933	(44.9	)%
Total acquired		1,317,189		1,389,076	(5.2	)%		1,581,661	(16.7	)%
Total loans	$	7,646,296	$	7,751,143	(1.4	)%	$	7,569,052	1.0	%

Loan Fundings⁽¹⁾

	First quarter		Fourth quarter		Third quarter		Second quarter		First quarter
	2025		2024		2024		2024		2024
Commercial:
Commercial and industrial	$	108,594	$	146,600	$	93,711	$	241,910	$	53,978
Municipal and non-profit		12,506		49,175		35,677		28,785		14,564
Owner occupied commercial real estate		37,762		117,850		70,517		102,615		35,128
Food and agribusiness		1,338		15,796		19,205		11,040		(7,204	)
Total commercial		160,200		329,421		219,110		384,350		96,466
Commercial real estate non-owner occupied		65,254		119,132		91,809		83,184		73,789
Residential real estate		29,300		30,750		47,322		36,124		29,468
Consumer		970		726		1,010		1,547		234
Total	$	255,724	$	480,029	$	359,251	$	505,205	$	199,957

(1)		Loan fundings are defined as closed end funded loans and net fundings under revolving lines of credit. Net fundings (paydowns) under revolving lines of credit were $21,752, $64,375, $16,302, $19,281 and ($59,523) for the periods noted in the table above, respectively.


NATIONAL BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION Summary of Net Interest Margin (Dollars in thousands)

	For the three months ended								For the three months ended								For the three months ended
	March 31, 2025								December 31, 2024								March 31, 2024
	Average					Average			Average					Average			Average					Average
	balance			Interest		rate			balance			Interest		rate			balance			Interest		rate
Interest earning assets:
Originated loans FTE⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾	$	6,335,931		$	102,221		6.54	%	$	6,368,697		$	107,400		6.71	%	$	6,046,849		$	100,914		6.71	%
Acquired loans		1,351,726			19,547		5.86	%		1,425,344			22,253		6.21	%		1,611,521			24,289		6.06	%
Loans held for sale		19,756			349		7.16	%		20,196			320		6.30	%		12,017			225		7.53	%
Investment securities available-for-sale		716,938			4,617		2.58	%		735,977			3,196		1.74	%		751,168			4,103		2.18	%
Investment securities held-to-maturity		635,961			4,120		2.59	%		537,970			3,887		2.89	%		579,160			2,514		1.74	%
Other securities		31,386			480		6.12	%		29,256			434		5.93	%		35,036			616		7.03	%
Interest earning deposits		48,206			539		4.53	%		60,400			470		3.10	%		91,579			763		3.35	%
Total interest earning assets FTE⁽²⁾	$	9,139,904		$	131,873		5.85	%	$	9,177,840		$	137,960		5.98	%	$	9,127,330		$	133,424		5.88	%
Cash and due from banks	$	77,237							$	81,371							$	102,583
Other assets		794,374								793,734								756,230
Allowance for credit losses		(95,492	)							(95,750	)							(97,882	)
Total assets	$	9,916,023							$	9,957,195							$	9,888,261
Interest bearing liabilities:
Interest bearing demand, savings and money market deposits	$	5,027,052		$	32,511		2.62	%	$	5,087,799		$	35,443		2.77	%	$	4,947,811		$	36,413		2.96	%
Time deposits		1,035,983			8,756		3.43	%		1,034,560			9,169		3.53	%		990,041			7,584		3.08	%
Federal Home Loan Bank advances		107,151			1,105		4.18	%		66,428			820		4.91	%		228,236			3,181		5.61	%
Other borrowings⁽³⁾		50,277			382		3.08	%		18,374			5		0.11	%		18,929			6		0.13	%
Long-term debt		54,539			518		3.85	%		54,464			518		3.78	%		54,229			518		3.84	%
Total interest bearing liabilities	$	6,275,002		$	43,272		2.80	%	$	6,261,625		$	45,955		2.92	%	$	6,239,246		$	47,702		3.07	%
Demand deposits	$	2,197,300							$	2,249,614							$	2,280,997
Other liabilities		119,806								141,327								141,735
Total liabilities		8,592,108								8,652,566								8,661,978
Shareholders’ equity		1,323,915								1,304,629								1,226,283
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	9,916,023							$	9,957,195							$	9,888,261
Net interest income FTE⁽²⁾				$	88,601							$	92,005							$	85,722
Interest rate spread FTE⁽²⁾							3.05	%							3.06	%							2.81	%
Net interest earning assets	$	2,864,902							$	2,916,215							$	2,888,084
Net interest margin FTE⁽²⁾							3.93	%							3.99	%							3.78	%
Average transaction deposits	$	7,224,352							$	7,337,413							$	7,228,808
Average total deposits		8,260,335								8,371,973								8,218,849
Ratio of average interest earning assets to average interest bearing liabilities		145.66	%							146.57	%							146.29	%

(1)		Originated loans are net of deferred loan fees, less costs, which are included in interest income over the life of the loan.
(2)		Presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis using the statutory tax rate of 21%. The tax equivalent adjustments included above are $1,910, $1,874 and $1,692 for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively.
(3)		Other borrowings includes securities sold under agreements to repurchase and cash collateral received from counterparties in connection with derivative swap agreements.


NATIONAL BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION Allowance for Credit Losses and Asset Quality (Dollars in thousands)

Allowance for Credit Losses Analysis

	As of and for the three months ended
	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Beginning allowance for credit losses	$	94,455		$	95,047		$	97,947
Charge-offs		(15,251	)		(2,391	)		(278	)
Recoveries		138			175			188
Provision expense (release) for credit losses		10,850			1,624			(250	)
Ending allowance for credit losses (“ACL”)	$	90,192		$	94,455		$	97,607
Ratio of annualized net charge-offs to average total loans during the period		0.80	%		0.11	%		0.00	%
Ratio of ACL to total loans outstanding at period end		1.18	%		1.22	%		1.29	%
Ratio of ACL to total non-performing loans at period end		260.52	%		262.42	%		272.52	%
Total loans	$	7,646,296		$	7,751,143		$	7,569,052
Average total loans during the period		7,660,974			7,772,712			7,632,635
Total non-performing loans		34,620			35,994			35,817

Past Due and Non-accrual Loans

	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Loans 30-89 days past due and still accruing interest	$	17,003		$	23,164		$	3,495
Loans 90 days past due and still accruing interest		1,012			14,940			1
Non-accrual loans		34,620			35,994			35,817
Total past due and non-accrual loans	$	52,635		$	74,098		$	39,313
Total 90 days past due and still accruing interest and non-accrual loans to total loans		0.47	%		0.66	%		0.47	%

Asset Quality Data

	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Non-performing loans	$	34,620		$	35,994		$	35,817
OREO		615			662			4,064
Total non-performing assets	$	35,235		$	36,656		$	39,881
Total non-performing loans to total loans		0.45	%		0.46	%		0.47	%
Total non-performing assets to total loans and OREO		0.46	%		0.47	%		0.53	%


NATIONAL BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION Key Metrics⁽¹⁾

	As of and for the three months ended
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
	2025			2024			2024
Return on average assets		0.99	%		1.13	%		1.28	%
Return on average tangible assets⁽²⁾		1.09	%		1.23	%		1.39	%
Return on average tangible assets, adjusted⁽²⁾		1.09	%		1.44	%		1.39	%
Return on average equity		7.42	%		8.59	%		10.30	%
Return on average tangible common equity⁽²⁾		10.64	%		12.31	%		15.14	%
Return on average tangible common equity, adjusted⁽²⁾		10.64	%		14.40	%		15.14	%
Loan to deposit ratio (end of period)		90.77	%		94.09	%		88.86	%
Non-interest bearing deposits to total deposits (end of period)		26.30	%		26.87	%		26.92	%
Net interest margin⁽³⁾		3.85	%		3.91	%		3.70	%
Net interest margin FTE⁽²⁾⁽³⁾		3.93	%		3.99	%		3.78	%
Interest rate spread FTE⁽²⁾⁽⁴⁾		3.05	%		3.06	%		2.81	%
Yield on earning assets⁽⁵⁾		5.77	%		5.90	%		5.80	%
Yield on earning assets FTE⁽²⁾⁽⁵⁾		5.85	%		5.98	%		5.88	%
Cost of funds		2.07	%		2.15	%		2.25	%
Cost of deposits		2.03	%		2.12	%		2.15	%
Non-interest income to total revenue FTE⁽⁶⁾		14.79	%		10.78	%		17.11	%
Efficiency ratio		60.76	%		63.75	%		61.77	%
Efficiency ratio excluding other intangible assets amortization FTE, adjusted⁽²⁾		57.74	%		57.03	%		58.82	%
Pre-provision net revenue	$	40,050		$	36,704		$	38,890
Pre-provision net revenue FTE⁽²⁾		41,960			38,578			40,582
Pre-provision net revenue FTE, adjusted⁽²⁾		41,960			45,160			40,582

Total Loans Asset Quality Data⁽⁷⁾⁽⁸⁾
Non-performing loans to total loans		0.45	%		0.46	%		0.47	%
Non-performing assets to total loans and OREO		0.46	%		0.47	%		0.53	%
Allowance for credit losses to total loans		1.18	%		1.22	%		1.29	%
Allowance for credit losses to non-performing loans		260.52	%		262.42	%		272.52	%
Net charge-offs to average loans		0.80	%		0.11	%		0.00	%

(1)		Ratios are annualized.
(2)		Ratio represents non-GAAP financial measure. See non-GAAP reconciliations below.
(3)		Net interest margin represents net interest income, including accretion income on interest earning assets, as a percentage of average interest earning assets.
(4)		Interest rate spread represents the difference between the weighted average yield on interest earning assets, including FTE income, and the weighted average cost of interest bearing liabilities. Ratio represents a non-GAAP financial measure.
(5)		Interest earning assets include assets that earn interest/accretion or dividends. Any market value adjustments on investment securities or loans are excluded from interest earning assets.
(6)		Non-interest income to total revenue represents non-interest income divided by the sum of net interest income FTE and non-interest income. Ratio represents a non-GAAP financial measure.
(7)		Non-performing loans consist of non-accruing loans and modified loans on non-accrual.
(8)		Total loans are net of unearned discounts and fees.


NATIONAL BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES AND RECONCILIATIONS (Dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)

Tangible Common Book Value Ratios

	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Total shareholders’ equity	$	1,329,308		$	1,305,075		$	1,231,830
Less: goodwill and other intangible assets, net		(354,800	)		(356,777	)		(362,709	)
Add: deferred tax liability related to goodwill		13,638			13,535			12,539
Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)	$	988,146		$	961,833		$	881,660

Total assets	$	10,098,870		$	9,807,693		$	9,967,476
Less: goodwill and other intangible assets, net		(354,800	)		(356,777	)		(362,709	)
Add: deferred tax liability related to goodwill		13,638			13,535			12,539
Tangible assets (non-GAAP)	$	9,757,708		$	9,464,451		$	9,617,306

Tangible common equity to tangible assets calculations:
Total shareholders’ equity to total assets		13.16	%		13.31	%		12.36	%
Less: impact of goodwill and other intangible assets, net		(3.03	)%		(3.15	)%		(3.19	)%
Tangible common equity to tangible assets (non-GAAP)		10.13	%		10.16	%		9.17	%

Tangible common book value per share calculations:
Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)	$	988,146		$	961,833		$	881,660
Divided by: ending shares outstanding		38,094,105			38,054,482			37,806,148
Tangible common book value per share (non-GAAP)	$	25.94		$	25.28		$	23.32


NATIONAL BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION (Dollars in thousands, except share and per share data) Return on Average Tangible Assets and Return on Average Tangible Equity

	As of and for the three months ended
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
	2025			2024			2024
Net income	$	24,231		$	28,184		$	31,391
Add: loss on security sales, after tax (non-GAAP)⁽¹⁾		—			5,048			—
Net income adjusted for the loss on security sales, after tax (non-GAAP)⁽¹⁾	$	24,231		$	33,232		$	31,391

Net income	$	24,231		$	28,184		$	31,391
Add: impact of other intangible assets amortization expense, after tax		1,516			1,516			1,534
Net income excluding the impact of other intangible assets amortization expense, after tax (non-GAAP)	$	25,747		$	29,700		$	32,925

Net income excluding the impact of other intangible assets amortization expense, after tax	$	25,747		$	29,700		$	32,925
Add: loss on security sales, after tax (non-GAAP)⁽¹⁾		—			5,048			—
Net income excluding the impact of other intangible assets amortization expense, adjusted for the loss on security sales, after tax (non-GAAP)⁽¹⁾	$	25,747		$	34,748		$	32,925

Average assets	$	9,916,023		$	9,957,195		$	9,888,261
Less: average goodwill and other intangible assets, net of deferred tax liability related to goodwill		(342,425	)		(344,417	)		(351,383	)
Average tangible assets (non-GAAP)	$	9,573,598		$	9,612,778		$	9,536,878

Average shareholders’ equity	$	1,323,915		$	1,304,629		$	1,226,283
Less: average goodwill and other intangible assets, net of deferred tax liability related to goodwill		(342,425	)		(344,417	)		(351,383	)
Average tangible common equity (non-GAAP)	$	981,490		$	960,212		$	874,900

Return on average assets		0.99	%		1.13	%		1.28	%
Adjusted return on average assets (non-GAAP)		0.99	%		1.33	%		1.28	%
Return on average tangible assets (non-GAAP)		1.09	%		1.23	%		1.39	%
Adjusted return on average tangible assets (non-GAAP)		1.09	%		1.44	%		1.39	%
Return on average equity		7.42	%		8.59	%		10.30	%
Adjusted return on average equity (non-GAAP)		7.42	%		10.13	%		10.30	%
Return on average tangible common equity (non-GAAP)		10.64	%		12.31	%		15.14	%
Adjusted return on average tangible common equity (non-GAAP)		10.64	%		14.40	%		15.14	%

(1) Adjustments:
Loss on security sales (non-GAAP)	$	—		$	6,582		$	—
Tax benefit impact		—			(1,534	)		—
Total adjustments, after tax (non-GAAP)	$	—		$	5,048		$	—

Fully Taxable Equivalent Yield on Earning Assets and Net Interest Margin

	As of and for the three months ended
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
	2025			2024			2024
Interest income	$	129,963		$	136,086		$	131,732
Add: impact of taxable equivalent adjustment		1,910			1,874			1,692
Interest income FTE (non-GAAP)	$	131,873		$	137,960		$	133,424

Net interest income	$	86,691		$	90,131		$	84,030
Add: impact of taxable equivalent adjustment		1,910			1,874			1,692
Net interest income FTE (non-GAAP)	$	88,601		$	92,005		$	85,722

Average earning assets	$	9,139,904		$	9,177,840		$	9,127,330
Yield on earning assets		5.77	%		5.90	%		5.80	%
Yield on earning assets FTE (non-GAAP)		5.85	%		5.98	%		5.88	%
Net interest margin		3.85	%		3.91	%		3.70	%
Net interest margin FTE (non-GAAP)		3.93	%		3.99	%		3.78	%

Efficiency Ratio and Pre-Provision Net Revenue

	As of and for the three months ended
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
	2025			2024			2024
Net interest income	$	86,691		$	90,131		$	84,030
Add: impact of taxable equivalent adjustment		1,910			1,874			1,692
Net interest income FTE (non-GAAP)	$	88,601		$	92,005		$	85,722

Non-interest income	$	15,376		$	11,119		$	17,694
Add: loss on security sales (non-GAAP)		—			6,582			—
Non-interest income adjusted for the loss on security sales (non-GAAP)	$	15,376		$	17,701		$	17,694

Non-interest expense	$	62,017		$	64,546		$	62,834
Less: other intangible assets amortization		(1,977	)		(1,977	)		(2,008	)
Non-interest expense excluding other intangible assets amortization (non-GAAP)	$	60,040		$	62,569		$	60,826

Efficiency ratio		60.76	%		63.75	%		61.77	%
Efficiency ratio FTE (non-GAAP)		59.64	%		62.59	%		60.76	%
Efficiency ratio excluding other intangible assets amortization, adjusted for the loss on security sales FTE (non-GAAP)		57.74	%		57.03	%		58.82	%
Pre-provision net revenue (non-GAAP)	$	40,050		$	36,704		$	38,890
Pre-provision net revenue, FTE (non-GAAP)		41,960			38,578			40,582
Pre-provision net revenue FTE, adjusted for the loss on security sales (non-GAAP)		41,960			45,160			40,582

Adjusted Net Income and Earnings Per Share

	As of and for the three months ended
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,
	2025		2024		2024
Adjustments to net income:
Net income	$	24,231	$	28,184	$	31,391
Add: adjustment for the loss on security sales, after tax (non-GAAP)		—		5,048		—
Adjusted net income (non-GAAP)	$	24,231	$	33,232	$	31,391

Adjustments to earnings per share:
Earnings per share diluted	$	0.63	$	0.73	$	0.82
Add: adjustment for the loss on security sales, after tax (non-GAAP)		—		0.13		—
Adjusted earnings per share – diluted (non-GAAP)	$	0.63	$	0.86	$	0.82

The MIL Network –

April 23, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Defense Contractor’s Longtime Associate Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

Source: US State of Vermont

Note: View Information here.

A longtime associate of a former defense contractor pleaded guilty today to conspiring to defraud the United States.

The following is according to court documents and statements made in court: from 2009 until approximately 2022, Thomas G. Ehr worked for or on behalf of a co-conspirator, a defense contractor who owned 50% of a business that supplied jet fuel to U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Middle East. Ehr was hired to manage several music television and entertainment projects funded with proceeds from this business. Over time Ehr played a role in several of his co-conspirator’s other investments, including a $60 million real estate investment in Tulum, Mexico, and a $50 million fuel infrastructure project.

Ehr understood that the defense contractor was the business’s 50% owner since it was created, and that the contractor controlled hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from it.

Nevertheless, Ehr agreed to conceal the contractor’s ownership and control of the company, primarily by falsely asserting that the contractor’s wife had founded the company, so that the contractor could obstruct the IRS’ ability to assess and collect the contractor’s taxes — including taxes on profits he made from contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense. Ehr acknowledged that because of the conspiracy, the contractor evaded taxes on more than $350 million of income and caused a tax loss to the United States of approximately $128 million.

Additionally, despite making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in income, Ehr did not file tax returns for years 2010 to 2015, nor make payments on taxes he owed for 2010 to 2023. By doing so, Ehr caused a tax loss to the United States of more than $700,000.

Ehr is the sixth defendant associated with the defense contracting company to plead guilty. Charles Squires pleaded guilty to tax evasion in February 2022, James Robar pleaded guilty to tax evasion in March 2022, Ronald “Ron” Thomas pleaded guilty to tax evasion in April 2022, Zachary “Zack” Friedman pleaded guilty to tax evasion in August 2022, and Robert Dooner pleaded guilty to tax evasion in November 2023.

Sentencing will be set at a later date. Ehr faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison for the conspiracy count and a maximum penalty of one year in prison for the tax count. He also faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Interim U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. for the District of Columbia made the announcement.

IRS Criminal Investigation and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction are investigating the case, with assistance from His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs of the United Kingdom. Assistance was also provided by the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement (J5), which brings together the taxing authorities of Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Senior Litigation Counsel Nannette Davis, Assistant Chief Sarah Ranney, and Trial Attorney Ezra Spiro of the Tax Division; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Gold for the District of Columbia are prosecuting the case.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Defense Contractor’s Longtime Associate Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

Source: United States Attorneys General 1

Note: View Information here.

A longtime associate of a former defense contractor pleaded guilty today to conspiring to defraud the United States.

The following is according to court documents and statements made in court: from 2009 until approximately 2022, Thomas G. Ehr worked for or on behalf of a co-conspirator, a defense contractor who owned 50% of a business that supplied jet fuel to U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Middle East. Ehr was hired to manage several music television and entertainment projects funded with proceeds from this business. Over time Ehr played a role in several of his co-conspirator’s other investments, including a $60 million real estate investment in Tulum, Mexico, and a $50 million fuel infrastructure project.

Ehr understood that the defense contractor was the business’s 50% owner since it was created, and that the contractor controlled hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from it.

Nevertheless, Ehr agreed to conceal the contractor’s ownership and control of the company, primarily by falsely asserting that the contractor’s wife had founded the company, so that the contractor could obstruct the IRS’ ability to assess and collect the contractor’s taxes — including taxes on profits he made from contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense. Ehr acknowledged that because of the conspiracy, the contractor evaded taxes on more than $350 million of income and caused a tax loss to the United States of approximately $128 million.

Additionally, despite making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in income, Ehr did not file tax returns for years 2010 to 2015, nor make payments on taxes he owed for 2010 to 2023. By doing so, Ehr caused a tax loss to the United States of more than $700,000.

Ehr is the sixth defendant associated with the defense contracting company to plead guilty. Charles Squires pleaded guilty to tax evasion in February 2022, James Robar pleaded guilty to tax evasion in March 2022, Ronald “Ron” Thomas pleaded guilty to tax evasion in April 2022, Zachary “Zack” Friedman pleaded guilty to tax evasion in August 2022, and Robert Dooner pleaded guilty to tax evasion in November 2023.

Sentencing will be set at a later date. Ehr faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison for the conspiracy count and a maximum penalty of one year in prison for the tax count. He also faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Interim U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. for the District of Columbia made the announcement.

IRS Criminal Investigation and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction are investigating the case, with assistance from His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs of the United Kingdom. Assistance was also provided by the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement (J5), which brings together the taxing authorities of Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Senior Litigation Counsel Nannette Davis, Assistant Chief Sarah Ranney, and Trial Attorney Ezra Spiro of the Tax Division; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Gold for the District of Columbia are prosecuting the case.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Russia: World Economic Outlook Press Briefing

Source: IMF – News in Russian

April 22, 2025

Speakers:

Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas, Director, Research Department, IMF
Petya Koeva Brooks, Deputy Director, Research Department, IMF
Deniz Igan, Division Chief, Research Department, IMF

Moderator:
Jose Luis De Haro, Communications Officer, IMF

Mr. De Haro: OK. I think we can start and we have a quorum. So good morning, everyone, and welcome. I want to welcome also those joining us online. I am Jose Luis de Haro with the Communications Department at the IMF and we are gathered here today for the presentation of our latest edition of the World Economic Outlook titled, “A Critical Juncture Amid Policy Shifts.” I hope by this time you all have had access to the document. If not, I am going to encourage you, as always, to go to IMF.org. There, you are going to find the document, the World Economic Outlook, also Pierre‑Olivier’s blog and many other assets, including the underlying data for some of the charts that are published on the World Economic Outlook.

I also want to plug in that we have a new database portal that I encourage you to use, and what’s best, that to discuss the new outlook that having here with us today, Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas. He is the Economic Counsellor, the chief economist, and the Director of the Research Department. Next to him are Petya Koeva Brooks, she is the Deputy Director of the Research Department and last, but not least, we also have Deniz Igan, she is the division chief also with the Research Department.

Pierre‑Olivier, as usual is going to start with some opening remarks, and then we are going to open the floor to your questions. I just want to remind everyone that this press briefing, it’s on the record and that we also have simultaneous translation.

So let me stop here. Pierre‑Olivier, the floor is yours.

Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you, Jose. And good morning, everyone. The landscape has changed since our last World Economic Outlook update in January. We are entering a new era as the global economic system that has operated for the last 80 years is being reset. Since late January, many tariff announcements have been made, culminating on April 2, with near universal levies from the United States and counterresponses from some trading partners. The U.S. effective tariff rate has surged past levels reached more than 100 years ago, while tariff rates on the U.S. have also increased.

Beyond the abrupt increase in tariffs, the surge in policy uncertainty is a major driver of the economic outlook. If sustained, the increasing trade tensions and uncertainty will slow global growth significantly. Reflecting this complexity, our report presents a reference forecast which incorporates policy announcements up to April 4 by the U.S. and trading partners. Under these reference forecasts, global growth will reach 2.8 percent this year and 3 percent next year, a cumulative downgrade of about 0.8 percentage points relative to our January 2025 WEO update. Our report also offers a range of forecasts under different policy assumptions.

Under an alternative path that excludes the April tariff announcements, global growth would have seen only a modest downgrade to 3.2 percent this year. We will also use a model‑based forecast to incorporate the temporary suspension of most tariffs announced on April 9, together with the increase in bilateral tariffs between China and the U.S. to prohibitive levels. This pause, even if extended permanently, delivers a similar growth outlook as a reference forecast, 2.8 percent, even if some highly tariffed countries could benefit.

Now, while global growth remains well above recession levels, all regions are negatively impacted this year and next. And the global disinflation process continues, but at a slower pace with inflation revised up by 0.1 percentage point in both years. These trade tensions will greatly impact global trade. We project that global trade growth will be more than cut in half from 3.8 percent last year to 1.7 percent this year. The tariffs will play out differently in different countries. For the United States, the tariffs represent a supply shock that reduces productivity and output permanently and increases price pressures temporarily. This adds to an already weakening outlook and leads us to revise growth down by 0.9 percentage points to 1.8 percent, with a 0.4 percentage point downgrade from the tariffs only. While inflation is revised upwards.

For trading partners, tariffs act mostly as a negative external demand shock. Weakening activity and prices, even if some countries could benefit from trade diversion. This is why we have lowered our China growth forecast this year to 4 percent, while inflation is revised down by 0.8 percentage points, increasing deflationary pressures. All countries are negatively affected by the surge in trade policy uncertainty, as businesses cut purchases and investment, while financial institutions reassess their borrowers’ exposure. Uncertainty also increases because of the complex sectoral disruptions that tariffs could cause up and down supply chains, as we saw during the pandemic.

The effect of these shocks on exchange rates is complex. The tariffs could appreciate the US dollar, as in previous episodes. However, greater policy uncertainty, lower U.S. growth prospects, and an adjustment in the global demand for dollar assets are weighing down on the dollar.

Risks to the global economic have increased and are firmly to the downside.

First, while we are not projecting a global downturn, the risks it may happen this year have increased substantially, from 17 percent projected back in October to 30 percent now. An escalation of trade tensions would further depress growth. Financial conditions could also tighten, as markets react negatively to diminished growth prospects and increased uncertainty. On the flip side, growth prospects could immediately improve if countries ease from their current trade policy stance and promote a new, clear, and stable trade environment.

Addressing domestic imbalances can also help raise growth while contributing significantly to closing external imbalances. For Europe, this means spending more on public infrastructure to accelerate productivity growth. For China, it means boosting support for domestic demand. While for the U.S., it means stepping up fiscal consolidation.

Turning to policies. Our recommendations call for prudence and improved collaboration. Let me outline some key ones. First, an obvious priority is to restore trade policy stability. The global economy needs a clear, stable, and predictable trading environment, one that addresses some of the longstanding gaps in international trading rules. Monetary policy will need to remain agile and respond by tightening where inflation pressures re‑emerge, while easing where weak demand dominates. Monetary policy credibility will be key, especially where inflation expectations might de‑anchor. And central bank independence remains a cornerstone.

Many fiscal authorities will face new spending needs to bolster defense spending or to offset the trade dislocations, likely to come. Some of the poorest countries also hit with reduced official aid could experience debt distress. Yet debt levels are still elevated and most countries still need to rebuild fiscal space, including by implementing structural reforms. Support, where needed, should remain narrowly targeted and temporary. It is easier to turn on the fiscal tap than to turn it off. Where new spending needs are permanent, as for defense spending in some countries, planning for offsetting cuts elsewhere or new revenues should be made.

Finally, even if some of the grievances against our trading system have merit, we should all work toward fixing the system so that it can deliver better opportunities to all. Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: Thank you, Pierre‑Olivier. Before we open the floor to your questions, some ground rules. First of all, if you want to ask a question, raise your hand. If I call on you, please identify yourself and the media outlet you represent. Try to be succinct. Stick to one question. We want to answer as many questions as possible.

And also, a reminder. We are here to discuss the World Economic Outlook. Those questions regarding country programs, institutional issues are going to be better placed for the regional press briefings that are happening later this week and also the Managing Director’s press briefing this Thursday.

With that said, I want hands up. OK. So I am going to start here in the center. Then I am going to move the room to my left. Then to my right. I am going to start with the lady with the green jacket there.

QUESTION: Thank you.. Thanks so much for doing this.

Pierre‑Olivier, I wonder if you can speak a little bit to the fact that you haven’t called out a recession. And you know, we are hearing lots of economists in the United States and other places‑‑most recently yesterday, the IIF is now also forecasting a small recession in the second half of the year. What we see in the WEO is that the percentage of risk of a recession has increased pretty dramatically. Can you walk us through why you are not at this point calling a recession, for instance, likely in the United States and what it would take to tip it that way? Thanks.

Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you, Andrea.

So for the United States, we are projecting a significant slowdown. We are projecting growth will be at 1.8 percent in 2025. And that’s a 0.9 percentage‑point slowdown‑‑revision in our projections from January. But 1.9 percent is obviously not a recession. And the reason for this is is that we have a U.S. economy that, in our view, is coming from a position of strength. We had an economy that was growing very rapidly. We have a labor market that is still very robust. We have seen some signs of weakening and slowdown in the U.S. economy, even before the tariff announcements. So, in fact, the 0.9 percentage point downward revision that I just mentioned, only a part of this‑‑maybe 0.4 percentage points‑‑is coming from the tariffs. Some of that is also coming from weakening momentum. This was an economy that was doing very, very well but was self‑correcting and cooling off a bit on its own. And we were seeing already consumption numbers coming down. We are seeing consumer confidence coming down. So all of that was already factored in. But we are not seeing a recession in our reference forecast.

As you mentioned, Andrea, we are‑‑when we do our risk assessment, if you want, we are seeing the probability of a recession increasing, from about 25 percent back in October to around 40 percent when we assess it now.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to move to this side. The lady here in red.

QUESTION: Good morning.

Pierre, I wanted to ask you about the downward pressure on the dollar now. To what extent you believe it can provide some relief from the pressure on highly indebted emerging economies with a large share of dollar‑denominated debt? And has this downward pressure on the dollar changed your outlook on all of those emerging economies that are still, you know, under the impact of the high debt‑‑as mentioned by the MD in previous meetings, where this high debt is really one of the impediments to growth? Thanks.

Mr. Gourinchas: Yes. So we are seeing a weakening of the dollar that is fairly broad‑based over the last few weeks, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, some of that is coming from the weaker growth prospects in the U.S. Some it is coming from the increased uncertainty. And it’s leading to a reassessment of the global demand for dollar assets. When we step back, we also have to realize we are coming from a position where, over the last few years, there have been tremendous capital inflows into U.S. markets, in particular, risk markets. That’s something that, of course, my colleague Tobias Adrian will talk about in the GFSR press conference. So we are seeing some adjustment, some contradiction. The markets are handling it. We don’t see signs of stress, even in currency markets.

Now, the interesting development is, what does it mean for emerging markets? And you are right to point out that, in the past, when the dollar would strengthen, that would not necessarily be good news for emerging markets because they have dollar‑denominated debts, so that increases their liabilities and the pressure on them to service their debts. And this can lead to some tightening of financial conditions. So we are not seeing that right now. And so that’s a plus. The flip side of this is, of course, the appreciation of some of these emerging markets’ currencies means that they are also losing a little bit on the competitiveness side, so there is maybe something that is a bit easier on the finance conditions, something that is not as easy on the trade side.

Finally, this is an environment of enormous uncertainty, increased volatility. And that I think is something that will dominate for many of the emerging markets. So when we are looking at our assessment, we are actually downgrading the emerging market economies for 2025 and 2026, most of them. Some of them may, as I mentioned, benefit. But overall, as a group, they are downgraded. While because they are also very plugged into the global supply chains, the uncertainty is leading to a pause in investment and activity, and they are going to suffer from the decline in demand for their products coming from the tariffs.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to go with the gentleman here with the glasses.

QUESTION: Thank you. I just have one question. Could you elaborate a little bit on what will happen with the trade flows in your models? I saw that in the basic assumption, the exports from the U.S. are [breaking quite heavily but not that much from China. Why is this so?

And do I understand it right that this basic model does not yet integrate the additional hikes after ‑‑ happening after basically April 9, so above 100 percent on import tariffs by the U.S.? Thanks.

Mr. Gourinchas: So we are seeing a large impact on global trade coming from the tariffs and that’s going to be the case under any combination of tariffs where the effective tariff rates remains very elevated. And the reason why when we looked at the different scenarios that I mentioned, whether it’s a reference scenario or our April 9 scenario which includes lower tariffs on many countries but sharply increased tariffs between the U.S. and China. The overall impact on the global economy is not very different because the effective tariff rate is, if anything, even higher under that pause. So global trade is going to be significantly affected. The particular configuration of trade, which bilateral trade flows are going to be affected versus others that will depend on the final landscape in terms of tariffs so we can anticipate that there will be much lower bilateral trade under either the reference scenario or the April 9, between the U.S. and China. And that is weighing down on global trade growth. This is weighing down on global trade generally.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to turn here to the center. I am going to go to the first row. I am going to go with the lady with the yellow bottle.

QUESTION: Thank you,

You have downgraded the U.K.’s growth forecast quite sharply and given the range of explanations, from higher tariff barriers to more domestic issues, like cost‑of‑living pressures. Out of those, so the global challenges versus domestic challenges, which one is weighing more heavily on the U.K.’s growth forecasts?

Mr. De Haro: OK we are going to open the round of U.K. questions so if you have questions on the U.K., raise your hand. And I will pass the mic to you. I see two there. Yep.

QUESTION: Hi.

In a world where everyone is warning about the impact of tariffs on U.S. inflation and how much it will raise U.S. prices, why do you have the U.K. with the highest inflation rate in the G‑7 this year? And do you believe tariffs will be inflationary or disinflationary for the U.K.?

Mr. De Haro: OK. Joe here in the first row.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. So Joel hills from ITV news. Obviously it’s impacting the tariffs are impacting the U.K. They are impacting most countries. I just wonder this, President Trump did say there would be some disruption. He suggested it would be sort of temporary. Is it possible that President Trump is actually a genius? That he knows something you do not?

Mr. De Haro: And I think we have a last question on the U.K. and this is going to be the last question on the U.K. There on the back of the room.

QUESTION: Yeah.

The U.K. inflation forecast is, you know, much higher than we expected it to be, 0.7 percent higher. Is that going to impact on lowering interest rates in the U.K.? And does that affect the growth rate, which seems to be rather optimistic, compared with some of the other European countries?

Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to be done with the U.K. questions and then we will move along. So Pierre‑Olivier.

Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you. So many questions. Let me address them as best I can. First, on the revision for growth in the U.K. and inflation. So the tariffs are playing a role, as they are in most countries and uncertainty is also playing a role, as it is in all countries. And it’s weighing down on growth in the U.K. But there are some U.K.‑specific factors and I would say that in terms of the zero point 5 percentage point downward revision that we are saying for the U.K., the domestic factors are probably the biggest ones. And in particular, there is a lower carryover from weaker growth in the second half of last year. There is also some tightening of financial conditions, as interest rates have risen, longer‑term interest rates.

On inflation, the revision in inflation in the U.K. is coming, again, from domestic factors, and in particular some change in regulated energy prices. So that’s expected to be temporary but it’s also very U.K.‑specific. The effect of the tariffs on countries like the U.K., like it is on the EU or China is like a negative demand shock. It’s weakening activity but it’s also lowering price pressures, not increasing them.

Now, what is the impact of the tariffs in the medium and long term? Not just what’s going to happen this year and next but what’s going to happen longer term? Our assessment is it’s going to be negative. We have a box in our report that looks at the long‑term impact of the tariffs, if they are maintained. And it is negative for all regions, just like the short‑term impact. So we are seeing a negative impact in the short term, in the medium term, in the long term. Again, there are nuances. Some countries might benefit, depending on the particular configuration of tariffs. It might benefit from some trade diversion; but the broad picture is it’s negative for the outlook.

Now, our ‑‑ and I will end with that. Our forecast for 2025 is slightly higher than OBR’s forecast. Some of this has to do with some of the underlying monetary policy assumptions for the U.K. The bank‑‑

Our assumption for this year is that there are going to be four cuts through the year. One cut already happened. We expect three more.

Mr. De Haro: Thank you, Pierre‑Olivier. I am not going to forget about the people that are on WebEx, and I am going to pass a question there. I see Anton from TAS.

QUESTION: Good morning. Thank you for doing this.

Given the projected slowdown of Russia’s GDP growth from 4.1 in 2024 to 1.5 in 2025, what are the primary factors driving this sharp decline? And how sustainable is Russia’s growth model going forward? Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: Go ahead.

Mr. Gourinchas: Petya, would you like to answer?

Ms. Koeva Brooks: Sure. We are indeed expecting a slowdown in growth to 1.5 this year, and this, to a large extent is kind of the natural slowing of the economy after growing quite robustly in previous years. And also as a result of policy tightening that we have seen, both on the fiscal as well as on the monetary policy side. It is also due to the lower oil prices that have come about as a result of the‑‑as a response to the round of tariffs, as well as the uncertainty about global growth. So all these factors are behind that lower growth number, although I should point out that it is actually a slight upward revision, relative to what we had back in January. And the reason for that is that, again, we actually had seen upward surprises in 2024, which kind of carried into 2025.

When it comes to the medium‑term growth outlook, we do expect that to be relatively weak. We are‑‑we have penciled in growth number of about 1.2, which is down from 1.7 which is what we had before the start of the war.

Mr. De Haro: OK. Let’s continue. I am going to go again in the center and then I am going to go to that side. The lady with the glasses there.

QUESTION: Hi.

In Latin America, we received almost every country 10 percent. So I want to know about the impact of the tariffs in Latin America and if the impact is going to be limited, versus other regions, and when we are going to start to feeling this impact. Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: And before we answer the question, are there any questions on Mexico, Brazil, Argentina? OK. Argentina friends, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hello.

You’ve kept 5.5 growth projection that was decided in the latest program that Argentina signed with the IMF. I would like to know why you are not seeing so much impact yet about‑‑of this general context.

Mr. De Haro: OK. We can go ahead first with the Latin America overview and then we can go to Argentina.

Mr. Gourinchas: I will just say something briefly and then ask my colleague Petya to come in. So for Latin America, as a whole, we are saying activity that is largely driven by consumption on the back of resilient labor markets while investment remains somewhat sluggish. And the slowdown in our projection reflects the impact of tariffs and the global growth slowdown, of course, which is also affecting countries in the region. Policy uncertainty. And the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus and in some countries monetary policy tightening.

Ms. Koeva Brooks: I don’t have a lot to add. Just to say that the disinflation process has also slowed a bit, and this is also‑‑also makes the policy trade‑offs a bit more complicated with slow‑‑with growth slowing down and at the same time, you know, having still challenges on the inflation side.

Mr. De Haro: OK. So we are going to move on. I am going to ask the gentleman in the first row there because‑‑

Oh, sorry. Sorry. I forgot about Argentina. Please go ahead.

Ms. Koeva Brooks: We cannot forget about Argentina.

So the growth forecast for this year‑‑you are right‑‑we still have the upgrade of .5. And this is related to just the positive surprises that we had seen, in spite of a very strong fiscal adjustment, the recovery in confidence I think has definitely played a role in kind of driving us to have this forecast. That said, there are a number of risks related to tighter financial conditions, commodity prices, and a lot of others, which is true for many if not most other countries.

Mr. De Haro: OK. So now we can move on. I am going to go with the gentleman in the first row.

QUESTION: Thank you. In the October 2024 outlook you saw a stable but slow growth for Africa. What’s new now? And what kind of initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area do for African economies amidst these trade tensions?

Mr. De Haro: And before we answer, I think‑‑

QUESTION: Hi. Good morning.

One of the things that you mentioned in your report is the demographic shift and the rise in the silver economy. Africa, on the other hand, has the reverse of that. So what is your recommendation in the short and medium term on how to deal with some of these challenges pertaining to tariffs, monetary policy, and now currency exchange? Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: OK.

Mr. Gourinchas: OK. Thank you. I will just say one word about the outlook in sub‑Saharan Africa and then I will ask my colleague Deniz to come in to add more color and answer also the question on the demographic trends.

So regional growth in sub‑Saharan Africa improved significantly last year, to 4 percent. And it will ease in 2025. And this is in line with a softer global outlook. So we are seeing the same forces at play in the region, as we are seeing more globally. And a downturn‑‑and a downward revision in our projection that is of a similar magnitude at about 0.4 percentage point. Deniz?

Ms. Igan: Thank you for the question. So on the demographic shifts, our Chapter 2 basically points out that countries’ age structures are evolving at different rates, as you pointed out as well. We have most western economies, some Asian economies that are aging fast. And you know in a health way some of them. And then we have many sub‑Saharan African countries that have a very young population. And what the chapter shows is actually, there are important medium‑term consequences of that, both for growth, as well as external balances of countries.

In Africa’s case, basically, what we would see is a demographic dividend coming from having a young population. And the question then becomes how best to leverage that, how best to use that and channel it into growth. And the answer there, first and foremost, depends on the structural reforms, the investment that’s necessary on healthcare, on education, on human capital more generally and also international cooperation because our Chapter 3 looks more carefully into migration flows. And again, there, we see migration policy shifts in destination countries has spillovers for other countries. And this is especially true for emerging market economies and lower income economies. So, again, international cooperation there, making sure that growth dividends are utilized in the best way is what we delve into in the chapter.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to go to the gentleman with‑‑raise your hand. Yeah. You. No, I am going back. Then I will go‑‑there you go.

QUESTION: OK. I have a question about China’s growth.

In your World Economic Outlook, you say China’s growth forecast has been cut to 4 percent for this year, which is a 0.6 percentage drop from an earlier projection. But China’s National Bureau of Statistics a couple of days ago predicted China’s growth GDP growth in the first quarter was 5.4 percent. So my question is, how do you see the disparity in the forecast? Is China more optimistic than you are? Thank you.

Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you. So, yes, we are revising our growth projections for China down by 0.6 percentage points, as you have noted. I should flag that this number does not incorporate the latest release for Q1. That came after we closed our round of projections. So this is not reflected there. And we will have to see how it affects our projections when we have our next round of WEO updates.

But let me give you a little bit of perspective on the rationale behind our revision for China. The tariff increase in tariffs especially since China is one of the countries that is facing the most elevated tariffs right now, is going to have a very significant impact in our projections on the Chinese economy. In fact, when we do a decomposition, which I showed during my opening remarks, the impact of the tariffs on the Chinese economy would be a negative 1.3 percentage point revision on growth.

So why do we only have 0.6? Well, because there are other factors that are helping to support Chinese growth in 2025 and 2026. One of which‑‑which is quite important‑‑is the fiscal support that has been announced since the beginning of the year. And that is adding up, something of the amount of 0.5 percentage points. So the impact of the current trade tensions is very significant. It’s partly offset. We expect it to remain quite significant also in 2026 when we also have a downward revision by about 0.5 percentage points.

The other side of this, where we are seeing the impact of the tariffs is on inflation, which is revised down. Our headline inflation projection for 2025 is actually at zero. So it’s down from 0.8 percent to zero. So China is facing stronger deflationary forces as a result of these trade tensions.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to move to this side. The gentleman with the glasses here.

QUESTION: What impact did the oil price also have in exporting and importing countries in the Middle East? Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: Go ahead.

Mr. Gourinchas: So we have seen oil prices declining since our last projections, and the decline in oil prices in our and our interpretation is coming mostly from weaker global demand, so it’s the weakening of global activity that is driving the decline in prices. There has been some increase in supply coming from OPEC Plus countries, but broadly speaking, the decline is mostly coming from weaker demand.

So that is going to play out in ways you sort of would expect. The commodity exporters are going to face lower export revenues from the decline in oil prices. That’s going to weigh on their fiscal outlook, on their growth.

For those countries that are oil importers, it’s going to lower inflation pressures because that‑‑lower oil prices is going to feed into lower headline inflation. It’s going to also provide some modest support to economic activity there.

Deniz, anything to add on oil prices or‑‑or Petya?

Ms. Koeva Brooks: No, I don’t.

Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to move to the center. I am going to get the gentleman with the white shirt there.

QUESTION: h I am not going to ask another question about the U.K., you will be pleased to know. Over the last week we have seen a number of attacks by the White House on the independence of the Federal Reserve. How destabilizing do you think this might be for financial markets?

Mr. Gourinchas: So central banks are facing a delicate moment. As I have explained in many countries, the impact of the tariffs is going to be to increase recessionary forces and it is going to lower price pressures. And that will help central banks cut interest rates faster and provide some support to their economies. But in other countries ‑‑ and in our projections, the U.S. is in that category‑‑the tariffs are going to increase price pressures. Price pressures in the U.S. are increasing for other reasons as well. Service prices have been quite‑‑inflation of service prices have been quite strong. And that is something that we are seeing already. But the tariffs are likely to increase price pressures. We are projecting inflation to remain at 3 percent in the U.S. this year, the same level as last year, headline inflation.

So in that context, if you also think about where we are coming from, we are coming from a period of very elevated inflation. We are just coming off the cost‑of‑living crisis, a surge in inflation rates to double digits that we haven’t seen in more than a generation. So the critical thing is to make sure that inflation expectations remain anchored, that everyone remains convinced that central banks will do what is necessary to bring inflation back to central bank targets in an orderly manner. And central banks have instruments to do this. They have their interest rate instruments. They have various instruments of monetary policy. But one critical aspect of what they do is coming from their credibility. So central banks need to remain credible. And part of that credibility is built upon their central bank independence. And so from that perspective, it’s very important to preserve that.

Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to have time for two questions. One of them is going back to WebEx. I see Weier, please. Come in.

QUESTION: Yes.I have a question.

You mentioned that the global economic system is being reset. And I am not sure if one of the early signs in the financial markets, as we see that the markets moving from American exceptionalism to the sort of sell the U.S. narrative. So could you assess the implications for the financial markets and the world economy, as a whole?

Mr. Gourinchas: Yeah, well we have seen some volatility in the markets, of course, whenever there is going to be potentially a significant change in the economic structure of the global economy. I think we are bound to see some reassessment. And investors are going to try to figure out what’s happening, and that’s going to inject volatility. And we are seeing some of that.

The good news is a lot of that volatility we have seen in the last few weeks has not led to significant market dislocations or market stress to levels that would, for instance, have necessitated the interventions by central banks around the world.

So whether you are looking at equity markets, whether you are looking at bond markets, whether you are looking at currency markets, what we are saying is a reassessment of the world we are in now and that means that there is a reassessment of valuations of risk assets, of different currencies. But that is happening in an orderly manner. So from that perspective, we are seeing a system that is quite resilient, that remained resilient but, of course, we are watching carefully and there has been some tightening of financial conditions and that’s something to be looking out for. We want to make sure that it doesn’t get to a level where the stress in the financial system would become too extreme.

Mr. De Haro: OK. The lady here in the first row has been waiting patiently. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jose. I want to ask about the trading tensions impact on low‑income countries. You mentioned there are like downgrading for emerging markets but how about like those small countries who have lower income as a group, have you assessed the particular impact on them in these ongoing trade tensions? Thank you.

Mr. Gourinchas: OK. Well thanks. For low‑income countries as a group, we are also seeing a downgrade in which we report in our report of 0.4 percentage points. We are expecting growth of 4.2 percent in 2025. So the 0.4 is very similar to what we are seeing at the aggregate levels, 0.5. So from that perspective it looks quite the same. However, there are also a lot of differences across countries, and when we look more carefully, you might see some vulnerable countries, especially in sub‑Saharan Africa. But elsewhere as well‑‑who could face very challenging conditions as a result of the tariffs in an environment in which many of the countries, low‑income countries have been facing a funding squeeze for a number of years now, private capital flows to this region have been drying up or have been coming on very expensive terms. We are seeing a drying up also of some official aid flows. So some of these countries have very limited fiscal space. Near a situation where the situation could become more challenging.

Now, on the flip side, the fact that we are seeing commodity prices coming down for many commodities will help some of them. The commodity importers in that group will hurt the ones who are commodity exporters. And there are a number of countries among the low-income group that are commodity exporters, so that is adding some additional pressure on them.

Mr. De Haro: I am going to make an exception and just one last question. I am going to go with the gentleman in the white shirt there. He has been waiting patiently, too. And don’t get frustrated. There are going to be many opportunities for you to ask questions.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jose. AFP.

I had a quick question about Spain because that’s the only countries among advanced economies where you had an upward revision. It’s going to be way better than the eurozone and even better than other advanced economies. What are the underlying reasons for that? And you formally talked much about tourism but are there any other things that might be pointed out? Thank you.

Mr. Gourinchas: Yes, indeed. Spain is doing better than its peers. Petya, would you like to talk about it?

Ms. Koeva Brooks: Sure. Indeed. We are actually having an upgrade for Spain this year, which is a rare occurrence in the many, many downgrades that we have had for many other countries. This is partly because the Spanish economy just had such strong momentum in 2024, coming into 2025. And part of that was due to the very strong services exports as well as the very strong labor accumulation. Part of that related to immigration. But all of that being said, Spain is still being affected indirectly and directly by the tariffs and the uncertainty associated with that. It’s just that, as I said, that underlying [strength is kind of having a bigger impact in the near term. But then again, in 2026, we do project kind of a slowing of growth to about 1.8.

Mr. De Haro: OK. And on that point, I want to thank you, everyone, on behalf of Pierre‑Olivier, Petya, Deniz, the Research Department, the Communications Department. Some reminders. Next press briefing is going to happen in this same room, Global Financial Stability Report, please stay tuned. Tomorrow you have the Fiscal Monitor, and then later in the week, you have the Managing Director’s press briefing and also all the regional press briefings that we have been talking about. Thank you very much for your time. If you have questions, comments, send them my way to media@imf.org and hopefully you have a great week. I am sure it’s going to be busy.

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS

PRESS OFFICER: Jose De Haro

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

@IMFSpokesperson

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/04/22/tr-04222025-weo-press-briefing

MIL OSI

MIL OSI Russia News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Economics: Call for applications launched for support to women exporters through WTO-ITC WEIDE Fund

Source: WTO

Headline: Call for applications launched for support to women exporters through WTO-ITC WEIDE Fund

A joint initiative of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Trade Centre (ITC), the WEIDE Fund is supported by a USD 50 million commitment to empower women entrepreneurs and help them thrive in global markets through the use of digital tools and platforms.
WTO Director-General Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala emphasized the importance of inclusive access to digital trade opportunities: “Digital trade is reshaping the global economy. Women — including those in developing countries — must be at the forefront. The WTO-ITC WEIDE Fund is about powering growth, innovation and job creation. It reflects the WTO’s broader commitment to sustainable and inclusive re-globalization, where no one is left behind.”
The WEIDE Fund offers two types of grants:
Discovery Grant (up to USD 5,000): For early-stage businesses exploring digital trade opportunities.
Booster Grant (up to USD 30,000): For businesses ready to scale up their digital presence and expand into global markets.
Beyond financial support, the WEIDE Fund provides technical assistance, mentorship and access to international business networks. The initiative aims to build the long-term competitiveness and resilience of women-led micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) involved in e-commerce, online services, or other forms of digital trade as well as those ready to engage in these activities.
ITC Executive Director Pamela Coke-Hamilton highlighted the importance of removing barriers for women in global trade: “ITC is committed to breaking barriers for women exporters and ensuring they have the resources needed to succeed in the digital economy. The WTO-ITC WEIDE Fund is an opportunity for women-led businesses to access not only funding but also the expertise and networks critical for long-term success.”
The WEIDE Fund announced on 7 March the selection of four pilot beneficiary countries: Dominican Republic, Jordan, Mongolia and Nigeria. Business support organizations in these countries were selected from a competitive call for proposals to implement programmes that can help women entrepreneurs expand their business through international trade and digitalization.
To be eligible for support, women-led businesses must be:
Registered and operational in the Dominican Republic, Jordan, Mongolia, or Nigeria
Export-ready and keen to engage in digital trade
Able to demonstrate potential for business growth and job creation
The application period runs from 22 April to 18 May 2025 for the Dominican Republic, Mongolia and Nigeria. Applications from Jordan will be accepted at a later stage.
In each country, the WEIDE Fund collaborates with the following business support organizations (BSOs) to strengthen outreach and local engagement:
ProDominicana
Jordan Enterprise Development Corporation (JEDCO)
Mongolian National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MNCCI)
Nigerian Export Promotion Council (NEPC)
The WEIDE Fund has been made possible through the support of the United Arab Emirates and the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 Legacy Fund.
For more details on eligibility and how to apply, visit wto.org/weidefund or contact [email protected].

Share

MIL OSI Economics –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Economics: World Economic Outlook Press Briefing

Source: International Monetary Fund

April 22, 2025

Speakers:

Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas, Director, Research Department, IMF
Petya Koeva Brooks, Deputy Director, Research Department, IMF
Deniz Igan, Division Chief, Research Department, IMF

Moderator:
Jose Luis De Haro, Communications Officer, IMF

Mr. De Haro: OK. I think we can start and we have a quorum. So good morning, everyone, and welcome. I want to welcome also those joining us online. I am Jose Luis de Haro with the Communications Department at the IMF and we are gathered here today for the presentation of our latest edition of the World Economic Outlook titled, “A Critical Juncture Amid Policy Shifts.” I hope by this time you all have had access to the document. If not, I am going to encourage you, as always, to go to IMF.org. There, you are going to find the document, the World Economic Outlook, also Pierre‑Olivier’s blog and many other assets, including the underlying data for some of the charts that are published on the World Economic Outlook.

I also want to plug in that we have a new database portal that I encourage you to use, and what’s best, that to discuss the new outlook that having here with us today, Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas. He is the Economic Counsellor, the chief economist, and the Director of the Research Department. Next to him are Petya Koeva Brooks, she is the Deputy Director of the Research Department and last, but not least, we also have Deniz Igan, she is the division chief also with the Research Department.

Pierre‑Olivier, as usual is going to start with some opening remarks, and then we are going to open the floor to your questions. I just want to remind everyone that this press briefing, it’s on the record and that we also have simultaneous translation.

So let me stop here. Pierre‑Olivier, the floor is yours.

Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you, Jose. And good morning, everyone. The landscape has changed since our last World Economic Outlook update in January. We are entering a new era as the global economic system that has operated for the last 80 years is being reset. Since late January, many tariff announcements have been made, culminating on April 2, with near universal levies from the United States and counterresponses from some trading partners. The U.S. effective tariff rate has surged past levels reached more than 100 years ago, while tariff rates on the U.S. have also increased.

Beyond the abrupt increase in tariffs, the surge in policy uncertainty is a major driver of the economic outlook. If sustained, the increasing trade tensions and uncertainty will slow global growth significantly. Reflecting this complexity, our report presents a reference forecast which incorporates policy announcements up to April 4 by the U.S. and trading partners. Under these reference forecasts, global growth will reach 2.8 percent this year and 3 percent next year, a cumulative downgrade of about 0.8 percentage points relative to our January 2025 WEO update. Our report also offers a range of forecasts under different policy assumptions.

Under an alternative path that excludes the April tariff announcements, global growth would have seen only a modest downgrade to 3.2 percent this year. We will also use a model‑based forecast to incorporate the temporary suspension of most tariffs announced on April 9, together with the increase in bilateral tariffs between China and the U.S. to prohibitive levels. This pause, even if extended permanently, delivers a similar growth outlook as a reference forecast, 2.8 percent, even if some highly tariffed countries could benefit.

Now, while global growth remains well above recession levels, all regions are negatively impacted this year and next. And the global disinflation process continues, but at a slower pace with inflation revised up by 0.1 percentage point in both years. These trade tensions will greatly impact global trade. We project that global trade growth will be more than cut in half from 3.8 percent last year to 1.7 percent this year. The tariffs will play out differently in different countries. For the United States, the tariffs represent a supply shock that reduces productivity and output permanently and increases price pressures temporarily. This adds to an already weakening outlook and leads us to revise growth down by 0.9 percentage points to 1.8 percent, with a 0.4 percentage point downgrade from the tariffs only. While inflation is revised upwards.

For trading partners, tariffs act mostly as a negative external demand shock. Weakening activity and prices, even if some countries could benefit from trade diversion. This is why we have lowered our China growth forecast this year to 4 percent, while inflation is revised down by 0.8 percentage points, increasing deflationary pressures. All countries are negatively affected by the surge in trade policy uncertainty, as businesses cut purchases and investment, while financial institutions reassess their borrowers’ exposure. Uncertainty also increases because of the complex sectoral disruptions that tariffs could cause up and down supply chains, as we saw during the pandemic.

The effect of these shocks on exchange rates is complex. The tariffs could appreciate the US dollar, as in previous episodes. However, greater policy uncertainty, lower U.S. growth prospects, and an adjustment in the global demand for dollar assets are weighing down on the dollar.

Risks to the global economic have increased and are firmly to the downside.

First, while we are not projecting a global downturn, the risks it may happen this year have increased substantially, from 17 percent projected back in October to 30 percent now. An escalation of trade tensions would further depress growth. Financial conditions could also tighten, as markets react negatively to diminished growth prospects and increased uncertainty. On the flip side, growth prospects could immediately improve if countries ease from their current trade policy stance and promote a new, clear, and stable trade environment.

Addressing domestic imbalances can also help raise growth while contributing significantly to closing external imbalances. For Europe, this means spending more on public infrastructure to accelerate productivity growth. For China, it means boosting support for domestic demand. While for the U.S., it means stepping up fiscal consolidation.

Turning to policies. Our recommendations call for prudence and improved collaboration. Let me outline some key ones. First, an obvious priority is to restore trade policy stability. The global economy needs a clear, stable, and predictable trading environment, one that addresses some of the longstanding gaps in international trading rules. Monetary policy will need to remain agile and respond by tightening where inflation pressures re‑emerge, while easing where weak demand dominates. Monetary policy credibility will be key, especially where inflation expectations might de‑anchor. And central bank independence remains a cornerstone.

Many fiscal authorities will face new spending needs to bolster defense spending or to offset the trade dislocations, likely to come. Some of the poorest countries also hit with reduced official aid could experience debt distress. Yet debt levels are still elevated and most countries still need to rebuild fiscal space, including by implementing structural reforms. Support, where needed, should remain narrowly targeted and temporary. It is easier to turn on the fiscal tap than to turn it off. Where new spending needs are permanent, as for defense spending in some countries, planning for offsetting cuts elsewhere or new revenues should be made.

Finally, even if some of the grievances against our trading system have merit, we should all work toward fixing the system so that it can deliver better opportunities to all. Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: Thank you, Pierre‑Olivier. Before we open the floor to your questions, some ground rules. First of all, if you want to ask a question, raise your hand. If I call on you, please identify yourself and the media outlet you represent. Try to be succinct. Stick to one question. We want to answer as many questions as possible.

And also, a reminder. We are here to discuss the World Economic Outlook. Those questions regarding country programs, institutional issues are going to be better placed for the regional press briefings that are happening later this week and also the Managing Director’s press briefing this Thursday.

With that said, I want hands up. OK. So I am going to start here in the center. Then I am going to move the room to my left. Then to my right. I am going to start with the lady with the green jacket there.

QUESTION: Thank you.. Thanks so much for doing this.

Pierre‑Olivier, I wonder if you can speak a little bit to the fact that you haven’t called out a recession. And you know, we are hearing lots of economists in the United States and other places‑‑most recently yesterday, the IIF is now also forecasting a small recession in the second half of the year. What we see in the WEO is that the percentage of risk of a recession has increased pretty dramatically. Can you walk us through why you are not at this point calling a recession, for instance, likely in the United States and what it would take to tip it that way? Thanks.

Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you, Andrea.

So for the United States, we are projecting a significant slowdown. We are projecting growth will be at 1.8 percent in 2025. And that’s a 0.9 percentage‑point slowdown‑‑revision in our projections from January. But 1.9 percent is obviously not a recession. And the reason for this is is that we have a U.S. economy that, in our view, is coming from a position of strength. We had an economy that was growing very rapidly. We have a labor market that is still very robust. We have seen some signs of weakening and slowdown in the U.S. economy, even before the tariff announcements. So, in fact, the 0.9 percentage point downward revision that I just mentioned, only a part of this‑‑maybe 0.4 percentage points‑‑is coming from the tariffs. Some of that is also coming from weakening momentum. This was an economy that was doing very, very well but was self‑correcting and cooling off a bit on its own. And we were seeing already consumption numbers coming down. We are seeing consumer confidence coming down. So all of that was already factored in. But we are not seeing a recession in our reference forecast.

As you mentioned, Andrea, we are‑‑when we do our risk assessment, if you want, we are seeing the probability of a recession increasing, from about 25 percent back in October to around 40 percent when we assess it now.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to move to this side. The lady here in red.

QUESTION: Good morning.

Pierre, I wanted to ask you about the downward pressure on the dollar now. To what extent you believe it can provide some relief from the pressure on highly indebted emerging economies with a large share of dollar‑denominated debt? And has this downward pressure on the dollar changed your outlook on all of those emerging economies that are still, you know, under the impact of the high debt‑‑as mentioned by the MD in previous meetings, where this high debt is really one of the impediments to growth? Thanks.

Mr. Gourinchas: Yes. So we are seeing a weakening of the dollar that is fairly broad‑based over the last few weeks, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, some of that is coming from the weaker growth prospects in the U.S. Some it is coming from the increased uncertainty. And it’s leading to a reassessment of the global demand for dollar assets. When we step back, we also have to realize we are coming from a position where, over the last few years, there have been tremendous capital inflows into U.S. markets, in particular, risk markets. That’s something that, of course, my colleague Tobias Adrian will talk about in the GFSR press conference. So we are seeing some adjustment, some contradiction. The markets are handling it. We don’t see signs of stress, even in currency markets.

Now, the interesting development is, what does it mean for emerging markets? And you are right to point out that, in the past, when the dollar would strengthen, that would not necessarily be good news for emerging markets because they have dollar‑denominated debts, so that increases their liabilities and the pressure on them to service their debts. And this can lead to some tightening of financial conditions. So we are not seeing that right now. And so that’s a plus. The flip side of this is, of course, the appreciation of some of these emerging markets’ currencies means that they are also losing a little bit on the competitiveness side, so there is maybe something that is a bit easier on the finance conditions, something that is not as easy on the trade side.

Finally, this is an environment of enormous uncertainty, increased volatility. And that I think is something that will dominate for many of the emerging markets. So when we are looking at our assessment, we are actually downgrading the emerging market economies for 2025 and 2026, most of them. Some of them may, as I mentioned, benefit. But overall, as a group, they are downgraded. While because they are also very plugged into the global supply chains, the uncertainty is leading to a pause in investment and activity, and they are going to suffer from the decline in demand for their products coming from the tariffs.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to go with the gentleman here with the glasses.

QUESTION: Thank you. I just have one question. Could you elaborate a little bit on what will happen with the trade flows in your models? I saw that in the basic assumption, the exports from the U.S. are [breaking quite heavily but not that much from China. Why is this so?

And do I understand it right that this basic model does not yet integrate the additional hikes after ‑‑ happening after basically April 9, so above 100 percent on import tariffs by the U.S.? Thanks.

Mr. Gourinchas: So we are seeing a large impact on global trade coming from the tariffs and that’s going to be the case under any combination of tariffs where the effective tariff rates remains very elevated. And the reason why when we looked at the different scenarios that I mentioned, whether it’s a reference scenario or our April 9 scenario which includes lower tariffs on many countries but sharply increased tariffs between the U.S. and China. The overall impact on the global economy is not very different because the effective tariff rate is, if anything, even higher under that pause. So global trade is going to be significantly affected. The particular configuration of trade, which bilateral trade flows are going to be affected versus others that will depend on the final landscape in terms of tariffs so we can anticipate that there will be much lower bilateral trade under either the reference scenario or the April 9, between the U.S. and China. And that is weighing down on global trade growth. This is weighing down on global trade generally.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to turn here to the center. I am going to go to the first row. I am going to go with the lady with the yellow bottle.

QUESTION: Thank you,

You have downgraded the U.K.’s growth forecast quite sharply and given the range of explanations, from higher tariff barriers to more domestic issues, like cost‑of‑living pressures. Out of those, so the global challenges versus domestic challenges, which one is weighing more heavily on the U.K.’s growth forecasts?

Mr. De Haro: OK we are going to open the round of U.K. questions so if you have questions on the U.K., raise your hand. And I will pass the mic to you. I see two there. Yep.

QUESTION: Hi.

In a world where everyone is warning about the impact of tariffs on U.S. inflation and how much it will raise U.S. prices, why do you have the U.K. with the highest inflation rate in the G‑7 this year? And do you believe tariffs will be inflationary or disinflationary for the U.K.?

Mr. De Haro: OK. Joe here in the first row.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. So Joel hills from ITV news. Obviously it’s impacting the tariffs are impacting the U.K. They are impacting most countries. I just wonder this, President Trump did say there would be some disruption. He suggested it would be sort of temporary. Is it possible that President Trump is actually a genius? That he knows something you do not?

Mr. De Haro: And I think we have a last question on the U.K. and this is going to be the last question on the U.K. There on the back of the room.

QUESTION: Yeah.

The U.K. inflation forecast is, you know, much higher than we expected it to be, 0.7 percent higher. Is that going to impact on lowering interest rates in the U.K.? And does that affect the growth rate, which seems to be rather optimistic, compared with some of the other European countries?

Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to be done with the U.K. questions and then we will move along. So Pierre‑Olivier.

Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you. So many questions. Let me address them as best I can. First, on the revision for growth in the U.K. and inflation. So the tariffs are playing a role, as they are in most countries and uncertainty is also playing a role, as it is in all countries. And it’s weighing down on growth in the U.K. But there are some U.K.‑specific factors and I would say that in terms of the zero point 5 percentage point downward revision that we are saying for the U.K., the domestic factors are probably the biggest ones. And in particular, there is a lower carryover from weaker growth in the second half of last year. There is also some tightening of financial conditions, as interest rates have risen, longer‑term interest rates.

On inflation, the revision in inflation in the U.K. is coming, again, from domestic factors, and in particular some change in regulated energy prices. So that’s expected to be temporary but it’s also very U.K.‑specific. The effect of the tariffs on countries like the U.K., like it is on the EU or China is like a negative demand shock. It’s weakening activity but it’s also lowering price pressures, not increasing them.

Now, what is the impact of the tariffs in the medium and long term? Not just what’s going to happen this year and next but what’s going to happen longer term? Our assessment is it’s going to be negative. We have a box in our report that looks at the long‑term impact of the tariffs, if they are maintained. And it is negative for all regions, just like the short‑term impact. So we are seeing a negative impact in the short term, in the medium term, in the long term. Again, there are nuances. Some countries might benefit, depending on the particular configuration of tariffs. It might benefit from some trade diversion; but the broad picture is it’s negative for the outlook.

Now, our ‑‑ and I will end with that. Our forecast for 2025 is slightly higher than OBR’s forecast. Some of this has to do with some of the underlying monetary policy assumptions for the U.K. The bank‑‑

Our assumption for this year is that there are going to be four cuts through the year. One cut already happened. We expect three more.

Mr. De Haro: Thank you, Pierre‑Olivier. I am not going to forget about the people that are on WebEx, and I am going to pass a question there. I see Anton from TAS.

QUESTION: Good morning. Thank you for doing this.

Given the projected slowdown of Russia’s GDP growth from 4.1 in 2024 to 1.5 in 2025, what are the primary factors driving this sharp decline? And how sustainable is Russia’s growth model going forward? Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: Go ahead.

Mr. Gourinchas: Petya, would you like to answer?

Ms. Koeva Brooks: Sure. We are indeed expecting a slowdown in growth to 1.5 this year, and this, to a large extent is kind of the natural slowing of the economy after growing quite robustly in previous years. And also as a result of policy tightening that we have seen, both on the fiscal as well as on the monetary policy side. It is also due to the lower oil prices that have come about as a result of the‑‑as a response to the round of tariffs, as well as the uncertainty about global growth. So all these factors are behind that lower growth number, although I should point out that it is actually a slight upward revision, relative to what we had back in January. And the reason for that is that, again, we actually had seen upward surprises in 2024, which kind of carried into 2025.

When it comes to the medium‑term growth outlook, we do expect that to be relatively weak. We are‑‑we have penciled in growth number of about 1.2, which is down from 1.7 which is what we had before the start of the war.

Mr. De Haro: OK. Let’s continue. I am going to go again in the center and then I am going to go to that side. The lady with the glasses there.

QUESTION: Hi.

In Latin America, we received almost every country 10 percent. So I want to know about the impact of the tariffs in Latin America and if the impact is going to be limited, versus other regions, and when we are going to start to feeling this impact. Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: And before we answer the question, are there any questions on Mexico, Brazil, Argentina? OK. Argentina friends, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hello.

You’ve kept 5.5 growth projection that was decided in the latest program that Argentina signed with the IMF. I would like to know why you are not seeing so much impact yet about‑‑of this general context.

Mr. De Haro: OK. We can go ahead first with the Latin America overview and then we can go to Argentina.

Mr. Gourinchas: I will just say something briefly and then ask my colleague Petya to come in. So for Latin America, as a whole, we are saying activity that is largely driven by consumption on the back of resilient labor markets while investment remains somewhat sluggish. And the slowdown in our projection reflects the impact of tariffs and the global growth slowdown, of course, which is also affecting countries in the region. Policy uncertainty. And the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus and in some countries monetary policy tightening.

Ms. Koeva Brooks: I don’t have a lot to add. Just to say that the disinflation process has also slowed a bit, and this is also‑‑also makes the policy trade‑offs a bit more complicated with slow‑‑with growth slowing down and at the same time, you know, having still challenges on the inflation side.

Mr. De Haro: OK. So we are going to move on. I am going to ask the gentleman in the first row there because‑‑

Oh, sorry. Sorry. I forgot about Argentina. Please go ahead.

Ms. Koeva Brooks: We cannot forget about Argentina.

So the growth forecast for this year‑‑you are right‑‑we still have the upgrade of .5. And this is related to just the positive surprises that we had seen, in spite of a very strong fiscal adjustment, the recovery in confidence I think has definitely played a role in kind of driving us to have this forecast. That said, there are a number of risks related to tighter financial conditions, commodity prices, and a lot of others, which is true for many if not most other countries.

Mr. De Haro: OK. So now we can move on. I am going to go with the gentleman in the first row.

QUESTION: Thank you. In the October 2024 outlook you saw a stable but slow growth for Africa. What’s new now? And what kind of initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area do for African economies amidst these trade tensions?

Mr. De Haro: And before we answer, I think‑‑

QUESTION: Hi. Good morning.

One of the things that you mentioned in your report is the demographic shift and the rise in the silver economy. Africa, on the other hand, has the reverse of that. So what is your recommendation in the short and medium term on how to deal with some of these challenges pertaining to tariffs, monetary policy, and now currency exchange? Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: OK.

Mr. Gourinchas: OK. Thank you. I will just say one word about the outlook in sub‑Saharan Africa and then I will ask my colleague Deniz to come in to add more color and answer also the question on the demographic trends.

So regional growth in sub‑Saharan Africa improved significantly last year, to 4 percent. And it will ease in 2025. And this is in line with a softer global outlook. So we are seeing the same forces at play in the region, as we are seeing more globally. And a downturn‑‑and a downward revision in our projection that is of a similar magnitude at about 0.4 percentage point. Deniz?

Ms. Igan: Thank you for the question. So on the demographic shifts, our Chapter 2 basically points out that countries’ age structures are evolving at different rates, as you pointed out as well. We have most western economies, some Asian economies that are aging fast. And you know in a health way some of them. And then we have many sub‑Saharan African countries that have a very young population. And what the chapter shows is actually, there are important medium‑term consequences of that, both for growth, as well as external balances of countries.

In Africa’s case, basically, what we would see is a demographic dividend coming from having a young population. And the question then becomes how best to leverage that, how best to use that and channel it into growth. And the answer there, first and foremost, depends on the structural reforms, the investment that’s necessary on healthcare, on education, on human capital more generally and also international cooperation because our Chapter 3 looks more carefully into migration flows. And again, there, we see migration policy shifts in destination countries has spillovers for other countries. And this is especially true for emerging market economies and lower income economies. So, again, international cooperation there, making sure that growth dividends are utilized in the best way is what we delve into in the chapter.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to go to the gentleman with‑‑raise your hand. Yeah. You. No, I am going back. Then I will go‑‑there you go.

QUESTION: OK. I have a question about China’s growth.

In your World Economic Outlook, you say China’s growth forecast has been cut to 4 percent for this year, which is a 0.6 percentage drop from an earlier projection. But China’s National Bureau of Statistics a couple of days ago predicted China’s growth GDP growth in the first quarter was 5.4 percent. So my question is, how do you see the disparity in the forecast? Is China more optimistic than you are? Thank you.

Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you. So, yes, we are revising our growth projections for China down by 0.6 percentage points, as you have noted. I should flag that this number does not incorporate the latest release for Q1. That came after we closed our round of projections. So this is not reflected there. And we will have to see how it affects our projections when we have our next round of WEO updates.

But let me give you a little bit of perspective on the rationale behind our revision for China. The tariff increase in tariffs especially since China is one of the countries that is facing the most elevated tariffs right now, is going to have a very significant impact in our projections on the Chinese economy. In fact, when we do a decomposition, which I showed during my opening remarks, the impact of the tariffs on the Chinese economy would be a negative 1.3 percentage point revision on growth.

So why do we only have 0.6? Well, because there are other factors that are helping to support Chinese growth in 2025 and 2026. One of which‑‑which is quite important‑‑is the fiscal support that has been announced since the beginning of the year. And that is adding up, something of the amount of 0.5 percentage points. So the impact of the current trade tensions is very significant. It’s partly offset. We expect it to remain quite significant also in 2026 when we also have a downward revision by about 0.5 percentage points.

The other side of this, where we are seeing the impact of the tariffs is on inflation, which is revised down. Our headline inflation projection for 2025 is actually at zero. So it’s down from 0.8 percent to zero. So China is facing stronger deflationary forces as a result of these trade tensions.

Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to move to this side. The gentleman with the glasses here.

QUESTION: What impact did the oil price also have in exporting and importing countries in the Middle East? Thank you.

Mr. De Haro: Go ahead.

Mr. Gourinchas: So we have seen oil prices declining since our last projections, and the decline in oil prices in our and our interpretation is coming mostly from weaker global demand, so it’s the weakening of global activity that is driving the decline in prices. There has been some increase in supply coming from OPEC Plus countries, but broadly speaking, the decline is mostly coming from weaker demand.

So that is going to play out in ways you sort of would expect. The commodity exporters are going to face lower export revenues from the decline in oil prices. That’s going to weigh on their fiscal outlook, on their growth.

For those countries that are oil importers, it’s going to lower inflation pressures because that‑‑lower oil prices is going to feed into lower headline inflation. It’s going to also provide some modest support to economic activity there.

Deniz, anything to add on oil prices or‑‑or Petya?

Ms. Koeva Brooks: No, I don’t.

Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to move to the center. I am going to get the gentleman with the white shirt there.

QUESTION: h I am not going to ask another question about the U.K., you will be pleased to know. Over the last week we have seen a number of attacks by the White House on the independence of the Federal Reserve. How destabilizing do you think this might be for financial markets?

Mr. Gourinchas: So central banks are facing a delicate moment. As I have explained in many countries, the impact of the tariffs is going to be to increase recessionary forces and it is going to lower price pressures. And that will help central banks cut interest rates faster and provide some support to their economies. But in other countries ‑‑ and in our projections, the U.S. is in that category‑‑the tariffs are going to increase price pressures. Price pressures in the U.S. are increasing for other reasons as well. Service prices have been quite‑‑inflation of service prices have been quite strong. And that is something that we are seeing already. But the tariffs are likely to increase price pressures. We are projecting inflation to remain at 3 percent in the U.S. this year, the same level as last year, headline inflation.

So in that context, if you also think about where we are coming from, we are coming from a period of very elevated inflation. We are just coming off the cost‑of‑living crisis, a surge in inflation rates to double digits that we haven’t seen in more than a generation. So the critical thing is to make sure that inflation expectations remain anchored, that everyone remains convinced that central banks will do what is necessary to bring inflation back to central bank targets in an orderly manner. And central banks have instruments to do this. They have their interest rate instruments. They have various instruments of monetary policy. But one critical aspect of what they do is coming from their credibility. So central banks need to remain credible. And part of that credibility is built upon their central bank independence. And so from that perspective, it’s very important to preserve that.

Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to have time for two questions. One of them is going back to WebEx. I see Weier, please. Come in.

QUESTION: Yes.I have a question.

You mentioned that the global economic system is being reset. And I am not sure if one of the early signs in the financial markets, as we see that the markets moving from American exceptionalism to the sort of sell the U.S. narrative. So could you assess the implications for the financial markets and the world economy, as a whole?

Mr. Gourinchas: Yeah, well we have seen some volatility in the markets, of course, whenever there is going to be potentially a significant change in the economic structure of the global economy. I think we are bound to see some reassessment. And investors are going to try to figure out what’s happening, and that’s going to inject volatility. And we are seeing some of that.

The good news is a lot of that volatility we have seen in the last few weeks has not led to significant market dislocations or market stress to levels that would, for instance, have necessitated the interventions by central banks around the world.

So whether you are looking at equity markets, whether you are looking at bond markets, whether you are looking at currency markets, what we are saying is a reassessment of the world we are in now and that means that there is a reassessment of valuations of risk assets, of different currencies. But that is happening in an orderly manner. So from that perspective, we are seeing a system that is quite resilient, that remained resilient but, of course, we are watching carefully and there has been some tightening of financial conditions and that’s something to be looking out for. We want to make sure that it doesn’t get to a level where the stress in the financial system would become too extreme.

Mr. De Haro: OK. The lady here in the first row has been waiting patiently. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jose. I want to ask about the trading tensions impact on low‑income countries. You mentioned there are like downgrading for emerging markets but how about like those small countries who have lower income as a group, have you assessed the particular impact on them in these ongoing trade tensions? Thank you.

Mr. Gourinchas: OK. Well thanks. For low‑income countries as a group, we are also seeing a downgrade in which we report in our report of 0.4 percentage points. We are expecting growth of 4.2 percent in 2025. So the 0.4 is very similar to what we are seeing at the aggregate levels, 0.5. So from that perspective it looks quite the same. However, there are also a lot of differences across countries, and when we look more carefully, you might see some vulnerable countries, especially in sub‑Saharan Africa. But elsewhere as well‑‑who could face very challenging conditions as a result of the tariffs in an environment in which many of the countries, low‑income countries have been facing a funding squeeze for a number of years now, private capital flows to this region have been drying up or have been coming on very expensive terms. We are seeing a drying up also of some official aid flows. So some of these countries have very limited fiscal space. Near a situation where the situation could become more challenging.

Now, on the flip side, the fact that we are seeing commodity prices coming down for many commodities will help some of them. The commodity importers in that group will hurt the ones who are commodity exporters. And there are a number of countries among the low-income group that are commodity exporters, so that is adding some additional pressure on them.

Mr. De Haro: I am going to make an exception and just one last question. I am going to go with the gentleman in the white shirt there. He has been waiting patiently, too. And don’t get frustrated. There are going to be many opportunities for you to ask questions.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jose. AFP.

I had a quick question about Spain because that’s the only countries among advanced economies where you had an upward revision. It’s going to be way better than the eurozone and even better than other advanced economies. What are the underlying reasons for that? And you formally talked much about tourism but are there any other things that might be pointed out? Thank you.

Mr. Gourinchas: Yes, indeed. Spain is doing better than its peers. Petya, would you like to talk about it?

Ms. Koeva Brooks: Sure. Indeed. We are actually having an upgrade for Spain this year, which is a rare occurrence in the many, many downgrades that we have had for many other countries. This is partly because the Spanish economy just had such strong momentum in 2024, coming into 2025. And part of that was due to the very strong services exports as well as the very strong labor accumulation. Part of that related to immigration. But all of that being said, Spain is still being affected indirectly and directly by the tariffs and the uncertainty associated with that. It’s just that, as I said, that underlying [strength is kind of having a bigger impact in the near term. But then again, in 2026, we do project kind of a slowing of growth to about 1.8.

Mr. De Haro: OK. And on that point, I want to thank you, everyone, on behalf of Pierre‑Olivier, Petya, Deniz, the Research Department, the Communications Department. Some reminders. Next press briefing is going to happen in this same room, Global Financial Stability Report, please stay tuned. Tomorrow you have the Fiscal Monitor, and then later in the week, you have the Managing Director’s press briefing and also all the regional press briefings that we have been talking about. Thank you very much for your time. If you have questions, comments, send them my way to media@imf.org and hopefully you have a great week. I am sure it’s going to be busy.

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS

PRESS OFFICER: Jose De Haro

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

@IMFSpokesperson

MIL OSI Economics –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Video: Indigenous Peoples: On the frontline of climate change & biodiversity loss UN Chief | United Nations

Source: United Nations (Video News)

Remarks by António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the Opening Ceremony of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 24th session.

—

The world’s Indigenous Peoples are magnificently diverse in cultures, languages, histories, and traditions…

But united by common features and common challenges.

You are the pre-eminent stewards of the world’s biodiversity and of the environment.

Your knowledge and traditional practices are leading models of conservation and sustainable use – reflecting your commitment to living life in harmony with Mother Earth, and to the wellbeing and rights of future generations.

The world has much to learn from your wisdom, insights and approaches, which prioritise the health of ecosystems over short-term economic gains…

As we tackle the many challenges that we face – building sustainable food systems, moving to sustainable ways of livings, and more, we must recognize that the world does not always value you as it should.

—

The difficulties facing Indigenous Peoples around the world are an affront to dignity and justice. And a source of deep sorrow for me personally.

Indigenous women face particular challenges – including barriers to political participation, economic opportunities, and essential services.

On a trip to Suriname three years ago, I had the honour of visiting the Kaliña Peoples.

I witnessed how climate change is devastating their lands, and destroying their way of life.

And I heard how mercury from illegal mining is harming Indigenous Peoples in the region, as in many others, namely, including Brazil – poisoning their water and food supplies.

Everywhere, Indigenous Peoples are on the frontline of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss – despite having done nothing to create these crises and everything to try to stop them.

Eviction and illegal exploitation continue to harm your people and grossly violate your rights.

You face marginalisation, discrimination, unemployment, economic disadvantage and horrendous violence – particularly as you seek to defend our common home.

And too often you are excluded from decisions that directly impact your land and territories – threatening your ways of life and food security.

Meanwhile, a looming threat grows – the race for minerals critical to the global energy transition – a large proportion of which are located on or close to Indigenous Peoples’ territories.

As demand soars, too often we see dispossession; exclusion and marginalisation in decision-making; the rights of Indigenous Peoples trampled and health jeopardised, all as you are denied the benefits you deserve.

Full remarks: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2025-04-21/secretary-general%E2%80%99s-remarks-the-opening-ceremony-of-the-un-permanent-forum-indigenous-issues

Watch in 6 UN official languages: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1c/k1cjhgujod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XXw8GlaF9E

MIL OSI Video –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI United Nations: Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Opens One Hundred and Fifteenth Session in Geneva

Source: United Nations – Geneva

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning opened its one hundred and fifteenth session in Geneva, during which it will review anti-discrimination efforts by Gabon, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Republic of Korea and Ukraine under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Committee heard from a representative of the United Nations Secretary-General and adopted the session’s agenda.

Antti Korkeakivi, Chief, Human Rights Treaties Branch, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and representative of the Secretary-General, opening the one hundred and fifteenth session, paid tribute to the important work of the Committee in promoting and protecting the human rights of all people without discrimination. With the Convention marking its sixtieth anniversary this year, it was an opportunity to explore avenues to generate greater political will and concrete action to fight racial discrimination.

Mr. Korkeakivi said a heavy programme of work was before the Committee over the next three weeks, with five major State party reviews; the consideration of five follow-up reports for Croatia, Germany, Morocco, Tajikistan and Uruguay; a half-day of general discussion on reparations for the injustices from the transatlantic trade of enslaved Africans, which would inform a new general recommendation on the topic; consideration of cases under the early warning and urgent action and individual complaints procedures; and meetings with various stakeholders. He wished the Committee a fruitful and productive session.

Michal Balcerzak, Committee Chairperson, congratulated Mr. Korkeakivi on assuming his position, and expressed hope that he could help navigate the treaty body system through the stormy weather it was currently facing. Mr. Balcerzak also said he hoped that, during the session, the Committee would have fruitful interactive dialogues with Ukraine, Mauritius, the Republic of Korea, Gabon and Kyrgyzstan. He thanked the members of the Committee’s secretariat for their help in facilitating Committee Experts’ work during and between sessions.

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

The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 23 April at 3 p.m. to consider the combined twenty-fourth to twenty-sixth periodic reports of Ukraine (CERD/C/UKR/24-26).

Statements

ANTTI KORKEAKIVI, Chief, Human Rights Treaties Branch, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and representative of the Secretary-General, opening the one hundred and fifteenth session, said the international system was going through a tectonic shift, and the human rights edifice that was built up so painstakingly over decades had never been under so much strain. Everyone needed to make an all-out effort to ensure that human rights and the rule of law remained foundational to communities, societies and international relations. Otherwise, the picture would be very dangerous.

The Secretary-General, in his message on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, warned that “The poison of racism continues to infect our world – a toxic legacy of historic enslavement, colonialism and discrimination. It corrupts communities, blocks opportunities, and ruins lives, eroding the very foundations of dignity, equality and justice. Forged amidst the civil rights, anti-apartheid, and decolonisation movements of the 1960s, the Convention sets out concrete steps countries must take to combat racist doctrines, promote understanding, and build a world free from racial discrimination. Today, it remains a beacon of hope to guide us in dark times.”

Mr. Korkeakivi paid tribute to the important work of the Committee to monitor the implementation of the Convention and its significant contributions in promoting and protecting the human rights of all people without discrimination. With the Convention marking its sixtieth anniversary this year, it was an opportunity to explore avenues to generate greater political will and concrete action to fight racial discrimination.

In this connection, several events were held to commemorate the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the sixtieth anniversary. The Committee Chair, Mr. Balcerzak, participated in person in commemorative events at the United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, presenting a joint statement led by the Committee together with 10 other mechanisms. The Office of the High Commissioner would continue to support the Committee in its objectives for the yearlong anniversary campaign. It had created a website on the anniversary, which presented a list of commemorative activities that would be updated throughout the year.

The High Commissioner’s annual report on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, presented to the fifty-eighth session of the Human Rights Council last month, extensively referenced the Committee’s assessment of the realisation of minority rights and acknowledged the important contribution made by the Committee in advancing the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation worldwide. Last December, the United Nations Network on Racial Discrimination and Protection of Minorities organised a community-of-practice on the Committee’s general recommendation 37 to discuss how countries could use it to eliminate racial discrimination in the context of health.

Further, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in its 2024 study on mechanisms to achieve the United National Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, underscored the relevance of the Committee’s jurisprudence in protecting the political and cultural rights of indigenous peoples. The study highlighted how the Committee’s work reinforced the principles of the Declaration and strengthened the role of international treaty bodies in holding States accountable for respecting the collective rights of indigenous peoples.

In December 2024, the General Assembly proclaimed 2025-2034 as the Second International Decade for People of African Descent, with the theme “People of African descent: recognition, justice and development”. The Office of the High Commissioner had continued consultations to inform the implementation of its agenda towards transformative change for racial justice and equality.

The session of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent in December 2024 also focused on reparatory justice. Their report would be presented at the Human Rights Council session in September 2025. The Working Group organised yesterday a panel to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention. Also, in December 2024, the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent held its first regional consultation on the draft United Nations Declaration on the Human Rights of People of African Descent in Barbados. The fourth session of the Permanent Forum held last week focused on “Africa and people of African descent: United for reparatory justice in the age of Artificial Intelligence”.

Additionally, the International Independent Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in Law Enforcement would hold its fourth session from 5 to 9 May 2025 in Geneva. It would discuss “addressing systemic racism against Africans and people of African descent in the criminal justice system” in preparation of its thematic report on the same topic.

In March 2025, the Office of the High Commissioner organised a regional consultation for Europe on racism in sports in Belgium. The second consultation for the Latin American region would take place in Mexico. The outcomes of these regional consultations would inform the High Commissioner’s report on a world of sport free from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, to be presented at the Human Rights Council’s September session.

The fifteenth session of the Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards to the Convention was continuing efforts to elaborate an additional protocol to the Convention aiming at criminalising acts of a racist and xenophobic nature. This session would focus on concrete provisions related to the prohibition and criminalisation of such acts, procedural guarantees for indicted persons and the protection of victims. The session also included a commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Convention.

The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance would present two thematic reports on intersectionality from a racial justice perspective, and combatting the glorification of Nazism, as well as a report on her country visit to Brazil, at the fifty-ninth session of the Human Rights Council in June 2025.

The past year had been particularly challenging for the treaty body system. In addition to chronic resource constraints, the liquidity crisis continued to hamper the planning and implementation of the Committee’s work. The Office was doing its utmost to ensure that this Committee and other treaty bodies could implement their mandates, including by highlighting the direct impact that resource limitations had on human rights protection on the ground. Nevertheless, all indications pointed to a continuation of the difficult liquidity situation for the foreseeable future. While all treaty bodies had been able to hold their first sessions, the outlook for the rest of the year remained uncertain, both in terms of plenary meeting and visits. The Office would inform the Committee when it received information regarding its second session for the year.

Despite these challenges, the treaty body strengthening process remained active. It reached a key moment with the adoption in December of last year of the biennial resolution on the treaty body system by the General Assembly, which invited the treaty bodies and the Office to continue to work toward a regularised schedule for reporting and to further use digital technologies. However, the biennial resolution did not endorse the proposal for an eight-year predictable schedule of reviews.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Korkeakivi said a heavy programme of work was before the Committee over the next three weeks, with five major State party reviews; the consideration of five follow-up reports for Croatia, Germany, Morocco, Tajikistan and Uruguay; a half-day of general discussion on reparations for the injustices from the transatlantic trade of enslaved Africans, and the ongoing crimes against people of African descent, which would inform a new general recommendation on the topic; consideration of cases under the early warning and urgent action and individual complaints procedures; and meetings with various stakeholders. He wished the Committee a fruitful and productive session.

MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Chairperson, congratulated Mr. Korkeakivi on assuming his position. The Committee hoped that he could achieve his mandate and navigate the treaty body system through the stormy weather it was currently facing. Mr. Balcerzak expressed hope that, during the session, the Committee would have fruitful interactive dialogues with Ukraine, Mauritius, the Republic of Korea, Gabon and Kyrgyzstan. He thanked the members of the Committee’s secretariat for its help facilitating Committee Experts’ work during and between sessions.

NOUREDDIN AMIR, Committee Expert, said that he had been fighting all forms of racial discrimination for half a century, including as the Committee’s former Chair. Despite his failing eyesight, he would continue to breathe life to the Committee’s struggle against racial discrimination. The world was in a sorry state, Mr. Amir said. The Committee needed to ensure that the international community was fully cognisant of what was happening in the world today. Murders were being committed in Palestine, in Gaza. What could the Committee do to put an end to these crimes against women and children. This situation beggared belief, yet it continued. People needed to be held accountable. The Committee had a responsibility to continue to fight for its mandate.

___________

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

CERD25.001E

MIL OSI United Nations News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: AG’s civil rights, consumer protection investigation results in $180,000 payment from agricultural grower King Fuji Ranch

Source: Washington State News

KENNEWICK — Following an Attorney General’s Office investigation into discriminatory employment practices and misrepresentations to local farmworkers about agricultural job opportunities, King Fuji Ranch, a Richland-based agricultural company, will reform its hiring practices and pay $180,000 to the Attorney General’s Office.

Attorney General Nick Brown filed today a resolution with the company in Benton County Superior Court that will end the investigation and avoid litigation. King Fuji grows apples and wine grapes in central Washington and is operated by Michael Taggares, who also owns Tagaris Wines.

The legally binding agreement requires King Fuji to reform its hiring practices to protect local farmworkers from being unlawfully displaced by foreign H-2A workers, adopt a nondiscrimination policy the Attorney General’s Office will review and approve, and provide training for the next five years to employees and supervisors about their rights and obligations under state civil rights and consumer protection laws. Once approved by a judge, the agreement will become an enforceable court order.

“Employers cannot discriminate against willing, available local workers in order to abuse foreign visa programs,” said Brown. “The Attorney General’s Office will protect farmworkers in Washington state from employers that break the law.”

“Growers who use the H-2A program are required to show a real labor shortage before they can bring in foreign workers,” said Andrea Schmitt, an attorney with Columbia Legal Services, the legal aid organization that brought the issue of King Fuji’s alleged hiring practices to the attention of the Attorney General’s Office. “In reality, we often see growers deceiving local farmworkers to avoid hiring them because the growers prefer H-2A workers who can’t change jobs regardless of working conditions. We are grateful to the Attorney General’s office for standing up to King Fuji, a grower that was unlawfully pushing local farmworkers aside.”

The H-2A program is intended only for employers who face a shortage of laborers. Employers cannot apply for this program unless they can show that there is a shortage of U.S.-based workers in their region who are willing, qualified and able to work. It is not a free pass to hire foreign H-2A workers who may be more vulnerable and less aware of their rights than U.S.-based workers.

Between 2016 and 2019, King Fuji represented to local farmworkers that it required three months of tree fruit experience for jobs thinning, training, pruning, and harvesting apples and wine grapes. But it communicated a different set of hiring criteria to its H-2A labor recruiter in Mexico — including that they find married men under the age of 35 and without any mention of the requirement that they have three months’ tree fruit experience.

The Attorney General’s Office asserted that hiring male H-2A workers and displacing local male and female workers constitutes sex and national origin discrimination. The Office asserted the deceptive advertising to local workers requiring experience that was not required of H-2A workers from abroad violated the Consumer Protection Act.

Assistant Attorneys General Patricio Marquez, Teri Healy, and Matt Geyman, investigators Alma Poletti and Rebecca Pawul, and paralegal Anna Alfonso handled the case for Washington state.

-30-

The Wing Luke Civil Rights Division works to protect the rights of all Washington residents by enforcing state and federal anti-discrimination laws. It is named for Wing Luke, who served as an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Washington in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He went on to become the first person of color elected to the Seattle City Council and the first Asian American elected to public office in the Pacific Northwest.

Media Contact:

Email: press@atg.wa.gov

Phone: (360) 753-2727

General contacts: Click here

Media Resource Guide & Attorney General’s Office FAQ

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Walgreens Agrees to Pay up to $350 Million for Illegally Filling Unlawful Opioid Prescriptions and for Submitting False Claims to the Federal Government

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (b)

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department, together with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), today announced a $300 million settlement with Walgreens Boots Alliance, Walgreen Co. and various subsidiaries (collectively, Walgreens) to resolve allegations that the national chain pharmacy illegally filled millions of invalid prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and then sought payment for many of those invalid prescriptions by Medicare and other federal healthcare programs in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA). The settlement amount is based on Walgreens’s ability to pay. Walgreens will owe the United States an additional $50 million if the company is sold, merged, or transferred prior to fiscal year 2032.

The government’s complaint, filed on Jan. 16 and amended April 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that from approximately August 2012 through March 1, 2023, Walgreens, one of the nation’s largest pharmacy chains, knowingly filled millions of unlawful controlled substance prescriptions. These unlawful prescriptions included prescriptions for excessive quantities of opioids, opioid prescriptions filled significantly early, and prescriptions for the especially dangerous and abused combination of three drugs known as a “trinity.” Walgreens pharmacists allegedly filled these prescriptions despite clear “red flags” indicating a high likelihood that the prescriptions were invalid because they lacked a legitimate medical purpose or were not issued in the usual course of professional practice.

The complaint further alleges that Walgreens pressured its pharmacists to fill prescriptions quickly and without taking the time needed to confirm that each prescription was lawful. Walgreens’s compliance officials also allegedly ignored substantial evidence that its stores were dispensing unlawful prescriptions and even intentionally deprived its own pharmacists of crucial information, including by refusing to share internal data regarding prescribers with pharmacists and preventing pharmacists from warning one another about certain problematic prescribers.

In light of Friday’s settlement, the United States has moved to dismiss its complaint. Walgreens will also move to dismiss a related declaratory judgment action filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

“Pharmacies have a legal responsibility to prescribe controlled substances in a safe and professional manner, not dispense dangerous drugs just for profit,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “This Department of Justice is committed to ending the opioid crisis and holding bad actors accountable for their failure to protect patients from addiction.”

“This settlement holds Walgreens accountable for failing to comply with its critical responsibility to prevent the diversion of opioids and other controlled substances,” said John J. Durham, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. “The settlement also underscores our Office’s continued commitment to ensure that all persons and businesses that fill controlled-substance prescriptions adhere to the requirements of the Controlled Substances Act that are designed to prevent highly addictive medications from being used for illegitimate purposes.”

“This settlement resolves allegations that, for years, Walgreens failed to meet its obligations when dispensing dangerous opioids and other drugs,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Granston of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will continue to hold accountable those entities and individuals whose actions contributed to the opioid crisis, whether through illegal prescribing, marketing, dispensing, or distributing activities.”

In addition to the monetary payments announced today, Walgreens has entered into agreements with DEA and HHS-OIG to address its future obligations in dispensing controlled substances. Walgreens and DEA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement that requires the company to implement and maintain certain compliance measures for the next seven years. Walgreens must maintain policies and procedures requiring pharmacists to confirm the validity of controlled substance prescriptions prior to dispensing controlled substances, provide annual training to pharmacy employees regarding their legal obligations relating to controlled substances, verify that pharmacy staffing is sufficient to enable pharmacy employees to comply with those legal obligations, and maintain a system for blocking prescriptions from prescribers whom Walgreens becomes aware are writing illegitimate controlled substance prescriptions. Walgreens has also entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with HHS-OIG, which further requires Walgreens to establish and maintain a compliance program that includes written policies and procedures, training, board oversight, and periodic reporting to HHS-OIG related to Walgreens’s dispensing of controlled substances.

The civil settlement resolves four cases brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the FCA by former Walgreens employees. The FCA authorizes whistleblowers to sue on behalf of the United States and receive a share of any recovery. It also permits the United States to intervene and take over such lawsuits, as it did here. The relators will receive a 17.25% share of the government’s FCA recovery in this matter.

The claims asserted against defendants are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.

The United States’ pursuit of this matter underscores the government’s commitment to combating health care fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement can be reported to HHS, at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

The United States is represented in this matter by attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Division Consumer Protection Branch (Assistant Director Amy DeLine and Trial Attorney Nicole Frazer) and Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section (Assistant Director Natalie Waites and Trial Attorney Joshua Barron), as well as from the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Northern District of Illinois (Assistant U.S. Attorney Valerie R. Raedy), Middle District of Florida (Chief of the Civil Division Randy Harwell and Assistant U.S. Attorney Carolyn Tapie), District of Maryland (Chief of the Civil Division Thomas Corcoran), Eastern District of New York (Assistant U.S. Attorney Elliot M. Schachner) and Eastern District of Virginia (Assistant U.S. Attorney John Beerbower). Fraud Section senior financial analyst Karen Sharp provided support for the matter.

The DEA, HHS-OIG, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Defense Health Agency (DHA), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Inspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Inspector General, FBI Chicago Field Office, and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the District of Colorado, Southern District of California, Eastern District of California, Northern District of California, Eastern District of Washington, Southern District of Alabama, Southern District of Illinois, Central District of Illinois, District of Arizona, Western District of Texas, Northern District of Texas, District of Puerto Rico, and Eastern District of Louisiana provided substantial assistance in the investigation.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Video: Pope Francis, Mother Earth Day & other topics – Daily Press Briefing (22 April 2025)

Source: United Nations (Video News)

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

Highlights:
Pope Francis
Mother Earth Day
Senior Personnel Appointment
Occupied Palestinian Territory
Haiti
Colombia
Bolivia
Ukraine
Good Defeats Evil

POPE
The Secretary-General intends to travel to Rome to attend the funeral of Pope Francis. When we have more details we will share them.

MOTHER EARTH DAY
Today is International Mother Earth Day. In his message, the Secretary-General said Mother Earth is running a fever with last year being the hottest ever on record.
We know what’s causing this sickness, he said, referring to the greenhouse gas emissions humanity is pumping into the atmosphere, but we also know the cure. All countries must create new climate action plans that align with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius – it is essential to avoid the worst of climate catastrophe, he said.
And as a reminder, tomorrow the Secretary-General, together with President Lula of Brazil, will convene a group of Heads of State and Government for a virtual closed-door meeting to discuss strengthening global efforts to tackle the climate crisis and accelerate a just energy transition. The Secretary-General is expected to deliver some remarks on climate to you at the Security Council stakeout after the meeting. We’ll share more details as we have them.
And what better way to celebrate Mother Earth Day than with a fashion show. We are unveiling a new tour guide uniform collection this evening at 6:15 p.m. during a fashion show in the Sputnik area of the Visitor’s Lobby. This is a collaboration between the Government of Sweden, the UN Office for Partnerships, the UN Department of Global Communications, and students from the Swedish School of Textiles at the University of Borås. This partnership reflects a shared commitment to sustainable lifestyle, fashion and innovation. Designed with natural fibers, renewable materials, and low-impact production methods, the uniforms embody a fusion of creativity, inclusivity, and environmental responsibility. We look forward to seeing our tour guides in their new uniforms, they have the toughest job in the building.

SENIOR PERSONNEL APPOINTMENT
The Secretary-General is appointing of Ian Martin of the United Kingdom as Head of the Strategic Assessment, as part of his UN80 initiative, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, that you all know as UNRWA.
The Secretary-General is tasking Mr. Martin with conducting the Strategic Assessment in order to review UNRWA’s impact; implementation of its mandate under present political, financial, security and other constraints; and, consequences and risks for Palestine Refugees.
As you all know, Ian Martin has had a distinguished service within the United Nations. He was involved in a number of strategic reviews, most recently as the Lead of the Independent Strategic Review of the UN Mission in Somalia and before then as a member of the
High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. We will share that announcement with you.

OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
Meanwhile on the ground in Gaza, the situation continues to worsen. Our humanitarian colleagues report that hostilities across the Gaza Strip are continuing, with a devastating toll on civilians and critical infrastructure. Earlier today, local authorities reported attacks by Israeli forces that struck several heavy machinery vehicles across Gaza, halting solid waste and rubble removal services.
Despite the ongoing hostilities and despite the fact that aid has not come in for more than 50 days, we and our partners are doing what we can to support people throughout the Strip. In Gaza City yesterday, the acting Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Suzanna Tkalec, led a mission to Al Shifa Hospital, where she and partners viewed work underway to install a desalination plant to serve dialysis patients at the facility.
Our partners also report that several people suffering from severe acute malnutrition have been admitted to hospitals for treatment this week, with cases on the rise.
Despite extremely low supplies, some 180 community kitchens in Gaza continue to operate every day. However, many of these kitchens are at imminent risk of shutting down since stocks are being depleted. Because of lack of cooking gas, families are resorting to burning plastic to cook their meals.

Full highlights: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/noon-briefing-highlight?date%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=22%20April%202025

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el5ekOhkhYk

MIL OSI Video –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: On Earth Day, We Finally Have a President Who Follows Science

US Senate News:

Source: The White House
Under President Donald J. Trump, America is back — leveraging environmental policies rooted in reality to promote economic growth while maintaining the standards that have afforded Americans the cleanest air and water in the world for generations.
Unlike the previous administration, which wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on virtue signaling and ineffective grifts, the Trump Administration’s policies are rooted in the belief that Americans are the best stewards of our vast natural resources — no “Green New Scam” required.
Here are key actions President Trump is taking on the environment:
President Trump is promoting energy innovation for a healthier future.
By supporting cutting-edge technologies like carbon capture and storage, nuclear energy, and next-generation geothermal, the Trump Administration is ensuring America leads in both energy production and environmental innovation — producing the cleanest energy in the world. Moreover, by ending the Biden-era pause on liquefied natural gas export approvals, the U.S. is sharing cleaner energy with allies, reducing global emissions, and creating American jobs — building on President Trump’s first-term successes, where the U.S. led the world in greenhouse gas emission reductions.
President Trump is championing sound forest management.
The Trump Administration’s proactive forest management policies protect America’s forests, reduce catastrophic wildfires, and promote sustainable land use. By streamlining regulations and expanding responsible logging, President Trump is safeguarding millions of acres of forestland, improving wildlife habitats, and supporting rural economies at the same time.
President Trump is ending the forced use of paper straws.
Not only are paper straw mandates flawed in their alleged scientific backing, they’re also bad for humans and the environment. According to a new report, paper straws contain dangerous PFAS chemicals — “forever chemicals” linked to significant long-term health conditions — that infiltrate the water supply. Moreover, studies have found producing paper straws can have a larger carbon footprint and require more water than plastic straws for “approximately zero environmental impact.”
President Trump is cutting wasteful regulations that stifle innovation and raise costs.
Actions like pausing restrictive emissions rules for coal plants and revising the National Environmental Policy Act implementation have accelerated responsible energy and infrastructure projects while maintaining rigorous environmental standards — saving American families thousands annually on energy bills and proving that a strong economy and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand.
President Trump is protecting public lands.
The Trump Administration has prioritized access to federal lands for energy development while ensuring responsible management. By opening more federal lands and waters for oil, gas, and critical mineral extraction, the U.S. is strengthening energy security and reducing reliance on foreign resources. Simultaneously, investments in conservation, such as $38 billion in clean water infrastructure during President Trump’s first term, continue to safeguard America’s natural heritage for future generations.
President Trump is pushing back on unfair trade practices that harm the environment and undercut U.S. producers and exporters.
For years, foreign countries have taken advantage of our generosity at the expense of American workers and the environment. Deforestation in Brazil is at a 15-year high, China’s unfair, harmful fishing practices flood the global market with illegal fish and deplete stocks, and Mexico fails to deter illegal fishing — all while enjoying massive trade deficits with the U.S. and contributing to global environmental degradation.
President Trump is cracking down on China — the most prolific polluter in the world.
According to Reuters, China is “responsible for the most ocean plastic pollution per year with an estimated 2.4 million tons, about 30 percent of the global total.” By imposing tough trade measures and promoting American manufacturing, the Administration is reducing reliance on China’s high-pollution industries, ensuring the U.S. leads by example with cleaner production and responsible global stewardship.
President Trump is protecting wildlife.
By pausing certain wind projects, President Trump is recognizing wind turbines’ detrimental environmental impact, particularly on wildlife, which often outweighs their benefits.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Future of wine exports – new target markets and trade agreements by 2050 – E-000974/2025(ASW)
Source: European Parliament
Diversifying export destinations reduces market risks. Emerging markets in Africa, Latin America and Asia offer growth opportunities.

After a quick growth, uncertainty prevails on Asian markets. Africa and Latin America, representing only 2.9% of imports, show a significant potential linked to projected consumption and demographic growth[1].

The High-Level Group on Wine Policy (HLG)[2] recommends maintaining an ambitious export strategy, expanding market access, addressing trade barriers, protecting wine products from unrelated trade disputes and encouraging innovation and adaptation to changing market and consumer trends.

The Mercosur Agreement is expected to facilitate the entry of European wine in South American countries, in particular on the growing Brazilian market.

The Indian market has a great potential, and a Free Trade Agreement is being negotiated to tackle barriers. The EU is also negotiating trade agreements with Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines to improve market access for EU wines. The EU only has unilateral arrangements[3] with the African countries mentioned in the question.

Promotion measures[4] covering EU wine geographical indications and wines with indication of wine grape variety can already target the above-mentioned prospective export markets.

The work programme for 2025[5] allocates EUR 132 million to co-fund promotion activities, of which EUR 63.4 million are earmarked for non-EU countries.

A map displaying past and ongoing campaigns is available online[6]. The recently published Commission legislative proposal[7] to support the wine sector includes an amendment to increase the duration of support for promotion operations under wine sectorial interventions to allow for better market consolidation.

[1] Prospects of the EU Wine Sector (https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/83588b14-0c75-43a4-b8ab-c5718bee6b01_en?filename=future-prospects-of-the-eu-wine-sector-june-2024.pdf).

[2] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/media/news/high-level-group-wine-outlines-policy-recommendations-future-eu-wine-sector-2024-12-17_en

[3] Generalised Scheme of Preferences or Everything but Arms.

[4] Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014, OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 56-70.

[5] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/market-measures/promotion-eu-farm-products_en#_blank

[6] https://enjoy-its-from-europe.campaign.europa.eu/en#_blank

[7] COM/2025/137 final.
Last updated: 22 April 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Guatemalan alien illegally residing in the United States 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 –

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

US Senate News:

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

Padilla, Booker, Reed Introduce Bills to Permanently Protect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans from Offshore Drilling

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Earth Day, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) announced a pair of bills to permanently protect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans from the dangers of fossil fuel drilling. The package includes 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, as well as 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.

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.

Representative Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, and Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.-06), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are leading companion legislation in the House for the West Coast Ocean Protection Act and the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism (COAST) Anti-Drilling Act, respectively.

A one-pager on the West Coast Protection Act is available here.

Full text of the West Coast Protection Act is available here, and full text of the COAST Anti-Drilling Act is available here.

“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.”

“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.

“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.”

“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.

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.

California began efforts to block offshore drilling in 1969 when an oil rig off the coast of Santa Barbara leaked 3 million gallons of crude oil into the ocean, blanketing beaches with a thick layer of oil and killing thousands of marine mammals and birds. It was the largest oil spill in U.S. history until the Exxon Valdez spill 20 years later. California is also approaching the 10th anniversary of the Refugio State Beach Oil Spill, in which a Plains All American Pipeline in Santa Barbara County ruptured and spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil, marking the worst spill in the area since 1969 and impacting some of the most biologically diverse regions along California coast.

After the 1969 Santa Barbara spill, California blocked all new offshore oil drilling in state waters, protecting our coastal waters up to three miles from the shore. The state reinforced that ban in 1994 by passing the California Coastal Sanctuary Act, which prohibited new leasing in state waters. However, in 2018, the Trump Administration released a five-year offshore leasing plan that proposed opening up the entire West Coast to new drilling despite widespread opposition in Pacific coast states. This proposal was blocked by the courts, but the threat of drilling remains until a permanent ban is enacted.

The West Coast Protection Act is cosponsored by Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). 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.

The COAST Anti-Drilling Act is cosponsored by Senator Padilla as well as Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Angus King (I-Maine), Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Whitehouse, and Wyden. 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.

“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!”

In 2021, Senator Padilla joined West Coast Senators in calling on Senate leadership to include the West Coast Ocean Protection Act in the Senate version of the budget reconciliation bill after an estimated 126,000 gallons of oil spilled off the coast of California.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: ICE arrests Guatemalan alien charged with girlfriend’s murder; uncle, an illegal alien, charged with accessory

Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

BALTIMORE — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested illegal 23-year-old Guatemalan national Keycy Robinson Alexis Barrera-Rosa, April 5, in La Plata, Maryland. Berrera-Rosa is pending charges for the murder of his girlfriend, Lesbia Mileth Ramirez-Guerra, 23. Ramirez was also a Guatemalan alien.

Barrera-Rosa’s uncle, Rolvin Eduardo Barrera-Barrera, 37, has also been charged by local authorities with accessory after fact of murder.

“The arrest of these two individuals marks a significant step towards justice,” said ICE Baltimore acting Field Office Director Vernon Liggins. “This heinous crime not only devastated a community but also reinforced the urgent need to prioritize public safety by identifying, arresting, and removing egregious illegal aliens who threaten our neighborhoods. ICE will continue to work tirelessly, side by side with our law enforcement partners, to safeguard our communities and uphold the rule of law.”

The United States Border Patrol apprehended Barrera-Rosa April 10, 2019, near El Paso, Texas, and served him a notice to appear before a Department of Justice immigration judge. Barrera-Rosa reported Ramirez missing to the Charles County Sheriff’s Office, March 31. ICE arrested Barrera at the CCSO, April 5, and served him a notice to appear. The CCSO charged Barrera-Rosa with first-degree murder April 18.

The United States Border Patrol apprehended Barrera-Barrera April 10, 2019, along with his nephew Barrera-Rosa, near El Paso, Texas, and served him a notice to appear before a Department of Justice immigration judge. The CCSO arrested and charged Barrera-Barrera April 18, with accessory after fact of murder. On the same date ICE placed an immigration detainer on Barrera-Barrera with the Charles County Detention Center.

Barrera-Barrera is being held without bond at the CCDC. Barrera-Rosa is currently in ICE custody at the Farmville Detention Center in Farmville, Virginia, as he awaits extradition to the CCSO.

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

Learn more about ICE’s mission to increase public safety in our communities on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @EROBaltimore.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Mexican National Admits to Reentry Charge

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

CLARKSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA – Apolinar Armando Lopez-Gutierrez, age 38, of Mexico, has admitted to reentry of a removed alien.

According to court documents and statements made in court, a stabbing investigation in Tennessee led officials to Lopez-Gutierrez, who was believed to be friends with the stabbing suspect. Lopez-Gutierrez was found living and working in Sutton, West Virginia. He was previously removed from the United States in April of 2024.

Lopez-Gutierrez is facing up to two years in federal prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Cogar is prosecuting the case on behalf of the government.

The Department of Homeland Security Investigations and the United States Marshals Service investigated.

This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).

U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi presided.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI: Key Tronic Corporation Announces Third Quarter Reporting Date

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

SPOKANE VALLEY, Wash., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Key Tronic Corporation (Nasdaq: KTCC), announced today that it plans to report its results for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 after market close on May 6, 2025.

Key Tronic will host a conference call to discuss its financial results at 2:00 PM Pacific (5:00 PM Eastern) on May 6, 2025. A broadcast of the conference call will be available at www.keytronic.com under “Investor Relations” or by calling 888-394-8218 or +1-313-209-4906 (Access Code: 2003797). A replay will be available at www.keytronic.com under “Investor Relations”.

About Key Tronic

Key Tronic is a leading contract manufacturer offering value-added design and manufacturing services from its facilities in the United States, Mexico, China and Vietnam. The Company provides its customers full engineering services, materials management, worldwide manufacturing facilities, assembly services, in-house testing, and worldwide distribution. Its customers include some of the world’s leading original equipment manufacturers. For more information about Key Tronic visit: www.keytronic.com.

CONTACTS: Anthony G. Voorhees Michael Newman

Chief Financial Officer Investor Relations

Key Tronic Corporation StreetConnect

(509) 927-5345 (206) 729-3625

The MIL Network –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s Greenland plan glosses over a history of segregation and discrimination for Indigenous Alaskans

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

Donald Trump has wanted America to annex Greenland for a long time. He now has a concrete plan to do it. As reported by the New York Times, the president’s National Security Council has instructed several government departments to get to work on acquiring the island.

Trump has made it clear that the use of military force remains on the table. But, at least for now, it seems the plan will rely mostly on persuasion.

The first component is a coordinated advertising and social media campaign aimed at convincing Greenlanders that their future lies under the stars and stripes. The administration plans to tell the island’s residents that they will be more prosperous and more secure as part of the US.

Driving that message home will be an uphill struggle. A poll in January 2025 found that 85% of Greenlanders oppose the idea of being annexed by the US. A parliamentary election in March also showed little support for it. The best-performing party was the pro-business Demokraatit, which wants to slow walk changes to Greenland’s international status.

To overcome this resistance, the Trump administration is reportedly planning to appeal to shared ethnic and cultural ties between Inuit Greenlanders, who make up about 88% of the island’s population, and Indigenous peoples in the US state of Alaska. Greenlanders are likely to question that approach for a number of reasons.

These ties are not completely imaginary. Greenland Inuit are descended from the Thule people, who migrated from Alaska around 1,000 years ago. There are similarities between the languages of Alaskan and Greenland Inuit.

But these people have been separated by 2,000 miles for centuries, and in the interim have been shaped by their divergent histories. Though their languages are similar, they are generally not mutually intelligible.

One of the main factors separating Alaskan and Greenland Inuit is their separate colonial histories. Greenland was colonised by Denmark, and Alaska by the US. The details of this colonial history are likely to give Greenlanders pause.

Alaska became a US state in 1959. Before then, it was a territory – a colonial holding similar to Puerto Rico or Guam today. During its time as a territory, the US government and white settlers treated Alaska’s Indigenous people with a mixture of disinterest and malice.

Until discrimination was outlawed by a state law in 1945, Indigenous Alaskans lived in a system of segregation and limited rights similar to the “Jim Crow” policies of the southern US. Indigenous Alaskans, like African Americans in the southern states, were not guaranteed the right to vote, and “whites only” signs were commonplace in businesses.

During the second world war, the US government feared a Japanese attack on the Aleutian islands, which form part of Alaska. As a result, it forcibly evacuated the Indigenous population, burning their villages to prevent invading Japanese troops from using them as housing. Evacuees were forced to live in unsanitary camps on the mainland for years, where more than one in ten died.

The US government justified this as a geopolitical necessity. But given that great power politics is also behind its drive to control Greenland, the island’s residents should question whether their rights will be respected if they conflict with another perceived geopolitical necessity.

Buying favour

Another plank of the Trump administration’s plan is financial. The White House apparently wants to replace the subsidy that Greenland currently receives from Denmark with a payment of US$10,000 (£7,600) per resident. It’s not clear if this money is intended to go directly to the population, or to the island’s central government.

This works out at just over US$568 million (£429 million) a year. If it’s a subsidy for the central government, then it’s slightly less than the island currently receives from Denmark. And if it’s a payment directly to the population, then it’s unclear how public services on the island would be funded.

Here again, a look at the experience of Indigenous Alaskans is instructive. Indigenous Alaskans, who receive various US government services through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, have a much higher poverty rate than the general population, lower rates of health coverage and worse educational outcomes.

They also generally don’t live as long. According to the most recent figures, the life expectancy for Indigenous Alaskans is 70.4 years – much lower than the statewide average of 74.5.

Economic development – or, perhaps more accurately, exploiting Greenland’s natural resources – is also part of Trump’s plan. Trump is apparently interested in Greenland’s “rare earth minerals, copper, gold, uranium and oil”.

Greenland does indeed have vast mineral wealth. But it is unclear if it can be safely accessed in the island’s current inhospitable environment.

Such resource extraction could also easily lead to environmental damage, as it has done in Alaska. In 1989, for example, the Exxon Valdez oil supertanker spilled more than 10 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

Meanwhile, without strong regulation and taxation, the wealth generated could easily accrue to corporations rather than Greenlanders.

There is a long history of colonising powers claiming that only they, rather than “the natives”, can deliver prosperity and progress to a country. Trump’s plan, which tries to turn the experience of Indigenous Alaskans into one that Greenlanders should want to emulate, fits squarely into this genre.

But the history of US involvement in Alaska and its treatment of Indigenous Alaskans gives lie to that story. For Greenlanders to trade their sovereignty to the US in return for a guarantee of prosperity and security would be a risky gamble indeed.

Andrew Gawthorpe 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. Trump’s Greenland plan glosses over a history of segregation and discrimination for Indigenous Alaskans – https://theconversation.com/trumps-greenland-plan-glosses-over-a-history-of-segregation-and-discrimination-for-indigenous-alaskans-254418

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI United Nations: Mr. Ian Martin of the United Kingdom – Head of the Strategic Assessment of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

Source: United Nations MIL-OSI 2

he Secretary-General announced today the appointment of Ian Martin of the United Kingdom as Head of the Strategic Assessment, as part of his UN80 initiative, of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

The Secretary-General is tasking Mr. Martin with conducting the Strategic Assessment in order to review UNRWA’s impact; implementation of its mandate under present political, financial, security and other constraints; and, consequences and risks, for Palestine
Refugees. He has further been tasked with identifying options for action, by Member States and/or the United Nations, and considering overall United Nations mandates provided by the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Mr. Martin has had a distinguished service within the United Nations. He was involved in a number of strategic reviews, most recently as the Lead of the Independent Strategic Review of the United Nations Mission in Somalia and before then as a member of the
High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. Mr. Martin served as Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya and in various positions in other UN field operations, including in Timor-Leste,
Nepal, Eritrea, Rwanda and Haiti.

Mr. Martin holds a Master of Arts in history and economics from Cambridge University, United Kingdom, and studied development economics at Harvard University, United States of America.

MIL OSI United Nations News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Ecuadorian Man Charged with Transporting Aliens

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

Burlington, Vermont – The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont stated that Manuel Rolando Meza-Cambo, 34, of Los Rios Province, Ecuador, has been charged by criminal complaint with transporting illegal aliens.

On April 21, 2025, Meza-Cambo appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Kevin J. Doyle, who ordered that Meza-Cambo be detained during the pendency of this matter.

According to court records, Meza-Cambo attempted to pick-up four illegal aliens along Richford Road in Richford, Vermont, in the early morning hours of April 19, 2025. A member of the United States Border Patrol spotted Meza-Cambo’s minivan before he could pick up the aliens and followed the minivan. After the minivan stopped in the middle of road, investigating Border Patrol Agents then found two Mexican citizens and two Venezuelan citizens near the side of the road. These four individuals are being prosecuted separately for illegal entry to the United States.

The United States Attorney’s Office emphasizes that the complaint contains allegations only and that Meza-Cambo is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. Meza-Cambo faces up to 5 years of imprisonment if convicted. The actual sentence, however, would be determined by the District Court with guidance from the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory sentencing factors.

Acting United States Attorney Michael P. Drescher commended the investigatory efforts of the United States Border Patrol.

The prosecutor is Assistant United States Attorney Joshua L. Banker. Meza-Cambo is represented by the Federal Public Defenders Office.

This case is part of Operation Take Back America a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Two Foreign Nationals With Prior Convictions Charged For Illegally Reentering The United States

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

LAS VEGAS – Mexican and Salvadorian nationals unlawfully residing in Las Vegas made their initial court appearances Monday to face charges of illegally reentering the United States after previously being removed from the country.

Heraldo Neftali Gomez-Jacobo, 54, and Ismael Perez-Reyes, 38, are both charged with one count of deported alien found in the United States. Preliminary hearings for both defendants are scheduled for May 5, 2025, before United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe.

According to allegations contained in the criminal complaints and statements made during court proceedings, Gomez-Jacobo, a citizen and national of El Salvador, and Perez-Reyes, a citizen and national of Mexico, were both previously deported and removed from the United States and reentered the United States illegally.

On April 5, 2025, Gomez-Jacobo was remanded to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from the Clark County Detention Center, based on an ICE detainer after he had been arrested on a bench warrant. Gomez-Jacobo had previously been deported on or about October 15, 2003, after being convicted of four counts of Attempt Lewdness with A Child Under the Age of 14.

On March 31, 2025, Perez-Reyes was remanded to the custody of ICE, from the Clark County Detention Center, based on an ICE detainer after he been arrested for Driving Under the Influence and Allow Child Abuse/Neglect, by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police. Perez-Reyes had previously been deported to Mexico on December 7, 2022, and November 8, 2023. Perez-Reyes has two prior felony convictions: one for Possession or Use of a Controlled Substance in a Correctional Facility, and another for Illegal Reentry After Deportation. Perez-Reyes also has an active warrant out of Utah for violating the terms his probation by returning to the U.S illegally.

If convicted, Gomez-Jacobo faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison, a three-year term of supervised release, a $250,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment.

If convicted, Perez-Reyes faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison, a three-year term of supervised release, a $250,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment.

United States Attorney Sigal Chattah for the District of Nevada and Salt Lake City Field Office Director Michael Bernacke made the announcement.

The ICE Salt Lake City, Las Vegas Sub-Office investigated the case; and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada is prosecuting the case.

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

A complaint is merely an accusation, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

###

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025

CONTACTS:	Anthony G. Voorhees	Michael Newman
	Chief Financial Officer	Investor Relations
	Key Tronic Corporation	StreetConnect
	(509) 927-5345	(206) 729-3625

Category: Latin America

Finding a buyer

Troubled times

Where the problems started

Rushing to invest

Mounting debt

Time to restructure

Ye’s next move?

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS

IMF Communications Department

MEDIA RELATIONS

Padilla, Booker, Reed Introduce Bills to Permanently Protect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans from Offshore Drilling

Buying favour