NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Pandemic

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: ‘Sustainable Development Goals Not Dream, but Plan’, Secretary-General Tells Political Forum

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    The following are UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks to the ministerial segment of the high-level political forum on sustainable development, in New York today:

    This year’s high-level political forum arrives at a time of profound challenge — but also real possibility.  Despite enormous headwinds, we have seen just in the last two months what can be achieved when countries come together with conviction and focus.

    We saw it in Geneva, where the World Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement — a vital step toward a safer, more equitable global health architecture.  We saw it in Nice at the third UN Ocean Conference, where Governments committed to expand marine protected areas and tackle plastic pollution and illegal fishing.

    And we saw it in Sevilla at the fourth International Financing for Development Conference, where countries agreed on a new vision for global finance — one that expands fiscal space, lowers the cost of capital, and ensures developing countries have a stronger voice and participation in the organizations that shape their future.

    These are not isolated wins.  They are signs of momentum.  Signs that multilateralism can deliver.  Signs that transformation is not only necessary — it is possible.  And that is the spirit we bring to this high-level political forum.

    This forum is about renewing our common promise — to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all.  We also recognize the deep linkages between development and peace.

    We meet against the backdrop of global conflicts that are pushing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) further out of reach.  That’s why we must keep working for peace in the Middle East.

    Over the weekend in Gaza, we saw yet more mass shootings and killings of people seeking UN aid for their families — an atrocious and inhumane act which I utterly condemn.

    We need an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the immediate release of all hostages, and unimpeded humanitarian access as a first step to achieve the two-State solution.  We need the ceasefire between Iran and Israel to hold.  We need a just and lasting peace in Ukraine based on the UN Charter, international law and UN resolutions.

    We need an end to the horror and bloodshed in Sudan.  And the list goes on, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Somalia, from the Sahel to Myanmar.

    At every step, we know sustainable peace requires sustainable development.  The Sustainable Development Goals are not a dream.  They are a plan.  A plan to keep our promises — to the most vulnerable people, to each other, and to future generations.  People win when we channel our energy into development.

    Since 2015, millions more people have access to electricity, clean cooking, and the internet.  Social protection now reaches over half the world’s population — up from just a quarter a decade ago.  More girls are completing school.  Child marriage is declining.  Women’s representation is growing — from the boardrooms of business to the halls of political power.

    But we must face a tough reality:  Only 35 per cent of SDG targets are on track or making moderate progress.  Nearly half are moving too slowly.  And 18 per cent are going backwards.

    Meanwhile, the global economy is slowing.  Trade tensions are rising.  Inequalities are growing.  Aid budgets are being decimated while military spending soars.  And mistrust, division and outright conflicts are placing the international problem-solving system under unprecedented strain.  We cannot sugarcoat these facts.  But we must not surrender to them either.

    The SDGs are still within reach — if we act with urgency and ambition.  This year’s forum focuses on five critical Goals:  health, gender equality, decent work, life below water, and global partnerships.  All are essential.  All are interconnected.  All can spur change across other goals.

    On health, COVID-19 exposed and deepened inequalities — and today, far too many people still lack access to basic care.  We know what works.  We must boost investment in universal health coverage, rooted in strong primary care and prevention, reaching those furthest behind first.

    On gender equality, gaps remain wide.  Women and girls face systemic barriers — from violence and discrimination to unpaid care and limited political voice.

    But we also see growing momentum:  from grassroots movements to national reforms.  Now is the time to turn that momentum into transformation — with rights-based policies, accountability, and real financing into programmes that support inclusion and equality for women and girls.

    On decent work, the global economy is leaving billions behind. Over 2 billion people are in informal jobs Youth unemployment is stubbornly high.  But we have tools to change this.

    The Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection is helping countries invest in expanded social protection initiatives, skills training, and the creation of sustainable livelihoods — including in growing industries like clean energy.

    Tomorrow, I will deliver an address on the enormous opportunities of the renewables revolution.  The upcoming World Summit on Social Development can help spur further progress.

    On life below water, our ocean and the communities that count on it are paying the price of overfishing, pollution, and climate change. We must deliver on the commitments of the Nice Ocean Conference — to protect marine ecosystems and support the millions who depend on them.  And, finally, on global partnerships — SDG 17 — we need to strengthen all the elements that can support progress.

    This means investing in science, data, and local capacity. And harnessing digital innovation — including artificial intelligence — to accelerate progress, not deepen divides.

    Throughout, we must recognize the need to reform the unfair global financial system, which no longer represents today’s world or the challenges faced by developing countries.

    We must ensure a reform for developing countries to have a stronger voice and greater participation to help advance the Sustainable Development Goals on the ground.

    The Sevilla Commitment that emerged from the Conference on Financing for Development includes important steps:  Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need.

    By increasing the capacity of Governments to substantially mobilize domestic resources, including through tax reform.  And by establishing a more effective framework for debt relief and tripling the lending capacity of multilateral development banks to the benefit of developing countries.

    In the coming year, we must keep building.  We must strengthen and scale up partnerships that deliver — including with the private sector and civil society organizations and local authorities.

    We must embed long-term thinking into every decision, as we committed in the Declaration on Future Generations.  And we must continue to learn from each other.

    Voluntary national reviews — the backbone of this forum — are more than reports.  They are acts of accountability.  They are journeys of self-discovery as countries develop and build.  And they are templates for other countries to follow and learn from.

    By the end of this high-level political forum, we will have surpassed 400 reviews — with over 150 countries presenting more than once.  That is a powerful signal of commitment.  A clear demonstration that solutions exist and can be replicated and expanded.

    With five years left, it’s time to transform these sparks of transformation into a blaze of progress — for all countries.  Let us act with determination, justice and direction. And let’s deliver on development — for people and for planet.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Economy – Current Economic Decline driven by Constrained Liquidity – Trend Analysis Network

    Source: Trend Analysis Network

    New Zealand’s economy is showing signs of strain, and a growing body of evidence points to liquidity shortages and over manipulated interest rates as key culprits.
    While global macroeconomic policies and domestic shifts play some part, the Reserve Bank’s aggressive interest rate strategy may have overcorrected, leaving the economy with limited liquidity.
    The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) raised the Official Cash Rate (OCR) from a pandemic low of 0.25% to a peak of 5.5%.
    This high rate was intended to tame inflation. Trend Analysis research demonstrated in 2023 that the inflationary measures were based on an over reliance of CPI (consumer price index) as a core indicator.
    Research showed that prior to the GFC, CPI and other inflationary measures were effectively identifying real inflation. However, post COVID the macro-economy environment changed and most markets proactively began to hide inflationary indicators.
    Prices had increased while goods delivered, the type and level of services, and manufactured products supplied to consumers saw substantive reductions in volume, scope, size, and quality. This hid core components of inflationary pressures.
    Moreover, we noted in our earlier release “RBNZ Potential Catalyst Of New Inflationary Cycle” that although indexed inflation had cooled in some areas, debt based inflation was rapidly growing and the over tightening had unintended consequences.
    Liquidity in financial markets has significantly declined, with investors and banks showing reduced appetite for risk and tightly managed credit extension.New research indicates that there is a lack of liquidity in the New Zealand economy. This liquidity crunch is not theoretical as it is playing out in the housing market.
    Despite a significant drop in home prices since the pandemic peak, affordability remains elusive. In lower-cost regions, new homes (priced below national averages) require mortgage repayments that exceed reasonable thresholds for most households.
    Even with large deposits, the 30-year mortgage repayments remain burdensome, especially as interest rates hover well above pre-pandemic norms. Such mortgage repayments based on current interest rates do not make financial sense to most potential buyers.
    Additionally, we find that housing inventory is now rising at an unsustainable rate. There are over 36,000 properties for sale nationwide. Yet buyers remain hesitant because borrowing costs are remain so prohibitive.
    This disconnect between price correction and repayment feasibility underscores the deeper issue: monetary policy has potentially throttled liquidity to the point of economic stagnation.
    New Zealand’s economic decline appears to be a result of not merely a cyclical but a structural decline.
    The over-manipulation of interest rates has drained liquidity, stifled investment, and distorted housing affordability. Moreover, it has induced a debt based inflation. One substantive example are regional councils that adjusted rates increases to compensate for increased borrowing costs reflected in the high interest rates.
    Until monetary policy recalibrates to support sustainable growth, the economy will remain in a downward loop of suppressed demand due to constrained liquidity.
    Trend Analysis Network is a think tank based in New Zealand created to identify and publish analytical results of future tr

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Updated guidance for suspected quarantinable disease on domestic and international vessels

    Source: Maritime New Zealand

    Health New Zealand, working with New Zealand Customs and Maritime NZ, has updated “Vessel Management Framework: Guidance for managing maritime vessels when a quarantinable disease is suspected or known to be on board.”

    You’ll find it on our ports and harbours page.

    The Vessel Management Framework has been created for port and vessel operators, unions, agents, government officials, and the National Public Health Service to follow at any port whenever crew or passengers (both international and domestic) are suspected of having, or test positive for, a quarantinable disease.

    This guidance, developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, has been adapted to be applied to any quarantinable disease. It is generic guidance built on best practice. It will need to be read alongside any specific legislation or guidance developed for any outbreak.

    Read now

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Remarks of Deputy Director/General Counsel Ramona D. Elliott for the 60th Annual Seminar of the National Association of Chapter Thirteen Trustees

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Note: Remarks as prepared for delivery.

    Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I last joined you in San Francisco three years ago, and I thank President Lon Jenkins, Vice President Melissa Davey, and the rest of the National Association of Chapter Thirteen Trustees’ leadership team for their indulgence in arranging for me to participate today by video. While we wish that we could meet with you in person, I value this opportunity on behalf of the United States Trustee Program to share with you information that is important to all of us.

    I am happy to pick up where we left off last year. I am supported by a strong and experienced leadership team you know well. And we are all committed to moving the Program forward in accomplishing our critical role in the bankruptcy system. 

    There have been, and will be more, changes further to the government’s broader efficiency objectives. You see that today in my appearance by video. Among other measures, we are minimizing travel costs that are unrelated to court appearances.

    And as you may have seen reported, the USTP will have less staff. This is reflected in the President’s recent Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2026. If enacted, the President’s Budget will reduce the USTP’s staffing to 670 employees. Many Program staff have already taken advantage of the offers to retire or resign by the end of September.

    Fortunately, as a nationwide Program, we have opportunities to build on our earlier consolidation efforts to more effectively deploy our resources. We can leverage staff by looking beyond the boundaries of individual field offices and even regions, and we will consolidate more functions across the Program. These efforts will lessen burdens for individual field offices and improve consistency across the country.

    In the weeks and months to come, the Program will refocus and enhance its efficiency in exercising our core statutory duties. I assure you that trustee supervision remains an important priority. We will continue to discuss with your leadership ways we can work together to improve the efficient administration of chapter 13 cases.

    But I want to touch on two things that have come up already in those conversations. The first is criminal referrals. You play an important role in promoting the integrity of the bankruptcy process by referring suspected criminal activity. Please continue to make your criminal referrals to your local field office. And if there have been staffing changes in that office, feel free to elevate to the Assistant U.S. Trustee or the U.S. Trustee. 

    The second issue that has been raised relates to trustee budget season. Many of you have submitted your annual budgets for the next fiscal year. Program staff remain committed to completing our review of your budgets, resolving any issues, and issuing your compensation notices as expeditiously as possible before the end of September. In fact, some of you have heard from us already.

    We also understand that many of you remain rightly concerned about the financial impact of the prolonged decrease in case filings that began at the outset of the pandemic. My message on the operating reserve cap remains the same as the last time I spoke with you: (1) the operating reserve cap remains suspended; and (2) you will receive plenty of notice before any hard cap is reinstituted.

    We continue to have discussions with each of you regarding an appropriate year-end target for your operating reserves. As we have said before, we generally expect the operating reserves not to exceed 50 percent, unless there is an adequate justification in writing. We are also addressing on a case-by-case basis trust operations that are significantly over- or under-reserved. 

    Lastly, I want to remind you that the operating reserve is designed to provide funds to cover actual and necessary trust operation expenses, particularly in the first part of each new fiscal year. As case filings rebound, the continued suspension of the operating reserve cap requires your commitment to remain accountable for managing your operating expenses, including your reserve. Controlling trust operation costs benefits the system broadly, including putting downward pressure on your fixed percentage fees.   

    I will turn to trustee recruitment, which is another of the USTP’s foundational statutory responsibilities. We are committed to recruiting and appointing highly qualified private trustees. I am pleased to report that the quality of interested trustee candidates remains strong.

    For the first three quarters of FY 2025 ending June 30, we have successfully recruited and appointed 41 new trustees, including three chapter 13 trustees. We also have closed four standing chapter 12 trust operations and replaced them with case-by-case trustees. In addition, we are actively recruiting a chapter 13 standing trustee in Richmond, Virginia.

    We appreciate your colleagues’ efforts to keep U.S. Trustees apprised of their plans to resign or retire and working with the Program to facilitate a smooth transition. Providing advance notice is important for both you and us. With each departure, we evaluate whether to recruit a successor trustee or to consolidate the trusteeship with another operation. That decision is largely dictated by case filings and trust operation finances. We are committed to all of you to ensure financially viable trust operations.

    Successfully running a trust operation requires effectively safeguarding sensitive information to protect the trust operation and those who have provided sensitive information in the bankruptcy process. Sadly, the nature of your work in handling and disbursing funds has attracted bad actors eager to exploit vulnerabilities in the process. Continued vigilance from each of you — as well as every member of your staff — remains as important as ever.

    Fortunately, you have procedures to mitigate these risks, even as these schemes evolve over time. For example, trustee adoption of positive pay and secure electronic payments has reduced the potential for misdirected paper checks and related schemes from bad actors. Likewise, STACS (the Standing Trustee Alliance for Computer Security) helps improve the security of your computer systems. We value our participation in STACS as a critical information-sharing measure to protect trust operations and personal data.

    Notwithstanding these important activities, some trustees have experienced breaches or other cybersecurity incidents. These events require immediate action to mitigate potential harm. Indeed, trustees must inform the USTP as soon as possible, in addition to giving appropriate notice to affected parties if required by law. While it may take some time to understand all relevant facts, you must not delay in initiating your remediation and notification efforts. And to be clear, trustees remain obligated to perform these critical functions even if another party, such as a software vendor, undertakes parallel remediation and notification efforts.

    I remind you that the Chapter 13 Trustee Handbook and Supplemental Materials specifically address insurance coverage for cyber liability. While these materials specifically mention a $1 million policy limit per occurrence, I want to make clear that this is not a hard cap. In working with NACTT’s liaison committee in recent years, we have consistently stressed that trustees can, and should, periodically evaluate their cyber liability risks and make an appropriate justification to their U.S. Trustee if they believe that the $1 million policy limit is insufficient. The Program takes these requests seriously.

    Next, I want to touch on something else that I addressed the last time I spoke with you. Then, I informed you that we would soon begin a pilot in a single region of the Program’s new, permanent policy to conduct first meetings of creditors by video in chapter 7, 12, and 13 cases. Last year we updated you on our progress, and today I can close the circle and report that the Program successfully completed its nationwide transition to Zoom 341 meetings.

    I thank you and your leadership in ensuring that the meetings have proceeded smoothly with few reported issues.  We especially appreciated the efforts of Lon Jenkins and Krispen Carroll in arranging a special trustee-only Q&A session with the USTP at the outset of the nationwide expansion. More than 100 of you attended this session as we proactively addressed many of your concerns unique to chapter 13 practice.

    The Program spent more than three years researching, developing, and implementing the transition to video 341 meetings. We were very deliberate, and I thought it would be helpful to provide some insight into the procedures that underpin the successful nationwide rollout.

    As you know, we procured and provided to each of you a Zoom license for conducting these virtual meetings. We also established standard Zoom settings and features. That includes a Zoom login page with an FBI warning and a formal virtual background for your use when conducting your video 341 meetings.

    We also developed Interim Procedures for conducting these virtual meetings. And we devoted substantial time and effort in assisting and providing training for you. We made this significant investment and developed these minimum standards to ensure adequate security, to maintain decorum, and to promote consistency and uniformity nationally. But we also were careful to retain flexibility in our implementation to permit improvements or adjustments as we gained experience and obtained your feedback. 

    For example, the settings and virtual background were subject to adjustment upon U.S. Trustee approval. The Interim Procedures contemplated the incorporation or use of other features, technology, hardware, software, or security protections as virtual meeting technology developed and we learned more. And although the USTP-provided Zoom licenses were limited to conducting 341 meetings, we also have been clear that you may purchase other Zoom licenses or video conferencing capability for other trust operation business.   

    Now that we have fully transitioned to Zoom meetings, through our liaison groups we are engaged with NACTT, as well as with the chapter 7 and chapter 12 trustee organizations (NABT and ACT12), about suggestions for further improvements. This includes incorporating NACTT’s feedback and authorizing you to deploy enhanced virtual waiting room videos, subject to key safeguards and USTP approval. These videos assist debtors by providing additional information to facilitate their successful progress through their chapter 13 cases.

    Another is the ongoing pilot of a virtual “portal” led by Al Russo and Lon Jenkins, which is designed to reduce staffing burdens on your trust operations by increasing debtor access to the meetings through their mobile devices. In our liaison group meeting yesterday, we discussed extending that testing more broadly. If you have other suggestions for improvements, we encourage you to reach out to your leadership and share them.  

    In this same vein, I note that the Program is also engaged with NACTT and the other trustee organizations about proposed changes to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2003. The trustee organizations sent suggestions to the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules advocating for changes to both the timing and location of the meetings. Nancy Whaley serves as NACTT’s representative on the Rules Committee, and I appreciate her assistance in engaging with all three trustee organizations to try to address your concerns. This includes exploring potential clarifications to the USTP’s interim procedures.

    With respect to the timing of the 341 meetings, we appreciated hearing NACTT’s perspective in seeking additional time to conduct the first meeting of creditors in chapter 13 cases. As to the location of the meetings, I understand that there is a concern about inconsistencies in the USTP’s current practice. So, I want to explain that practice and hopefully dispel any misunderstanding.

    The USTP’s procedures specify that trustees should conduct virtual meetings from their primary business location or another location within the district. They also allow for flexibility for conducting meetings from alternative locations when circumstances warrant. And they include an approval process for exceptions.

    Absent unusual circumstances, U.S. Trustees can, and should, approve infrequent exception requests so long as the trustee takes reasonable steps to satisfy decorum and information security requirements. We have recently reiterated this policy with the U.S. Trustees to promote consistency in the exception process.

    Again, I appreciate NACTT’s willingness to engage with us to hopefully resolve these concerns.

    The last topic I want to touch on is chapter 13 trustee audits. Collectively, chapter 13 trustees distribute billions to creditors each year, and the audits are a critical tool that ensures public confidence in the bankruptcy system. As you know, we have a new five-year contract cycle, and I thank you for your efforts in successfully completing the audits for the first year. 

    You were each audited by a different firm than the one that performed your audits for the prior three years. Along the way, you raised legitimate questions and concerns. In addition, after the audits were completed, we solicited and obtained your feedback.  We have made adjustments in response to your input to improve the process. And we conducted our own review and evaluation, which resulted in additional changes.

    Next year is the first year of the “streamlined” audits.  The audits will be reduced in scope with fewer tested elements and with less in-person field work. We expect that this will reduce the costs for all trust operations. And as we did with the first year of the new contract, we will review and evaluate this second year and welcome your feedback.

    To wrap up, I appreciate the invitation to join you today. As the Program explores new ways to efficiently and effectively meet our mission, we are excited to continue our collaborative relationship with the NACTT.

    And I look forward to working with your incoming President Greg Burrell and your strong leadership team on improving the efficient administration of chapter 13 cases. You have an ambitious agenda for your conference, and I thank you for sharing some of your time with me this morning.

    MIL Security OSI –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: RBB Bancorp Reports Second Quarter 2025 Earnings and Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend of $0.16 Per Common Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LOS ANGELES, July 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — RBB Bancorp (NASDAQ:RBB) and its subsidiaries, Royal Business Bank (the “Bank”) and RBB Asset Management Company (“RAM”), collectively referred to herein as the “Company,” announced financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2025.

    Second Quarter 2025 Highlights

    • Net income totaled $9.3 million, or $0.52 diluted earnings per share
    • Return on average assets of 0.93%, compared to 0.24% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025
    • Net interest margin expanded to 2.92%, up from 2.88% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025
    • Net loans held for investment growth of $91.6 million, or 12% annualized
    • Nonperforming assets decreased $3.6 million, or 5.5%, to $61.0 million at June 30, 2025, down from $64.6 million at March 31, 2025
    • Book value and tangible book value per share(1) increased to $29.25 and $25.11 at June 30, 2025, up from $28.77 and $24.63 at March 31, 2025

    The Company reported net income of $9.3 million, or $0.52 diluted earnings per share, for the quarter ended June 30, 2025, compared to net income of $2.3 million, or $0.13 diluted earnings per share, for the quarter ended March 31, 2025. Net income for the second quarter of 2025 included income from an Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”) of $5.2 million (pre-tax), which was included in other income, offset partially by professional and advisory costs associated with filing and determining eligibility for the ERC totaling $1.2 million (pre-tax).

    “Another quarter of strong loan growth and stable loan yields drove increasing net interest income and margin expansion in the second quarter,” said Johnny Lee, President and Chief Executive Officer of RBB Bancorp. “We also benefited from the receipt of a $5.2 million ERC in the second quarter. We continue to work through our nonperforming assets and remain focused on resolving our nonperforming loans as quickly as possible while minimizing the impact to earnings and capital.”

    (1 ) Reconciliations of the non–U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) measures included at the end of this press release.
         

    Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin

    Net interest income was $27.3 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $26.2 million for the first quarter of 2025. The $1.2 million increase was due to a $1.9 million increase in interest income, offset by a $698,000 increase in interest expense. The increase in interest income was mostly due to a $2.1 million increase in interest and fees on loans. The increase in interest expense was due to a $433,000 increase in interest on borrowings and a $265,000 increase in interest on deposits.

    The net interest margin (“NIM”) was 2.92% for the second quarter of 2025, an increase of 4 basis points from 2.88% for the first quarter of 2025. The NIM expansion was due to a 3 basis point increase in the yield on average interest-earning assets, combined with a 1 basis point decrease in the overall cost of funds. The yield on average interest-earning assets increased to 5.79% for the second quarter of 2025 from 5.76% for the first quarter of 2025 due mainly to a 2 basis point increase in the yield on average loans to 6.03%. Average loans represented 85% of average interest-earning assets in the second quarter of 2025, as compared to 84% in the first quarter of 2025.

    The average cost of funds decreased to 3.14% for the second quarter of 2025 from 3.15% for the first quarter of 2025, driven by an 11 basis point decrease in the average cost of interest-bearing deposits, partially offset by a 75 basis point increase in the average cost of total borrowings. The average cost of interest-bearing deposits decreased to 3.66% for the second quarter of 2025 from 3.77% for the first quarter of 2025. The overall funding mix for the second quarter of 2025 remained relatively unchanged from the first quarter of 2025 with total deposits representing 90% of interest bearing liabilities and average noninterest-bearing deposits representing 17% of average total deposits. The average cost of borrowings increased as $150 million in long term FHLB advances matured during the first quarter of 2025, the majority of which were replaced and repriced at current market rates. The all-in average spot rate for total deposits was 2.95% at June 30, 2025.

    Provision for Credit Losses

    The provision for credit losses was $2.4 million for the second quarter of 2025 compared to $6.7 million for the first quarter of 2025. The second quarter of 2025 provision for credit losses reflected an increase in general reserves of $1.5 million due mainly to net loan growth, and an increase in a specific reserve of $924,000 related to one lending relationship. The second quarter provision also took into consideration factors such as changes in the outlook for economic conditions and market interest rates, and changes in credit quality metrics, including changes in loans 30-89 days past due, nonperforming loans, special mention and substandard loans during the period. Net charge-offs of $3.3 million in the second quarter related to loans which had these specific reserves at March 31, 2025. Net charge-offs on an annualized basis represented 0.42% of average loans for the second quarter of 2025 compared to 0.35% for the first quarter of 2025.

    Noninterest Income

    Noninterest income for the second quarter of 2025 was $8.5 million, an increase of $6.2 million from $2.3 million for the first quarter of 2025. The second quarter of 2025 included other income of $5.2 million for the receipt of ERC funds from the IRS. The ERC was a grant program established under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and these funds relate to qualifying amended payroll tax returns the Company filed for the first and second quarters of 2021.

    Upon receipt of the ERC funds, certain professional and tax advisory costs associated with the assessment and compilation of the ERC refunds became due and payable. These amounts totaled $1.2 million and are included in legal and professional expense in our consolidated statements of income for the second quarter of 2025. There were no such ERC amounts received or associated costs recognized during the first quarter of 2025 or the quarter ended June 30, 2024.

    The second quarter of 2025 also included a higher gain on sale of loans of $277,000 and recoveries associated with a fully-charged off loan acquired in a bank acquisition of $350,000, the latter included in “other income.”

    Noninterest Expense

    Noninterest expense for the second quarter of 2025 was $20.5 million, an increase of $2.0 million from $18.5 million for the first quarter of 2025. This increase was mostly due to higher legal and professional expense of $1.4 million, of which $1.2 million was attributed to the aforementioned ERC advisory costs, and a $437,000 increase in salaries and employee benefits expenses. The increase in compensation includes higher incentives related to sustained production levels, the impact of annual pay increases, and approximately $330,000 in costs related to executive management transitions, offset by lower payroll taxes. The efficiency ratio was 57.2% for the second quarter of 2025, down from 65.1% for the first quarter of 2025 due mostly to higher noninterest income related to the ERC, partially offset by higher noninterest expense related to the ERC advisory costs.

    Income Taxes

    The effective tax rate was 27.8% for the second quarter of 2025 and 28.2% for the first quarter of 2025. 

    Balance Sheet

    At June 30, 2025, total assets were $4.1 billion, an $80.6 million increase compared to March 31, 2025, and a $221.9 million increase compared to June 30, 2024.

    Loan and Securities Portfolio

    Loans held for investment (“HFI”) totaled $3.2 billion as of June 30, 2025, an increase of $91.6 million, or 12% annualized, compared to March 31, 2025 and an increase of $187.0 million, or 6.1%, compared to June 30, 2024. The second quarter of 2025 net loan growth included $182.8 million in new production with an average yield of 6.76%. The increase from March 31, 2025 was primarily due to a $57.3 million increase in single-family residential (“SFR”) mortgage loans, a $28.0 million increase in commercial real estate (“CRE”) loans, a $5.3 million increase in Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans and a $2.7 million increase in commercial and industrial (“C&I”) loans. The loan to deposit ratio was 101.5% at June 30, 2025, compared to 100.0% at March 31, 2025 and 100.9% at June 30, 2024. 

    As of June 30, 2025, available for sale securities (“AFS”) totaled $413.1 million, an increase of $35.0 million from March 31, 2025, primarily related to purchases of $68.0 million, offset by maturities and amortization of $33.0 million during the second quarter of 2025. As of June 30, 2025, net unrealized losses totaled $23.1 million, a $1.9 million decrease, when compared to net unrealized losses of $25.0 million as of March 31, 2025.

    Deposits

    Total deposits were $3.2 billion as of June 30, 2025, an increase of $45.6 million, or 5.8% annualized, compared to March 31, 2025 and an increase of $164.6 million, or 5.4%, compared to June 30, 2024. The increase during the second quarter of 2025 was due to a $29.9 million increase in interest-bearing deposits coupled with a $15.7 million increase in noninterest-bearing deposits. The increase in interest-bearing deposits included increases in time deposits of $59.5 million, offset by decreases in interest-bearing non-maturity deposits of $29.5 million. Wholesale deposits totaled $183.8 million at June 30, 2025, an increase of $25.3 million compared to $158.5 million at March 31, 2025. Noninterest-bearing deposits totaled $543.9 million and represented 17.1% of total deposits at June 30, 2025 compared to $528.2 million and 16.8% at March 31, 2025.

    Credit Quality

    Nonperforming assets totaled $61.0 million, or 1.49% of total assets, at June 30, 2025, down from $64.6 million, or 1.61% of total assets, at March 31, 2025. The $3.6 million decrease in nonperforming assets was due to $3.3 million in net charge-offs and $1.7 million in payoffs and paydowns, partially offset by $1.4 million in additions from loans migrating to nonaccrual status in the second quarter of 2025. Nonperforming assets included one $4.2 million other real estate owned (included in “accrued interest and other assets”) at June 30, 2025 and March 31, 2025.

    Special mention loans totaled $91.3 million, or 2.82% of total loans, at June 30, 2025, up from $64.3 million, or 2.05% of total loans, at March 31, 2025. The $27.0 million increase was primarily due to the addition of loans totaling $30.1 million and $1.6 million in balance increases, partially offset by the downgrade of two CRE loans totaling $4.0 million to substandard-rated loans and payoffs and paydowns totaling $660,000. As of June 30, 2025, all special mention loans were paying current.

    Substandard loans totaled $91.0 million at June 30, 2025, up from $76.4 million at March 31, 2025. The $14.6 million increase was primarily due to the downgrades totaling $20.6 million, partially offset by net charge-offs totaling $3.3 million and payoffs and paydowns totaling $2.7 million. Of the total substandard loans at June 30, 2025, there were $34.2 million on accrual status.

    30-89 day delinquent loans, excluding nonperforming loans, totaled $18.0 million, or 0.56% of total loans, at June 30, 2025, up from $5.9 million, or 0.19% of total loans, at March 31, 2025. The $12.1 million increase was mostly due to $15.5 million in new delinquent loans, offset by $2.2 million in loans returning to current status, $798,000 in loans migrating to nonaccrual status, and $427,000 in paydowns and payoffs. The additions include an $8.5 million CRE loan that has since been brought current.

    As of June 30, 2025, the allowance for credit losses totaled $51.6 million and was comprised of an allowance for loan losses of $51.0 million and a reserve for unfunded commitments of $629,000 (included in “accrued interest and other liabilities”). This compares to the allowance for credit losses of $52.6 million, comprised of an allowance for loan losses of $51.9 million and a reserve for unfunded commitments of $629,000 at March 31, 2025. The $918,000 decrease in the allowance for credit losses for the second quarter of 2025 was due to net charge-offs of $3.3 million, offset by a $2.4 million provision for credit losses. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of loans HFI decreased to 1.58% at June 30, 2025, compared to 1.65% at March 31, 2025, due mainly to net charge-offs of amounts included in specific reserves at March 31, 2025. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of nonperforming loans HFI was 90% at June 30, 2025, an increase from 86% at March 31, 2025. 

      For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2025     For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2025  
    (dollars in thousands) Allowance
    for
    loan losses
        Reserve for
    unfunded
    loan commitments
        Allowance
    for
    credit losses
        Allowance
    for loan
    losses
        Reserve for
    unfunded
    loan
    commitments
        Allowance
    for credit
    losses
     
    Beginning balance $ 51,932     $ 629     $ 52,561     $ 47,729     $ 729     $ 48,458  
    Provision for (reversal of) credit losses   2,387       —       2,387       9,233       (100 )     9,133  
    Less loans charged-off   (3,339 )     —       (3,339 )     (6,065 )     —       (6,065 )
    Recoveries on loans charged-off   34       —       34       117       —       117  
    Ending balance $ 51,014     $ 629     $ 51,643     $ 51,014     $ 629     $ 51,643  
     

    Shareholders’ Equity

    At June 30, 2025, total shareholders’ equity was $517.7 million, a $7.3 million increase compared to March 31, 2025, and a $6.4 million increase compared to June 30, 2024. The increase in shareholders’ equity for the second quarter of 2025 was due to net income of $9.3 million, lower net unrealized losses on AFS securities of $1.3 million and equity compensation activity of $1.1 million, offset by common stock cash dividends paid totaling $2.9 million and common stock repurchases totaling $1.5 million. The increase in shareholders’ equity for the last twelve months was due to net income of $23.0 million, lower net unrealized losses on AFS securities of $4.9 million, and equity compensation activity of $2.5 million, offset by common stock repurchases totaling $12.5 million and common stock cash dividends paid totaling $11.5 million. Book value per share and tangible book value per share(1) increased to $29.25 and $25.11 at June 30, 2025, up from $28.77 and $24.63 at March 31, 2025 and up from $28.12 and $24.06 at June 30, 2024.

    Dividend Announcement

    The Board of Directors has declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.16 per common share. The dividend is payable on August 12, 2025 to shareholders of record on July 31, 2025.

    (1 ) Reconciliations of the non–U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) measures included at the end of this press release.
         

    Corporate Overview

    RBB Bancorp is a community-based financial holding company headquartered in Los Angeles, California. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had total assets of $4.1 billion. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Royal Business Bank, is a full service commercial bank, which provides consumer and business banking services predominately to the Asian-centric communities in Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Ventura County in California, in Las Vegas, Nevada, in Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan in New York, in Edison, New Jersey, in the Chicago neighborhoods of Chinatown and Bridgeport, Illinois, and on Oahu, Hawaii. Bank services include remote deposit, E-banking, mobile banking, commercial and investor real estate loans, business loans and lines of credit, commercial and industrial loans, SBA 7A and 504 loans, 1-4 single family residential loans, trade finance, a full range of depository account products and wealth management services. The Bank has nine branches in Los Angeles County, two branches in Ventura County, one branch in Orange County, California, one branch in Las Vegas, Nevada, three branches and one loan operation center in Brooklyn, three branches in Queens, one branch in Manhattan in New York, one branch in Edison, New Jersey, two branches in Chicago, Illinois, and one branch in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Company’s administrative and lending center is located at 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90017, and its operations center is located at 7025 Orangethorpe Ave., Buena Park, California 90621. The Company’s website address is www.royalbusinessbankusa.com.

    Conference Call

    Management will hold a conference call at 11:00 a.m. Pacific time/2:00 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, July 22, 2025, to discuss the Company’s second quarter 2025 financial results.

    To listen to the conference call, please dial 1-888-506-0062 or 1-973-528-0011, the Participant ID code is 710803, conference ID RBBQ225. A replay of the call will be made available at 1-877-481-4010 or 1-919-882-2331, the passcode is 52690, approximately one hour after the conclusion of the call and will remain available through August 05, 2025.

    The conference call will also be simultaneously webcast over the Internet; please visit our Royal Business Bank website at www.royalbusinessbankusa.com and click on the “Investors” tab to access the call from the site. This webcast will be recorded and available for replay on our website approximately two hours after the conclusion of the conference call.

    Disclosure

    This press release contains certain non-GAAP financial disclosures for tangible common equity and tangible assets and adjusted earnings. The Company uses certain non-GAAP financial measures to provide meaningful supplemental information regarding the Company’s operational performance and to enhance investors’ overall understanding of such financial performance. Please refer to the tables at the end of this release for a presentation of performance ratios in accordance with GAAP and a reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to the GAAP financial measures.

    Safe Harbor

    Certain matters set forth herein (including the exhibits hereto) constitute forward-looking statements relating to the Company’s current business plans and expectations and our future financial position and operating results. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance and/or achievements to differ materially from those projected. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures; the potential for additional material weaknesses in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting or other potential control deficiencies of which the Company is not currently aware or which have not been detected; business and economic conditions generally and in the financial services industry, nationally and within our current and future geographic markets, including the tight labor market, ineffective management of the United States (“U.S.”) federal budget or debt or turbulence or uncertainly in domestic or foreign financial markets; the strength of the U.S. economy in general and the strength of the local economies in which we conduct operations; adverse developments in the banking industry highlighted by high-profile bank failures and the potential impact of such developments on customer confidence, liquidity and regulatory responses to these developments; possible additional provisions for credit losses and charge-offs; credit risks of lending activities and deterioration in asset or credit quality; extensive laws and regulations and supervision that we are subject to, including potential supervisory action by bank supervisory authorities; compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and other money laundering statutes and regulations; potential goodwill impairment; liquidity risk; failure to comply with debt covenants; fluctuations in interest rates; risks associated with acquisitions and the expansion of our business into new markets; inflation and deflation; real estate market conditions and the value of real estate collateral; the effects of having concentrations in our loan portfolio, including commercial real estate and the risks of geographic and industry concentrations; environmental liabilities; our ability to compete with larger competitors; our ability to retain key personnel; successful management of reputational risk; severe weather, natural disasters, earthquakes, fires, including direct and indirect costs and impacts on clients, the Company and its employees from the January 2025 Los Angeles County wildfires; or other adverse external events could harm our business; geopolitical conditions, including acts or threats of terrorism, actions taken by the U.S. or other governments in response to acts or threats of terrorism and/or military conflicts, including the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, in the Middle East, and increasing tensions between China and Taiwan, which could impact business and economic conditions in the U.S. and abroad; tariffs, trade policies, and related tensions, which could impact our clients, specific industry sectors, and/or broader economic conditions and financial market; public health crises and pandemics, and their effects on the economic and business environments in which we operate, including our credit quality and business operations, as well as the impact on general economic and financial market conditions; general economic or business conditions in Asia, and other regions where the Bank has operations; failures, interruptions, or security breaches of our information systems; climate change, including any enhanced regulatory, compliance, credit and reputational risks and costs; cybersecurity threats and the cost of defending against them; our ability to adapt our systems to the expanding use of technology in banking; risk management processes and strategies; adverse results in legal proceedings; the impact of regulatory enforcement actions, if any; certain provisions in our charter and bylaws that may affect acquisition of the Company; changes in tax laws and regulations; the impact of governmental efforts to restructure the U.S. financial regulatory system and increased costs of compliance and other risks associated with changes in regulation, including any amendments to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; the impact of changes in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) insurance assessment rate and the rules and regulations related to the calculation of the FDIC insurance assessments; the effect of changes in accounting policies and practices or accounting standards, as may be adopted from time-to-time by bank regulatory agencies, the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Financial Accounting Standards Board or other accounting standards setters; fluctuations in the Company’s stock price; restrictions on dividends and other distributions by laws and regulations and by our regulators and our capital structure; our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, and the potential resulting dilution of interests of holders of our common stock; the soundness of other financial institutions; our ongoing relations with our various federal and state regulators, including the SEC, FDIC, FRB and California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation; our success at managing the risks involved in the foregoing items and all other factors set forth in the Company’s public reports, including its Annual Report as filed under Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, and particularly the discussion of risk factors within that document. The Company does not undertake, and specifically disclaims any obligation, to update any forward-looking statements to reflect occurrences or unanticipated events or circumstances after the date of such statements except as required by law. Any statements about future operating results, such as those concerning accretion and dilution to the Company’s earnings or shareholders, are for illustrative purposes only, are not forecasts, and actual results may differ.

    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
     
      June 30,     March 31,     December 31,     September 30,     June 30,  
      2025     2025     2024     2024     2024  
    Assets                                      
    Cash and due from banks $ 27,338     $ 25,315     $ 27,747     $ 26,388     $ 23,313  
    Interest-earning deposits with financial institutions   164,514       213,508       229,998       323,002       229,456  
    Cash and cash equivalents   191,852       238,823       257,745       349,390       252,769  
    Interest-earning time deposits with financial institutions   600       600       600       600       600  
    Investment securities available for sale   413,142       378,188       420,190       305,666       325,582  
    Investment securities held to maturity   4,186       5,188       5,191       5,195       5,200  
    Loans held for sale   –       655       11,250       812       3,146  
    Loans held for investment   3,234,695       3,143,063       3,053,230       3,091,896       3,047,712  
    Allowance for loan losses   (51,014 )     (51,932 )     (47,729 )     (43,685 )     (41,741 )
    Net loans held for investment   3,183,681       3,091,131       3,005,501       3,048,211       3,005,971  
    Premises and equipment, net   23,945       24,308       24,601       24,839       25,049  
    Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) stock   15,000       15,000       15,000       15,000       15,000  
    Cash surrender value of bank owned life insurance   61,111       60,699       60,296       59,889       59,486  
    Goodwill   71,498       71,498       71,498       71,498       71,498  
    Servicing assets   6,482       6,766       6,985       7,256       7,545  
    Core deposit intangibles   1,667       1,839       2,011       2,194       2,394  
    Right-of-use assets   25,554       26,779       28,048       29,283       30,530  
    Accrued interest and other assets   91,322       87,926       83,561       70,644       63,416  
    Total assets $ 4,090,040     $ 4,009,400     $ 3,992,477     $ 3,990,477     $ 3,868,186  
    Liabilities and shareholders’ equity                                      
    Deposits:                                      
    Noninterest-bearing demand $ 543,885     $ 528,205     $ 563,012     $ 543,623     $ 542,971  
    Savings, NOW and money market accounts   691,679       721,216       663,034       666,089       647,770  
    Time deposits, $250,000 and under   1,010,674       1,000,106       1,007,452       1,052,462       1,014,189  
    Time deposits, greater than $250,000   941,993       893,101       850,291       830,010       818,675  
    Total deposits   3,188,231       3,142,628       3,083,789       3,092,184       3,023,605  
    FHLB advances   180,000       160,000       200,000       200,000       150,000  
    Long-term debt, net of issuance costs   119,720       119,624       119,529       119,433       119,338  
    Subordinated debentures   15,265       15,211       15,156       15,102       15,047  
    Lease liabilities – operating leases   27,294       28,483       29,705       30,880       32,087  
    Accrued interest and other liabilities   41,877       33,148       36,421       23,150       16,818  
    Total liabilities   3,572,387       3,499,094       3,484,600       3,480,749       3,356,895  
    Shareholders’ equity:                                      
    Common stock   259,863       260,284       259,957       259,280       266,160  
    Additional paid-in capital   3,579       3,360       3,645       3,520       3,456  
    Retained earnings   270,152       263,885       264,460       262,946       262,518  
    Non-controlling interest   72       72       72       72       72  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net   (16,013 )     (17,295 )     (20,257 )     (16,090 )     (20,915 )
    Total shareholders’ equity   517,653       510,306       507,877       509,728       511,291  
    Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 4,090,040     $ 4,009,400     $ 3,992,477     $ 3,990,477     $ 3,868,186  
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
    (Unaudited)
    (In thousands, except share and per share data)
     
      For the Three Months Ended     For the Six Months Ended  
      June 30,
    2025
        March 31,
    2025
        June 30,
    2024
        June 30,
    2025
        June 30,
    2024
     
    Interest and dividend income:                                      
    Interest and fees on loans $ 47,687     $ 45,621     $ 45,320     $ 93,308     $ 90,867  
    Interest on interest-earning deposits   1,750       2,014       3,353       3,764       8,393  
    Interest on investment securities   4,213       4,136       3,631       8,349       7,242  
    Dividend income on FHLB stock   324       330       327       654       658  
    Interest on federal funds sold and other   231       235       255       466       521  
    Total interest and dividend income   54,205       52,336       52,886       106,541       107,681  
    Interest expense:                                      
    Interest on savings deposits, NOW and money market accounts   4,567       4,468       4,953       9,035       9,431  
    Interest on time deposits   19,250       19,084       21,850       38,334       45,172  
    Interest on long-term debt and subordinated debentures   1,634       1,632       1,679       3,266       3,358  
    Interest on FHLB advances   1,420       989       439       2,409       878  
    Total interest expense   26,871       26,173       28,921       53,044       58,839  
    Net interest income before provision for credit losses   27,334       26,163       23,965       53,497       48,842  
    Provision for credit losses   2,387       6,746       557       9,133       557  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses   24,947       19,417       23,408       44,364       48,285  
    Noninterest income:                                      
    Service charges and fees   1,060       1,017       1,064       2,077       2,056  
    Gain on sale of loans   358       81       451       439       763  
    Loan servicing fees, net of amortization   541       588       579       1,129       1,168  
    Increase in cash surrender value of life insurance   411       403       385       814       767  
    Gain on OREO   —       —       292       —       1,016  
    Other income   6,108       206       717       6,314       1,090  
    Total noninterest income   8,478       2,295       3,488       10,773       6,860  
    Noninterest expense:                                      
    Salaries and employee benefits   11,080       10,643       9,533       21,723       19,460  
    Occupancy and equipment expenses   2,377       2,407       2,439       4,784       4,882  
    Data processing   1,713       1,602       1,466       3,315       2,886  
    Legal and professional   2,904       1,515       1,260       4,419       2,140  
    Office expenses   405       408       352       813       708  
    Marketing and business promotion   212       197       189       409       361  
    Insurance and regulatory assessments   709       730       981       1,439       1,963  
    Core deposit premium   172       172       201       344       402  
    Other expenses   921       848       703       1,769       1,291  
    Total noninterest expense   20,493       18,522       17,124       39,015       34,093  
    Income before income taxes   12,932       3,190       9,772       16,122       21,052  
    Income tax expense   3,599       900       2,527       4,499       5,771  
    Net income $ 9,333     $ 2,290     $ 7,245     $ 11,623     $ 15,281  
                                           
    Net income per share                                      
    Basic $ 0.53     $ 0.13     $ 0.39     $ 0.66     $ 0.83  
    Diluted $ 0.52     $ 0.13     $ 0.39     $ 0.65     $ 0.82  
    Cash dividends declared per common share $ 0.16     $ 0.16     $ 0.16     $ 0.32     $ 0.32  
    Weighted-average common shares outstanding                                      
    Basic   17,746,607       17,727,712       18,375,970       17,737,212       18,488,623  
    Diluted   17,797,735       17,770,588       18,406,897       17,784,237       18,529,299  
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET AND NET INTEREST INCOME
    (Unaudited)
     
      For the Three Months Ended  
      June 30, 2025     March 31, 2025     June 30, 2024  
      Average     Interest     Yield /     Average     Interest     Yield /     Average     Interest     Yield /  
    (tax-equivalent basis, dollars in thousands) Balance     & Fees     Rate     Balance     & Fees     Rate     Balance     & Fees     Rate  
    Interest-earning assets                                                                      
    Cash and cash equivalents(1) $ 163,838     $ 1,980       4.85 %   $ 194,236     $ 2,249       4.70 %   $ 255,973     $ 3,608       5.67 %
    FHLB Stock   15,000       324       8.66 %     15,000       330       8.92 %     15,000       327       8.77 %
    Securities                                                                      
    Available for sale(2)   399,414       4,189       4.21 %     390,178       4,113       4.28 %     318,240       3,608       4.56 %
    Held to maturity(2)   5,028       48       3.83 %     5,189       49       3.83 %     5,203       46       3.56 %
    Total loans(3)   3,171,570       47,687       6.03 %     3,079,224       45,621       6.01 %     3,017,050       45,320       6.04 %
    Total interest-earning assets   3,754,850     $ 54,228       5.79 %     3,683,827     $ 52,362       5.76 %     3,611,466     $ 52,909       5.89 %
    Total noninterest-earning assets   254,029                       260,508                       240,016                  
    Total average assets $ 4,008,879                     $ 3,944,335                     $ 3,851,482                  
                                                                           
    Interest-bearing liabilities                                                                      
    NOW $ 66,755       368       2.21 %   $ 61,222     $ 321       2.13 %   $ 56,081     $ 276       1.98 %
    Money market   482,669       3,774       3.14 %     463,443       3,625       3.17 %     431,559       3,877       3.61 %
    Saving deposits   141,411       425       1.21 %     155,116       522       1.36 %     164,913       800       1.95 %
    Time deposits, $250,000 and under   996,249       9,768       3.93 %     989,622       10,046       4.12 %     1,049,666       12,360       4.74 %
    Time deposits, greater than $250,000   922,540       9,482       4.12 %     864,804       9,038       4.24 %     772,255       9,490       4.94 %
    Total interest-bearing deposits   2,609,624       23,817       3.66 %     2,534,207       23,552       3.77 %     2,474,474       26,803       4.36 %
    FHLB advances   159,286       1,420       3.58 %     176,833       989       2.27 %     150,000       439       1.18 %
    Long-term debt   119,657       1,296       4.34 %     119,562       1,295       4.39 %     119,275       1,296       4.37 %
    Subordinated debentures   15,230       338       8.90 %     15,175       337       9.01 %     15,011       383       10.26 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   2,903,797       26,871       3.71 %     2,845,777       26,173       3.73 %     2,758,760       28,921       4.22 %
    Noninterest-bearing liabilities                                                                      
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   526,113                       520,145                       529,450                  
    Other noninterest-bearing liabilities   65,278                       66,151                       51,087                  
    Total noninterest-bearing liabilities   591,391                       586,296                       580,537                  
    Shareholders’ equity   513,691                       512,262                       512,185                  
    Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 4,008,879                     $ 3,944,335                     $ 3,851,482                  
    Net interest income / interest rate spreads         $ 27,357       2.08 %           $ 26,189       2.03 %           $ 23,988       1.67 %
    Net interest margin                   2.92 %                     2.88 %                     2.67 %
                                                                           
    Total cost of deposits $ 3,135,737     $ 23,817       3.05 %   $ 3,054,352     $ 23,552       3.13 %   $ 3,003,924     $ 26,803       3.59 %
    Total cost of funds $ 3,429,910     $ 26,871       3.14 %   $ 3,365,922     $ 26,173       3.15 %   $ 3,288,210     $ 28,921       3.54 %

    ___________

    (1 ) Includes income and average balances for interest-earning time deposits and other miscellaneous interest-earning assets.
    (2 ) Interest income and average rates for tax-exempt securities are presented on a tax-equivalent basis.
    (3 ) Average loan balances relate to loans held for investment and loans held for sale and include nonaccrual loans. Interest income on loans includes the effects of discount accretion and net deferred loan origination fees and costs accounted for as yield adjustments.
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET AND NET INTEREST INCOME
    (Unaudited)
     
      Six Months Ended June 30,  
      2025     2024  
      Average     Interest     Yield /     Average     Interest     Yield /  
    (tax-equivalent basis, dollars in thousands) Balance     & Fees     Rate     Balance     & Fees     Rate  
    Interest-earning assets                                              
    Cash and cash equivalents(1) $ 178,953     $ 4,230       4.77 %   $ 310,476     $ 8,914       5.77 %
    FHLB Stock   15,000       654       8.79 %     15,000       658       8.82 %
    Securities                                              
    Available for sale(2)   394,822       8,302       4.24 %     319,127       7,197       4.54 %
    Held to maturity(2)   5,108       97       3.83 %     5,205       94       3.63 %
    Total loans(3)   3,125,652       93,308       6.02 %     3,017,737       90,867       6.06 %
    Total interest-earning assets   3,719,535     $ 106,591       5.78 %     3,667,545     $ 107,730       5.91 %
    Total noninterest-earning assets   257,250                       243,178                  
    Total average assets $ 3,976,785                     $ 3,910,723                  
                                                   
    Interest-bearing liabilities                                              
    NOW $ 64,004       689       2.17 %   $ 57,513     $ 574       2.01 %
    Money market   473,109       7,399       3.15 %     421,655       7,403       3.53 %
    Saving deposits   148,225       947       1.29 %     161,070       1,454       1.82 %
    Time deposits, $250,000 and under   992,954       19,815       4.02 %     1,112,735       26,165       4.73 %
    Time deposits, greater than $250,000   893,832       18,519       4.18 %     778,713       19,007       4.91 %
    Total interest-bearing deposits   2,572,124       47,369       3.71 %     2,531,686       54,603       4.34 %
    FHLB advances   168,011       2,409       2.89 %     150,000       878       1.18 %
    Long-term debt   119,610       2,591       4.37 %     119,228       2,591       4.37 %
    Subordinated debentures   15,203       675       8.95 %     14,984       767       10.29 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   2,874,948       53,044       3.72 %     2,815,898       58,839       4.20 %
    Noninterest-bearing liabilities                                              
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   523,145                       528,898                  
    Other noninterest-bearing liabilities   65,711                       53,441                  
    Total noninterest-bearing liabilities   588,856                       582,339                  
    Shareholders’ equity   512,981                       512,486                  
    Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 3,976,785                     $ 3,910,723                  
    Net interest income / interest rate spreads         $ 53,547       2.06 %           $ 48,891       1.71 %
    Net interest margin                   2.90 %                     2.68 %
                                                   
    Total cost of deposits $ 3,095,269     $ 47,369       3.09 %   $ 3,060,584     $ 54,603       3.59 %
    Total cost of funds $ 3,398,093     $ 53,044       3.15 %   $ 3,344,796     $ 58,839       3.54 %

    ___________

    (1 ) Includes income and average balances for interest-earning time deposits and other miscellaneous interest-earning assets.
    (2 ) Interest income and average rates for tax-exempt securities are presented on a tax-equivalent basis.
    (3 ) Average loan balances relate to loans held for investment and loans held for sale and include nonaccrual loans. Interest income on loans includes the effects of discount accretion and net deferred loan origination fees and costs accounted for as yield adjustments.
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    SELECTED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
    (Unaudited)
     
      At or for the Three Months Ended     At or for the Six Months Ended June 30,  
      June 30,     March 31,     June 30,                  
      2025     2025     2024     2025     2024  
    Per share data (common stock)                                      
    Book value $ 29.25     $ 28.77     $ 28.12     $ 29.25     $ 28.12  
    Tangible book value(1) $ 25.11     $ 24.63     $ 24.06     $ 25.11     $ 24.06  
    Performance ratios                                      
    Return on average assets, annualized   0.93 %     0.24 %     0.76 %     0.59 %     0.79 %
    Return on average shareholders’ equity, annualized   7.29 %     1.81 %     5.69 %     4.57 %     6.00 %
    Return on average tangible common equity, annualized(1)   8.50 %     2.12 %     6.65 %     5.33 %     7.01 %
    Noninterest income to average assets, annualized   0.85 %     0.24 %     0.36 %     0.55 %     0.35 %
    Noninterest expense to average assets, annualized   2.05 %     1.90 %     1.79 %     1.98 %     1.75 %
    Yield on average earning assets   5.79 %     5.76 %     5.89 %     5.78 %     5.91 %
    Yield on average loans   6.03 %     6.01 %     6.04 %     6.02 %     6.06 %
    Cost of average total deposits(2)   3.05 %     3.13 %     3.59 %     3.09 %     3.59 %
    Cost of average interest-bearing deposits   3.66 %     3.77 %     4.36 %     3.71 %     4.34 %
    Cost of average interest-bearing liabilities   3.71 %     3.73 %     4.22 %     3.72 %     4.20 %
    Net interest spread   2.08 %     2.03 %     1.67 %     2.06 %     1.71 %
    Net interest margin   2.92 %     2.88 %     2.67 %     2.90 %     2.68 %
    Efficiency ratio(3)   57.22 %     65.09 %     62.38 %     60.70 %     61.21 %
    Common stock dividend payout ratio   30.19 %     123.08 %     41.03 %     48.48 %     38.55 %

    ___________

    (1 ) Non-GAAP measure. See Non–GAAP reconciliations set forth at the end of this press release.
    (2 ) Total deposits include non-interest bearing deposits and interest-bearing deposits.
    (3 ) Ratio calculated by dividing noninterest expense by the sum of net interest income before provision for credit losses and noninterest income.
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    SELECTED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
     
      At or for the quarter ended  
      June 30,     March 31,     June 30,  
      2025     2025     2024  
    Credit Quality Data:                      
    Special mention loans $ 91,317     $ 64,279     $ 19,520  
    Special mention loans to total loans HFI   2.82 %     2.05 %     0.64 %
    Substandard loans $ 91,019     $ 76,372     $ 63,076  
    Substandard loans to total loans HFI   2.81 %     2.43 %     2.07 %
    Loans 30-89 days past due, excluding nonperforming loans $ 18,003     $ 5,927     $ 11,270  
    Loans 30-89 days past due, excluding nonperforming loans, to total loans   0.56 %     0.19 %     0.37 %
    Nonperforming loans $ 56,817     $ 60,380     $ 54,589  
    OREO $ 4,170     $ 4,170     $ —  
    Nonperforming assets $ 60,987     $ 64,550     $ 54,589  
    Nonperforming loans to total loans HFI   1.76 %     1.92 %     1.79 %
    Nonperforming assets to total assets   1.49 %     1.61 %     1.41 %
                           
    Allowance for loan losses $ 51,014     $ 51,932     $ 41,741  
    Allowance for loan losses to total loans HFI   1.58 %     1.65 %     1.37 %
    Allowance for loan losses to nonperforming loans HFI   89.79 %     86.01 %     76.46 %
    Net charge-offs $ 3,305     $ 2,643     $ 551  
    Net charge-offs to average loans   0.42 %     0.35 %     0.07 %
                           
    Capitalratios(1)                      
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets(2)   11.07 %     11.10 %     11.53 %
    Tier 1 leverage ratio   12.04 %     12.07 %     12.48 %
    Tier 1 common capital to risk-weighted assets   17.61 %     17.87 %     18.89 %
    Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets   18.17 %     18.45 %     19.50 %
    Total capital to risk-weighted assets   24.00 %     24.42 %     25.67 %

    ___________

    (1 ) June 30, 2025 capital ratios are preliminary.
    (2 ) Non-GAAP measure. See Non-GAAP reconciliations set forth at the end of this press release.
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    SELECTED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
    (Unaudited)
     
    Loan Portfolio Detail As of June 30, 2025   As of March 31, 2025     As of June 30, 2024  
    (dollars in thousands) $   %   $     %     $     %  
    Loans:                                          
    Commercial and industrial $ 138,263       4.3 %   $ 135,538       4.3 %   $ 126,649       4.2 %
    SBA   55,984       1.7 %     50,651       1.6 %     50,323       1.7 %
    Construction and land development   157,970       4.9 %     158,883       5.1 %     202,459       6.6 %
    Commercial real estate(1)   1,273,442       39.4 %     1,245,402       39.6 %     1,190,207       39.1 %
    Single-family residential mortgages   1,603,114       49.6 %     1,545,822       49.2 %     1,467,802       48.2 %
    Other loans   5,922       0.1 %     6,767       0.2 %     10,272       0.2 %
    Total loans $ 3,234,695       100.0 %   $ 3,143,063       100.0 %   $ 3,047,712       100.0 %
    Allowance for loan losses   (51,014 )         (51,932 )             (41,741 )        
    Total loans, net $ 3,183,681         $ 3,091,131             $ 3,005,971          

    ___________

    (1 ) Includes non-farm and non-residential loans, multi-family residential loans and non-owner occupied single family residential loans.
    Deposits As of June 30, 2025   As of March 31, 2025     As of June 30, 2024  
    (dollars in thousands) $   %   $   %     $   %  
    Deposits:                                          
    Noninterest-bearing demand $ 543,885       17.1 %   $ 528,205       16.8 %   $ 542,971       18.0 %
    Savings, NOW and money market accounts   691,679       21.7 %     721,216       22.9 %     647,770       21.4 %
    Time deposits, $250,000 and under   848,379       26.6 %     863,962       27.5 %     921,712       30.5 %
    Time deposits, greater than $250,000   920,481       28.8 %     870,708       27.8 %     790,478       26.1 %
    Wholesale deposits(1)   183,807       5.8 %     158,537       5.0 %     120,674       4.0 %
    Total deposits $ 3,188,231       100.0 %   $ 3,142,628       100.0 %   $ 3,023,605       100.0 %

    ___________

    (1 ) Includes brokered deposits, collateralized deposits from the State of California, and deposits acquired through internet listing services.

    Non-GAAP Reconciliations

    Tangible Book Value Reconciliations

    Tangible book value per share is a non-GAAP disclosure. Management measures tangible book value per share to assess the Company’s capital strength and business performance and believes this is helpful to investors as additional tools for further understanding our performance. The following is a reconciliation of tangible book value to the Company shareholders’ equity computed in accordance with GAAP, as well as a calculation of tangible book value per share as of as of the dates indicated.

                         
    (dollars in thousands, except share and per share data) June 30, 2025     March 31, 2025     June 30, 2024  
    Tangible common equity:                      
    Total shareholders’ equity $ 517,653     $ 510,306     $ 511,291  
    Adjustments                      
    Goodwill   (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )
    Core deposit intangible   (1,667 )     (1,839 )     (2,394 )
    Tangible common equity $ 444,488     $ 436,969     $ 437,399  
    Tangible assets:                      
    Total assets-GAAP $ 4,090,040     $ 4,009,400     $ 3,868,186  
    Adjustments                      
    Goodwill   (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )
    Core deposit intangible   (1,667 )     (1,839 )     (2,394 )
    Tangible assets $ 4,016,875     $ 3,936,063     $ 3,794,294  
    Common shares outstanding   17,699,091       17,738,628       18,182,154  
    Common equity to assets ratio   12.66 %     12.73 %     13.22 %
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio   11.07 %     11.10 %     11.53 %
    Book value per share $ 29.25     $ 28.77     $ 28.12  
    Tangible book value per share $ 25.11     $ 24.63     $ 24.06  

    Return on Average Tangible Common Equity

    Management measures return on average tangible common equity (“ROATCE”) to assess the Company’s capital strength and business performance and believes this is helpful to investors as an additional tool for further understanding our performance. Tangible equity excludes goodwill and other intangible assets (excluding mortgage servicing rights) and is reviewed by banking and financial institution regulators when assessing a financial institution’s capital adequacy. This non-GAAP financial measure should not be considered a substitute for operating results determined in accordance with GAAP and may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures used by other companies. The following table reconciles ROATCE to its most comparable GAAP measure:

      Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended June 30,  
    (dollars in thousands) June 30, 2025     March 31, 2025     June 30, 2024     2025     2024  
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 9,333     $ 2,290     $ 7,245     $ 11,623     $ 15,281  
    Average shareholders’ equity   513,691       512,262       512,185       512,981       512,486  
    Adjustments:                                      
    Average goodwill   (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )
    Average core deposit intangible   (1,780 )     (1,951 )     (2,525 )     (1,865 )     (2,625 )
    Adjusted average tangible common equity $ 440,413     $ 438,813     $ 438,162     $ 439,618     $ 438,363  
    Return on average common equity, annualized   7.29 %     1.81 %     5.69 %     4.57 %     6.00 %
    Return on average tangible common equity, annualized   8.50 %     2.12 %     6.65 %     5.33 %     7.01 %

    The MIL Network –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: RBB Bancorp Reports Second Quarter 2025 Earnings and Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend of $0.16 Per Common Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LOS ANGELES, July 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — RBB Bancorp (NASDAQ:RBB) and its subsidiaries, Royal Business Bank (the “Bank”) and RBB Asset Management Company (“RAM”), collectively referred to herein as the “Company,” announced financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2025.

    Second Quarter 2025 Highlights

    • Net income totaled $9.3 million, or $0.52 diluted earnings per share
    • Return on average assets of 0.93%, compared to 0.24% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025
    • Net interest margin expanded to 2.92%, up from 2.88% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025
    • Net loans held for investment growth of $91.6 million, or 12% annualized
    • Nonperforming assets decreased $3.6 million, or 5.5%, to $61.0 million at June 30, 2025, down from $64.6 million at March 31, 2025
    • Book value and tangible book value per share(1) increased to $29.25 and $25.11 at June 30, 2025, up from $28.77 and $24.63 at March 31, 2025

    The Company reported net income of $9.3 million, or $0.52 diluted earnings per share, for the quarter ended June 30, 2025, compared to net income of $2.3 million, or $0.13 diluted earnings per share, for the quarter ended March 31, 2025. Net income for the second quarter of 2025 included income from an Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”) of $5.2 million (pre-tax), which was included in other income, offset partially by professional and advisory costs associated with filing and determining eligibility for the ERC totaling $1.2 million (pre-tax).

    “Another quarter of strong loan growth and stable loan yields drove increasing net interest income and margin expansion in the second quarter,” said Johnny Lee, President and Chief Executive Officer of RBB Bancorp. “We also benefited from the receipt of a $5.2 million ERC in the second quarter. We continue to work through our nonperforming assets and remain focused on resolving our nonperforming loans as quickly as possible while minimizing the impact to earnings and capital.”

    (1 ) Reconciliations of the non–U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) measures included at the end of this press release.
         

    Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin

    Net interest income was $27.3 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $26.2 million for the first quarter of 2025. The $1.2 million increase was due to a $1.9 million increase in interest income, offset by a $698,000 increase in interest expense. The increase in interest income was mostly due to a $2.1 million increase in interest and fees on loans. The increase in interest expense was due to a $433,000 increase in interest on borrowings and a $265,000 increase in interest on deposits.

    The net interest margin (“NIM”) was 2.92% for the second quarter of 2025, an increase of 4 basis points from 2.88% for the first quarter of 2025. The NIM expansion was due to a 3 basis point increase in the yield on average interest-earning assets, combined with a 1 basis point decrease in the overall cost of funds. The yield on average interest-earning assets increased to 5.79% for the second quarter of 2025 from 5.76% for the first quarter of 2025 due mainly to a 2 basis point increase in the yield on average loans to 6.03%. Average loans represented 85% of average interest-earning assets in the second quarter of 2025, as compared to 84% in the first quarter of 2025.

    The average cost of funds decreased to 3.14% for the second quarter of 2025 from 3.15% for the first quarter of 2025, driven by an 11 basis point decrease in the average cost of interest-bearing deposits, partially offset by a 75 basis point increase in the average cost of total borrowings. The average cost of interest-bearing deposits decreased to 3.66% for the second quarter of 2025 from 3.77% for the first quarter of 2025. The overall funding mix for the second quarter of 2025 remained relatively unchanged from the first quarter of 2025 with total deposits representing 90% of interest bearing liabilities and average noninterest-bearing deposits representing 17% of average total deposits. The average cost of borrowings increased as $150 million in long term FHLB advances matured during the first quarter of 2025, the majority of which were replaced and repriced at current market rates. The all-in average spot rate for total deposits was 2.95% at June 30, 2025.

    Provision for Credit Losses

    The provision for credit losses was $2.4 million for the second quarter of 2025 compared to $6.7 million for the first quarter of 2025. The second quarter of 2025 provision for credit losses reflected an increase in general reserves of $1.5 million due mainly to net loan growth, and an increase in a specific reserve of $924,000 related to one lending relationship. The second quarter provision also took into consideration factors such as changes in the outlook for economic conditions and market interest rates, and changes in credit quality metrics, including changes in loans 30-89 days past due, nonperforming loans, special mention and substandard loans during the period. Net charge-offs of $3.3 million in the second quarter related to loans which had these specific reserves at March 31, 2025. Net charge-offs on an annualized basis represented 0.42% of average loans for the second quarter of 2025 compared to 0.35% for the first quarter of 2025.

    Noninterest Income

    Noninterest income for the second quarter of 2025 was $8.5 million, an increase of $6.2 million from $2.3 million for the first quarter of 2025. The second quarter of 2025 included other income of $5.2 million for the receipt of ERC funds from the IRS. The ERC was a grant program established under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and these funds relate to qualifying amended payroll tax returns the Company filed for the first and second quarters of 2021.

    Upon receipt of the ERC funds, certain professional and tax advisory costs associated with the assessment and compilation of the ERC refunds became due and payable. These amounts totaled $1.2 million and are included in legal and professional expense in our consolidated statements of income for the second quarter of 2025. There were no such ERC amounts received or associated costs recognized during the first quarter of 2025 or the quarter ended June 30, 2024.

    The second quarter of 2025 also included a higher gain on sale of loans of $277,000 and recoveries associated with a fully-charged off loan acquired in a bank acquisition of $350,000, the latter included in “other income.”

    Noninterest Expense

    Noninterest expense for the second quarter of 2025 was $20.5 million, an increase of $2.0 million from $18.5 million for the first quarter of 2025. This increase was mostly due to higher legal and professional expense of $1.4 million, of which $1.2 million was attributed to the aforementioned ERC advisory costs, and a $437,000 increase in salaries and employee benefits expenses. The increase in compensation includes higher incentives related to sustained production levels, the impact of annual pay increases, and approximately $330,000 in costs related to executive management transitions, offset by lower payroll taxes. The efficiency ratio was 57.2% for the second quarter of 2025, down from 65.1% for the first quarter of 2025 due mostly to higher noninterest income related to the ERC, partially offset by higher noninterest expense related to the ERC advisory costs.

    Income Taxes

    The effective tax rate was 27.8% for the second quarter of 2025 and 28.2% for the first quarter of 2025. 

    Balance Sheet

    At June 30, 2025, total assets were $4.1 billion, an $80.6 million increase compared to March 31, 2025, and a $221.9 million increase compared to June 30, 2024.

    Loan and Securities Portfolio

    Loans held for investment (“HFI”) totaled $3.2 billion as of June 30, 2025, an increase of $91.6 million, or 12% annualized, compared to March 31, 2025 and an increase of $187.0 million, or 6.1%, compared to June 30, 2024. The second quarter of 2025 net loan growth included $182.8 million in new production with an average yield of 6.76%. The increase from March 31, 2025 was primarily due to a $57.3 million increase in single-family residential (“SFR”) mortgage loans, a $28.0 million increase in commercial real estate (“CRE”) loans, a $5.3 million increase in Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans and a $2.7 million increase in commercial and industrial (“C&I”) loans. The loan to deposit ratio was 101.5% at June 30, 2025, compared to 100.0% at March 31, 2025 and 100.9% at June 30, 2024. 

    As of June 30, 2025, available for sale securities (“AFS”) totaled $413.1 million, an increase of $35.0 million from March 31, 2025, primarily related to purchases of $68.0 million, offset by maturities and amortization of $33.0 million during the second quarter of 2025. As of June 30, 2025, net unrealized losses totaled $23.1 million, a $1.9 million decrease, when compared to net unrealized losses of $25.0 million as of March 31, 2025.

    Deposits

    Total deposits were $3.2 billion as of June 30, 2025, an increase of $45.6 million, or 5.8% annualized, compared to March 31, 2025 and an increase of $164.6 million, or 5.4%, compared to June 30, 2024. The increase during the second quarter of 2025 was due to a $29.9 million increase in interest-bearing deposits coupled with a $15.7 million increase in noninterest-bearing deposits. The increase in interest-bearing deposits included increases in time deposits of $59.5 million, offset by decreases in interest-bearing non-maturity deposits of $29.5 million. Wholesale deposits totaled $183.8 million at June 30, 2025, an increase of $25.3 million compared to $158.5 million at March 31, 2025. Noninterest-bearing deposits totaled $543.9 million and represented 17.1% of total deposits at June 30, 2025 compared to $528.2 million and 16.8% at March 31, 2025.

    Credit Quality

    Nonperforming assets totaled $61.0 million, or 1.49% of total assets, at June 30, 2025, down from $64.6 million, or 1.61% of total assets, at March 31, 2025. The $3.6 million decrease in nonperforming assets was due to $3.3 million in net charge-offs and $1.7 million in payoffs and paydowns, partially offset by $1.4 million in additions from loans migrating to nonaccrual status in the second quarter of 2025. Nonperforming assets included one $4.2 million other real estate owned (included in “accrued interest and other assets”) at June 30, 2025 and March 31, 2025.

    Special mention loans totaled $91.3 million, or 2.82% of total loans, at June 30, 2025, up from $64.3 million, or 2.05% of total loans, at March 31, 2025. The $27.0 million increase was primarily due to the addition of loans totaling $30.1 million and $1.6 million in balance increases, partially offset by the downgrade of two CRE loans totaling $4.0 million to substandard-rated loans and payoffs and paydowns totaling $660,000. As of June 30, 2025, all special mention loans were paying current.

    Substandard loans totaled $91.0 million at June 30, 2025, up from $76.4 million at March 31, 2025. The $14.6 million increase was primarily due to the downgrades totaling $20.6 million, partially offset by net charge-offs totaling $3.3 million and payoffs and paydowns totaling $2.7 million. Of the total substandard loans at June 30, 2025, there were $34.2 million on accrual status.

    30-89 day delinquent loans, excluding nonperforming loans, totaled $18.0 million, or 0.56% of total loans, at June 30, 2025, up from $5.9 million, or 0.19% of total loans, at March 31, 2025. The $12.1 million increase was mostly due to $15.5 million in new delinquent loans, offset by $2.2 million in loans returning to current status, $798,000 in loans migrating to nonaccrual status, and $427,000 in paydowns and payoffs. The additions include an $8.5 million CRE loan that has since been brought current.

    As of June 30, 2025, the allowance for credit losses totaled $51.6 million and was comprised of an allowance for loan losses of $51.0 million and a reserve for unfunded commitments of $629,000 (included in “accrued interest and other liabilities”). This compares to the allowance for credit losses of $52.6 million, comprised of an allowance for loan losses of $51.9 million and a reserve for unfunded commitments of $629,000 at March 31, 2025. The $918,000 decrease in the allowance for credit losses for the second quarter of 2025 was due to net charge-offs of $3.3 million, offset by a $2.4 million provision for credit losses. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of loans HFI decreased to 1.58% at June 30, 2025, compared to 1.65% at March 31, 2025, due mainly to net charge-offs of amounts included in specific reserves at March 31, 2025. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of nonperforming loans HFI was 90% at June 30, 2025, an increase from 86% at March 31, 2025. 

      For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2025     For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2025  
    (dollars in thousands) Allowance
    for
    loan losses
        Reserve for
    unfunded
    loan commitments
        Allowance
    for
    credit losses
        Allowance
    for loan
    losses
        Reserve for
    unfunded
    loan
    commitments
        Allowance
    for credit
    losses
     
    Beginning balance $ 51,932     $ 629     $ 52,561     $ 47,729     $ 729     $ 48,458  
    Provision for (reversal of) credit losses   2,387       —       2,387       9,233       (100 )     9,133  
    Less loans charged-off   (3,339 )     —       (3,339 )     (6,065 )     —       (6,065 )
    Recoveries on loans charged-off   34       —       34       117       —       117  
    Ending balance $ 51,014     $ 629     $ 51,643     $ 51,014     $ 629     $ 51,643  
     

    Shareholders’ Equity

    At June 30, 2025, total shareholders’ equity was $517.7 million, a $7.3 million increase compared to March 31, 2025, and a $6.4 million increase compared to June 30, 2024. The increase in shareholders’ equity for the second quarter of 2025 was due to net income of $9.3 million, lower net unrealized losses on AFS securities of $1.3 million and equity compensation activity of $1.1 million, offset by common stock cash dividends paid totaling $2.9 million and common stock repurchases totaling $1.5 million. The increase in shareholders’ equity for the last twelve months was due to net income of $23.0 million, lower net unrealized losses on AFS securities of $4.9 million, and equity compensation activity of $2.5 million, offset by common stock repurchases totaling $12.5 million and common stock cash dividends paid totaling $11.5 million. Book value per share and tangible book value per share(1) increased to $29.25 and $25.11 at June 30, 2025, up from $28.77 and $24.63 at March 31, 2025 and up from $28.12 and $24.06 at June 30, 2024.

    Dividend Announcement

    The Board of Directors has declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.16 per common share. The dividend is payable on August 12, 2025 to shareholders of record on July 31, 2025.

    (1 ) Reconciliations of the non–U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) measures included at the end of this press release.
         

    Corporate Overview

    RBB Bancorp is a community-based financial holding company headquartered in Los Angeles, California. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had total assets of $4.1 billion. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Royal Business Bank, is a full service commercial bank, which provides consumer and business banking services predominately to the Asian-centric communities in Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Ventura County in California, in Las Vegas, Nevada, in Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan in New York, in Edison, New Jersey, in the Chicago neighborhoods of Chinatown and Bridgeport, Illinois, and on Oahu, Hawaii. Bank services include remote deposit, E-banking, mobile banking, commercial and investor real estate loans, business loans and lines of credit, commercial and industrial loans, SBA 7A and 504 loans, 1-4 single family residential loans, trade finance, a full range of depository account products and wealth management services. The Bank has nine branches in Los Angeles County, two branches in Ventura County, one branch in Orange County, California, one branch in Las Vegas, Nevada, three branches and one loan operation center in Brooklyn, three branches in Queens, one branch in Manhattan in New York, one branch in Edison, New Jersey, two branches in Chicago, Illinois, and one branch in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Company’s administrative and lending center is located at 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90017, and its operations center is located at 7025 Orangethorpe Ave., Buena Park, California 90621. The Company’s website address is www.royalbusinessbankusa.com.

    Conference Call

    Management will hold a conference call at 11:00 a.m. Pacific time/2:00 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, July 22, 2025, to discuss the Company’s second quarter 2025 financial results.

    To listen to the conference call, please dial 1-888-506-0062 or 1-973-528-0011, the Participant ID code is 710803, conference ID RBBQ225. A replay of the call will be made available at 1-877-481-4010 or 1-919-882-2331, the passcode is 52690, approximately one hour after the conclusion of the call and will remain available through August 05, 2025.

    The conference call will also be simultaneously webcast over the Internet; please visit our Royal Business Bank website at www.royalbusinessbankusa.com and click on the “Investors” tab to access the call from the site. This webcast will be recorded and available for replay on our website approximately two hours after the conclusion of the conference call.

    Disclosure

    This press release contains certain non-GAAP financial disclosures for tangible common equity and tangible assets and adjusted earnings. The Company uses certain non-GAAP financial measures to provide meaningful supplemental information regarding the Company’s operational performance and to enhance investors’ overall understanding of such financial performance. Please refer to the tables at the end of this release for a presentation of performance ratios in accordance with GAAP and a reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to the GAAP financial measures.

    Safe Harbor

    Certain matters set forth herein (including the exhibits hereto) constitute forward-looking statements relating to the Company’s current business plans and expectations and our future financial position and operating results. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance and/or achievements to differ materially from those projected. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures; the potential for additional material weaknesses in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting or other potential control deficiencies of which the Company is not currently aware or which have not been detected; business and economic conditions generally and in the financial services industry, nationally and within our current and future geographic markets, including the tight labor market, ineffective management of the United States (“U.S.”) federal budget or debt or turbulence or uncertainly in domestic or foreign financial markets; the strength of the U.S. economy in general and the strength of the local economies in which we conduct operations; adverse developments in the banking industry highlighted by high-profile bank failures and the potential impact of such developments on customer confidence, liquidity and regulatory responses to these developments; possible additional provisions for credit losses and charge-offs; credit risks of lending activities and deterioration in asset or credit quality; extensive laws and regulations and supervision that we are subject to, including potential supervisory action by bank supervisory authorities; compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and other money laundering statutes and regulations; potential goodwill impairment; liquidity risk; failure to comply with debt covenants; fluctuations in interest rates; risks associated with acquisitions and the expansion of our business into new markets; inflation and deflation; real estate market conditions and the value of real estate collateral; the effects of having concentrations in our loan portfolio, including commercial real estate and the risks of geographic and industry concentrations; environmental liabilities; our ability to compete with larger competitors; our ability to retain key personnel; successful management of reputational risk; severe weather, natural disasters, earthquakes, fires, including direct and indirect costs and impacts on clients, the Company and its employees from the January 2025 Los Angeles County wildfires; or other adverse external events could harm our business; geopolitical conditions, including acts or threats of terrorism, actions taken by the U.S. or other governments in response to acts or threats of terrorism and/or military conflicts, including the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, in the Middle East, and increasing tensions between China and Taiwan, which could impact business and economic conditions in the U.S. and abroad; tariffs, trade policies, and related tensions, which could impact our clients, specific industry sectors, and/or broader economic conditions and financial market; public health crises and pandemics, and their effects on the economic and business environments in which we operate, including our credit quality and business operations, as well as the impact on general economic and financial market conditions; general economic or business conditions in Asia, and other regions where the Bank has operations; failures, interruptions, or security breaches of our information systems; climate change, including any enhanced regulatory, compliance, credit and reputational risks and costs; cybersecurity threats and the cost of defending against them; our ability to adapt our systems to the expanding use of technology in banking; risk management processes and strategies; adverse results in legal proceedings; the impact of regulatory enforcement actions, if any; certain provisions in our charter and bylaws that may affect acquisition of the Company; changes in tax laws and regulations; the impact of governmental efforts to restructure the U.S. financial regulatory system and increased costs of compliance and other risks associated with changes in regulation, including any amendments to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; the impact of changes in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) insurance assessment rate and the rules and regulations related to the calculation of the FDIC insurance assessments; the effect of changes in accounting policies and practices or accounting standards, as may be adopted from time-to-time by bank regulatory agencies, the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Financial Accounting Standards Board or other accounting standards setters; fluctuations in the Company’s stock price; restrictions on dividends and other distributions by laws and regulations and by our regulators and our capital structure; our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, and the potential resulting dilution of interests of holders of our common stock; the soundness of other financial institutions; our ongoing relations with our various federal and state regulators, including the SEC, FDIC, FRB and California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation; our success at managing the risks involved in the foregoing items and all other factors set forth in the Company’s public reports, including its Annual Report as filed under Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, and particularly the discussion of risk factors within that document. The Company does not undertake, and specifically disclaims any obligation, to update any forward-looking statements to reflect occurrences or unanticipated events or circumstances after the date of such statements except as required by law. Any statements about future operating results, such as those concerning accretion and dilution to the Company’s earnings or shareholders, are for illustrative purposes only, are not forecasts, and actual results may differ.

    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
     
      June 30,     March 31,     December 31,     September 30,     June 30,  
      2025     2025     2024     2024     2024  
    Assets                                      
    Cash and due from banks $ 27,338     $ 25,315     $ 27,747     $ 26,388     $ 23,313  
    Interest-earning deposits with financial institutions   164,514       213,508       229,998       323,002       229,456  
    Cash and cash equivalents   191,852       238,823       257,745       349,390       252,769  
    Interest-earning time deposits with financial institutions   600       600       600       600       600  
    Investment securities available for sale   413,142       378,188       420,190       305,666       325,582  
    Investment securities held to maturity   4,186       5,188       5,191       5,195       5,200  
    Loans held for sale   –       655       11,250       812       3,146  
    Loans held for investment   3,234,695       3,143,063       3,053,230       3,091,896       3,047,712  
    Allowance for loan losses   (51,014 )     (51,932 )     (47,729 )     (43,685 )     (41,741 )
    Net loans held for investment   3,183,681       3,091,131       3,005,501       3,048,211       3,005,971  
    Premises and equipment, net   23,945       24,308       24,601       24,839       25,049  
    Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) stock   15,000       15,000       15,000       15,000       15,000  
    Cash surrender value of bank owned life insurance   61,111       60,699       60,296       59,889       59,486  
    Goodwill   71,498       71,498       71,498       71,498       71,498  
    Servicing assets   6,482       6,766       6,985       7,256       7,545  
    Core deposit intangibles   1,667       1,839       2,011       2,194       2,394  
    Right-of-use assets   25,554       26,779       28,048       29,283       30,530  
    Accrued interest and other assets   91,322       87,926       83,561       70,644       63,416  
    Total assets $ 4,090,040     $ 4,009,400     $ 3,992,477     $ 3,990,477     $ 3,868,186  
    Liabilities and shareholders’ equity                                      
    Deposits:                                      
    Noninterest-bearing demand $ 543,885     $ 528,205     $ 563,012     $ 543,623     $ 542,971  
    Savings, NOW and money market accounts   691,679       721,216       663,034       666,089       647,770  
    Time deposits, $250,000 and under   1,010,674       1,000,106       1,007,452       1,052,462       1,014,189  
    Time deposits, greater than $250,000   941,993       893,101       850,291       830,010       818,675  
    Total deposits   3,188,231       3,142,628       3,083,789       3,092,184       3,023,605  
    FHLB advances   180,000       160,000       200,000       200,000       150,000  
    Long-term debt, net of issuance costs   119,720       119,624       119,529       119,433       119,338  
    Subordinated debentures   15,265       15,211       15,156       15,102       15,047  
    Lease liabilities – operating leases   27,294       28,483       29,705       30,880       32,087  
    Accrued interest and other liabilities   41,877       33,148       36,421       23,150       16,818  
    Total liabilities   3,572,387       3,499,094       3,484,600       3,480,749       3,356,895  
    Shareholders’ equity:                                      
    Common stock   259,863       260,284       259,957       259,280       266,160  
    Additional paid-in capital   3,579       3,360       3,645       3,520       3,456  
    Retained earnings   270,152       263,885       264,460       262,946       262,518  
    Non-controlling interest   72       72       72       72       72  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net   (16,013 )     (17,295 )     (20,257 )     (16,090 )     (20,915 )
    Total shareholders’ equity   517,653       510,306       507,877       509,728       511,291  
    Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 4,090,040     $ 4,009,400     $ 3,992,477     $ 3,990,477     $ 3,868,186  
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
    (Unaudited)
    (In thousands, except share and per share data)
     
      For the Three Months Ended     For the Six Months Ended  
      June 30,
    2025
        March 31,
    2025
        June 30,
    2024
        June 30,
    2025
        June 30,
    2024
     
    Interest and dividend income:                                      
    Interest and fees on loans $ 47,687     $ 45,621     $ 45,320     $ 93,308     $ 90,867  
    Interest on interest-earning deposits   1,750       2,014       3,353       3,764       8,393  
    Interest on investment securities   4,213       4,136       3,631       8,349       7,242  
    Dividend income on FHLB stock   324       330       327       654       658  
    Interest on federal funds sold and other   231       235       255       466       521  
    Total interest and dividend income   54,205       52,336       52,886       106,541       107,681  
    Interest expense:                                      
    Interest on savings deposits, NOW and money market accounts   4,567       4,468       4,953       9,035       9,431  
    Interest on time deposits   19,250       19,084       21,850       38,334       45,172  
    Interest on long-term debt and subordinated debentures   1,634       1,632       1,679       3,266       3,358  
    Interest on FHLB advances   1,420       989       439       2,409       878  
    Total interest expense   26,871       26,173       28,921       53,044       58,839  
    Net interest income before provision for credit losses   27,334       26,163       23,965       53,497       48,842  
    Provision for credit losses   2,387       6,746       557       9,133       557  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses   24,947       19,417       23,408       44,364       48,285  
    Noninterest income:                                      
    Service charges and fees   1,060       1,017       1,064       2,077       2,056  
    Gain on sale of loans   358       81       451       439       763  
    Loan servicing fees, net of amortization   541       588       579       1,129       1,168  
    Increase in cash surrender value of life insurance   411       403       385       814       767  
    Gain on OREO   —       —       292       —       1,016  
    Other income   6,108       206       717       6,314       1,090  
    Total noninterest income   8,478       2,295       3,488       10,773       6,860  
    Noninterest expense:                                      
    Salaries and employee benefits   11,080       10,643       9,533       21,723       19,460  
    Occupancy and equipment expenses   2,377       2,407       2,439       4,784       4,882  
    Data processing   1,713       1,602       1,466       3,315       2,886  
    Legal and professional   2,904       1,515       1,260       4,419       2,140  
    Office expenses   405       408       352       813       708  
    Marketing and business promotion   212       197       189       409       361  
    Insurance and regulatory assessments   709       730       981       1,439       1,963  
    Core deposit premium   172       172       201       344       402  
    Other expenses   921       848       703       1,769       1,291  
    Total noninterest expense   20,493       18,522       17,124       39,015       34,093  
    Income before income taxes   12,932       3,190       9,772       16,122       21,052  
    Income tax expense   3,599       900       2,527       4,499       5,771  
    Net income $ 9,333     $ 2,290     $ 7,245     $ 11,623     $ 15,281  
                                           
    Net income per share                                      
    Basic $ 0.53     $ 0.13     $ 0.39     $ 0.66     $ 0.83  
    Diluted $ 0.52     $ 0.13     $ 0.39     $ 0.65     $ 0.82  
    Cash dividends declared per common share $ 0.16     $ 0.16     $ 0.16     $ 0.32     $ 0.32  
    Weighted-average common shares outstanding                                      
    Basic   17,746,607       17,727,712       18,375,970       17,737,212       18,488,623  
    Diluted   17,797,735       17,770,588       18,406,897       17,784,237       18,529,299  
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET AND NET INTEREST INCOME
    (Unaudited)
     
      For the Three Months Ended  
      June 30, 2025     March 31, 2025     June 30, 2024  
      Average     Interest     Yield /     Average     Interest     Yield /     Average     Interest     Yield /  
    (tax-equivalent basis, dollars in thousands) Balance     & Fees     Rate     Balance     & Fees     Rate     Balance     & Fees     Rate  
    Interest-earning assets                                                                      
    Cash and cash equivalents(1) $ 163,838     $ 1,980       4.85 %   $ 194,236     $ 2,249       4.70 %   $ 255,973     $ 3,608       5.67 %
    FHLB Stock   15,000       324       8.66 %     15,000       330       8.92 %     15,000       327       8.77 %
    Securities                                                                      
    Available for sale(2)   399,414       4,189       4.21 %     390,178       4,113       4.28 %     318,240       3,608       4.56 %
    Held to maturity(2)   5,028       48       3.83 %     5,189       49       3.83 %     5,203       46       3.56 %
    Total loans(3)   3,171,570       47,687       6.03 %     3,079,224       45,621       6.01 %     3,017,050       45,320       6.04 %
    Total interest-earning assets   3,754,850     $ 54,228       5.79 %     3,683,827     $ 52,362       5.76 %     3,611,466     $ 52,909       5.89 %
    Total noninterest-earning assets   254,029                       260,508                       240,016                  
    Total average assets $ 4,008,879                     $ 3,944,335                     $ 3,851,482                  
                                                                           
    Interest-bearing liabilities                                                                      
    NOW $ 66,755       368       2.21 %   $ 61,222     $ 321       2.13 %   $ 56,081     $ 276       1.98 %
    Money market   482,669       3,774       3.14 %     463,443       3,625       3.17 %     431,559       3,877       3.61 %
    Saving deposits   141,411       425       1.21 %     155,116       522       1.36 %     164,913       800       1.95 %
    Time deposits, $250,000 and under   996,249       9,768       3.93 %     989,622       10,046       4.12 %     1,049,666       12,360       4.74 %
    Time deposits, greater than $250,000   922,540       9,482       4.12 %     864,804       9,038       4.24 %     772,255       9,490       4.94 %
    Total interest-bearing deposits   2,609,624       23,817       3.66 %     2,534,207       23,552       3.77 %     2,474,474       26,803       4.36 %
    FHLB advances   159,286       1,420       3.58 %     176,833       989       2.27 %     150,000       439       1.18 %
    Long-term debt   119,657       1,296       4.34 %     119,562       1,295       4.39 %     119,275       1,296       4.37 %
    Subordinated debentures   15,230       338       8.90 %     15,175       337       9.01 %     15,011       383       10.26 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   2,903,797       26,871       3.71 %     2,845,777       26,173       3.73 %     2,758,760       28,921       4.22 %
    Noninterest-bearing liabilities                                                                      
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   526,113                       520,145                       529,450                  
    Other noninterest-bearing liabilities   65,278                       66,151                       51,087                  
    Total noninterest-bearing liabilities   591,391                       586,296                       580,537                  
    Shareholders’ equity   513,691                       512,262                       512,185                  
    Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 4,008,879                     $ 3,944,335                     $ 3,851,482                  
    Net interest income / interest rate spreads         $ 27,357       2.08 %           $ 26,189       2.03 %           $ 23,988       1.67 %
    Net interest margin                   2.92 %                     2.88 %                     2.67 %
                                                                           
    Total cost of deposits $ 3,135,737     $ 23,817       3.05 %   $ 3,054,352     $ 23,552       3.13 %   $ 3,003,924     $ 26,803       3.59 %
    Total cost of funds $ 3,429,910     $ 26,871       3.14 %   $ 3,365,922     $ 26,173       3.15 %   $ 3,288,210     $ 28,921       3.54 %

    ___________

    (1 ) Includes income and average balances for interest-earning time deposits and other miscellaneous interest-earning assets.
    (2 ) Interest income and average rates for tax-exempt securities are presented on a tax-equivalent basis.
    (3 ) Average loan balances relate to loans held for investment and loans held for sale and include nonaccrual loans. Interest income on loans includes the effects of discount accretion and net deferred loan origination fees and costs accounted for as yield adjustments.
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET AND NET INTEREST INCOME
    (Unaudited)
     
      Six Months Ended June 30,  
      2025     2024  
      Average     Interest     Yield /     Average     Interest     Yield /  
    (tax-equivalent basis, dollars in thousands) Balance     & Fees     Rate     Balance     & Fees     Rate  
    Interest-earning assets                                              
    Cash and cash equivalents(1) $ 178,953     $ 4,230       4.77 %   $ 310,476     $ 8,914       5.77 %
    FHLB Stock   15,000       654       8.79 %     15,000       658       8.82 %
    Securities                                              
    Available for sale(2)   394,822       8,302       4.24 %     319,127       7,197       4.54 %
    Held to maturity(2)   5,108       97       3.83 %     5,205       94       3.63 %
    Total loans(3)   3,125,652       93,308       6.02 %     3,017,737       90,867       6.06 %
    Total interest-earning assets   3,719,535     $ 106,591       5.78 %     3,667,545     $ 107,730       5.91 %
    Total noninterest-earning assets   257,250                       243,178                  
    Total average assets $ 3,976,785                     $ 3,910,723                  
                                                   
    Interest-bearing liabilities                                              
    NOW $ 64,004       689       2.17 %   $ 57,513     $ 574       2.01 %
    Money market   473,109       7,399       3.15 %     421,655       7,403       3.53 %
    Saving deposits   148,225       947       1.29 %     161,070       1,454       1.82 %
    Time deposits, $250,000 and under   992,954       19,815       4.02 %     1,112,735       26,165       4.73 %
    Time deposits, greater than $250,000   893,832       18,519       4.18 %     778,713       19,007       4.91 %
    Total interest-bearing deposits   2,572,124       47,369       3.71 %     2,531,686       54,603       4.34 %
    FHLB advances   168,011       2,409       2.89 %     150,000       878       1.18 %
    Long-term debt   119,610       2,591       4.37 %     119,228       2,591       4.37 %
    Subordinated debentures   15,203       675       8.95 %     14,984       767       10.29 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   2,874,948       53,044       3.72 %     2,815,898       58,839       4.20 %
    Noninterest-bearing liabilities                                              
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   523,145                       528,898                  
    Other noninterest-bearing liabilities   65,711                       53,441                  
    Total noninterest-bearing liabilities   588,856                       582,339                  
    Shareholders’ equity   512,981                       512,486                  
    Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 3,976,785                     $ 3,910,723                  
    Net interest income / interest rate spreads         $ 53,547       2.06 %           $ 48,891       1.71 %
    Net interest margin                   2.90 %                     2.68 %
                                                   
    Total cost of deposits $ 3,095,269     $ 47,369       3.09 %   $ 3,060,584     $ 54,603       3.59 %
    Total cost of funds $ 3,398,093     $ 53,044       3.15 %   $ 3,344,796     $ 58,839       3.54 %

    ___________

    (1 ) Includes income and average balances for interest-earning time deposits and other miscellaneous interest-earning assets.
    (2 ) Interest income and average rates for tax-exempt securities are presented on a tax-equivalent basis.
    (3 ) Average loan balances relate to loans held for investment and loans held for sale and include nonaccrual loans. Interest income on loans includes the effects of discount accretion and net deferred loan origination fees and costs accounted for as yield adjustments.
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    SELECTED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
    (Unaudited)
     
      At or for the Three Months Ended     At or for the Six Months Ended June 30,  
      June 30,     March 31,     June 30,                  
      2025     2025     2024     2025     2024  
    Per share data (common stock)                                      
    Book value $ 29.25     $ 28.77     $ 28.12     $ 29.25     $ 28.12  
    Tangible book value(1) $ 25.11     $ 24.63     $ 24.06     $ 25.11     $ 24.06  
    Performance ratios                                      
    Return on average assets, annualized   0.93 %     0.24 %     0.76 %     0.59 %     0.79 %
    Return on average shareholders’ equity, annualized   7.29 %     1.81 %     5.69 %     4.57 %     6.00 %
    Return on average tangible common equity, annualized(1)   8.50 %     2.12 %     6.65 %     5.33 %     7.01 %
    Noninterest income to average assets, annualized   0.85 %     0.24 %     0.36 %     0.55 %     0.35 %
    Noninterest expense to average assets, annualized   2.05 %     1.90 %     1.79 %     1.98 %     1.75 %
    Yield on average earning assets   5.79 %     5.76 %     5.89 %     5.78 %     5.91 %
    Yield on average loans   6.03 %     6.01 %     6.04 %     6.02 %     6.06 %
    Cost of average total deposits(2)   3.05 %     3.13 %     3.59 %     3.09 %     3.59 %
    Cost of average interest-bearing deposits   3.66 %     3.77 %     4.36 %     3.71 %     4.34 %
    Cost of average interest-bearing liabilities   3.71 %     3.73 %     4.22 %     3.72 %     4.20 %
    Net interest spread   2.08 %     2.03 %     1.67 %     2.06 %     1.71 %
    Net interest margin   2.92 %     2.88 %     2.67 %     2.90 %     2.68 %
    Efficiency ratio(3)   57.22 %     65.09 %     62.38 %     60.70 %     61.21 %
    Common stock dividend payout ratio   30.19 %     123.08 %     41.03 %     48.48 %     38.55 %

    ___________

    (1 ) Non-GAAP measure. See Non–GAAP reconciliations set forth at the end of this press release.
    (2 ) Total deposits include non-interest bearing deposits and interest-bearing deposits.
    (3 ) Ratio calculated by dividing noninterest expense by the sum of net interest income before provision for credit losses and noninterest income.
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    SELECTED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
    (Unaudited)
    (Dollars in thousands)
     
      At or for the quarter ended  
      June 30,     March 31,     June 30,  
      2025     2025     2024  
    Credit Quality Data:                      
    Special mention loans $ 91,317     $ 64,279     $ 19,520  
    Special mention loans to total loans HFI   2.82 %     2.05 %     0.64 %
    Substandard loans $ 91,019     $ 76,372     $ 63,076  
    Substandard loans to total loans HFI   2.81 %     2.43 %     2.07 %
    Loans 30-89 days past due, excluding nonperforming loans $ 18,003     $ 5,927     $ 11,270  
    Loans 30-89 days past due, excluding nonperforming loans, to total loans   0.56 %     0.19 %     0.37 %
    Nonperforming loans $ 56,817     $ 60,380     $ 54,589  
    OREO $ 4,170     $ 4,170     $ —  
    Nonperforming assets $ 60,987     $ 64,550     $ 54,589  
    Nonperforming loans to total loans HFI   1.76 %     1.92 %     1.79 %
    Nonperforming assets to total assets   1.49 %     1.61 %     1.41 %
                           
    Allowance for loan losses $ 51,014     $ 51,932     $ 41,741  
    Allowance for loan losses to total loans HFI   1.58 %     1.65 %     1.37 %
    Allowance for loan losses to nonperforming loans HFI   89.79 %     86.01 %     76.46 %
    Net charge-offs $ 3,305     $ 2,643     $ 551  
    Net charge-offs to average loans   0.42 %     0.35 %     0.07 %
                           
    Capitalratios(1)                      
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets(2)   11.07 %     11.10 %     11.53 %
    Tier 1 leverage ratio   12.04 %     12.07 %     12.48 %
    Tier 1 common capital to risk-weighted assets   17.61 %     17.87 %     18.89 %
    Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets   18.17 %     18.45 %     19.50 %
    Total capital to risk-weighted assets   24.00 %     24.42 %     25.67 %

    ___________

    (1 ) June 30, 2025 capital ratios are preliminary.
    (2 ) Non-GAAP measure. See Non-GAAP reconciliations set forth at the end of this press release.
    RBB BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
    SELECTED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
    (Unaudited)
     
    Loan Portfolio Detail As of June 30, 2025   As of March 31, 2025     As of June 30, 2024  
    (dollars in thousands) $   %   $     %     $     %  
    Loans:                                          
    Commercial and industrial $ 138,263       4.3 %   $ 135,538       4.3 %   $ 126,649       4.2 %
    SBA   55,984       1.7 %     50,651       1.6 %     50,323       1.7 %
    Construction and land development   157,970       4.9 %     158,883       5.1 %     202,459       6.6 %
    Commercial real estate(1)   1,273,442       39.4 %     1,245,402       39.6 %     1,190,207       39.1 %
    Single-family residential mortgages   1,603,114       49.6 %     1,545,822       49.2 %     1,467,802       48.2 %
    Other loans   5,922       0.1 %     6,767       0.2 %     10,272       0.2 %
    Total loans $ 3,234,695       100.0 %   $ 3,143,063       100.0 %   $ 3,047,712       100.0 %
    Allowance for loan losses   (51,014 )         (51,932 )             (41,741 )        
    Total loans, net $ 3,183,681         $ 3,091,131             $ 3,005,971          

    ___________

    (1 ) Includes non-farm and non-residential loans, multi-family residential loans and non-owner occupied single family residential loans.
    Deposits As of June 30, 2025   As of March 31, 2025     As of June 30, 2024  
    (dollars in thousands) $   %   $   %     $   %  
    Deposits:                                          
    Noninterest-bearing demand $ 543,885       17.1 %   $ 528,205       16.8 %   $ 542,971       18.0 %
    Savings, NOW and money market accounts   691,679       21.7 %     721,216       22.9 %     647,770       21.4 %
    Time deposits, $250,000 and under   848,379       26.6 %     863,962       27.5 %     921,712       30.5 %
    Time deposits, greater than $250,000   920,481       28.8 %     870,708       27.8 %     790,478       26.1 %
    Wholesale deposits(1)   183,807       5.8 %     158,537       5.0 %     120,674       4.0 %
    Total deposits $ 3,188,231       100.0 %   $ 3,142,628       100.0 %   $ 3,023,605       100.0 %

    ___________

    (1 ) Includes brokered deposits, collateralized deposits from the State of California, and deposits acquired through internet listing services.

    Non-GAAP Reconciliations

    Tangible Book Value Reconciliations

    Tangible book value per share is a non-GAAP disclosure. Management measures tangible book value per share to assess the Company’s capital strength and business performance and believes this is helpful to investors as additional tools for further understanding our performance. The following is a reconciliation of tangible book value to the Company shareholders’ equity computed in accordance with GAAP, as well as a calculation of tangible book value per share as of as of the dates indicated.

                         
    (dollars in thousands, except share and per share data) June 30, 2025     March 31, 2025     June 30, 2024  
    Tangible common equity:                      
    Total shareholders’ equity $ 517,653     $ 510,306     $ 511,291  
    Adjustments                      
    Goodwill   (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )
    Core deposit intangible   (1,667 )     (1,839 )     (2,394 )
    Tangible common equity $ 444,488     $ 436,969     $ 437,399  
    Tangible assets:                      
    Total assets-GAAP $ 4,090,040     $ 4,009,400     $ 3,868,186  
    Adjustments                      
    Goodwill   (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )
    Core deposit intangible   (1,667 )     (1,839 )     (2,394 )
    Tangible assets $ 4,016,875     $ 3,936,063     $ 3,794,294  
    Common shares outstanding   17,699,091       17,738,628       18,182,154  
    Common equity to assets ratio   12.66 %     12.73 %     13.22 %
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio   11.07 %     11.10 %     11.53 %
    Book value per share $ 29.25     $ 28.77     $ 28.12  
    Tangible book value per share $ 25.11     $ 24.63     $ 24.06  

    Return on Average Tangible Common Equity

    Management measures return on average tangible common equity (“ROATCE”) to assess the Company’s capital strength and business performance and believes this is helpful to investors as an additional tool for further understanding our performance. Tangible equity excludes goodwill and other intangible assets (excluding mortgage servicing rights) and is reviewed by banking and financial institution regulators when assessing a financial institution’s capital adequacy. This non-GAAP financial measure should not be considered a substitute for operating results determined in accordance with GAAP and may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures used by other companies. The following table reconciles ROATCE to its most comparable GAAP measure:

      Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended June 30,  
    (dollars in thousands) June 30, 2025     March 31, 2025     June 30, 2024     2025     2024  
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 9,333     $ 2,290     $ 7,245     $ 11,623     $ 15,281  
    Average shareholders’ equity   513,691       512,262       512,185       512,981       512,486  
    Adjustments:                                      
    Average goodwill   (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )     (71,498 )
    Average core deposit intangible   (1,780 )     (1,951 )     (2,525 )     (1,865 )     (2,625 )
    Adjusted average tangible common equity $ 440,413     $ 438,813     $ 438,162     $ 439,618     $ 438,363  
    Return on average common equity, annualized   7.29 %     1.81 %     5.69 %     4.57 %     6.00 %
    Return on average tangible common equity, annualized   8.50 %     2.12 %     6.65 %     5.33 %     7.01 %

    The MIL Network –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Russia: Georgia records record international tourism revenues for first half of 2025

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

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

    Tbilisi, July 21 (Xinhua) — Georgia’s revenue from international tourism in the first half of 2025 reached $1.971 billion, the Georgian National Tourism Administration reported on Monday.

    According to official data, revenues from the tourism sector grew by 3.8 percent compared to the same period in 2024 and by 35.4 percent compared to the first half of pre-pandemic 2019. Thus, the tourism sector set a new record for revenues in the first six months.

    Head of the National Tourism Administration of Georgia Maia Omiadze noted that the achieved results are a consequence of a targeted strategy for the development of tourism and the aviation sector.

    “We have achieved unprecedented revenues – almost two billion dollars in six months. This confirms that our strategy is working. Where tourist flow increases, so do revenues. We have focused our efforts on key markets where the greatest growth is currently observed,” said M. Omiadze. -0-

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

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Best Summer Week for MTA Since 2019

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today announced that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) achieved its best summer subway ridership week since 2019, hitting four million subway riders three days in a row in a summer season — a first since the start of the pandemic. On Tuesday, July 15, New York City Transit recorded 4,046,610 subway riders; on Wednesday, July 16, the agency recorded 4,121,751 subway riders; and on Thursday, July 17 saw 4,029,692 riders. This milestone was also achieved during the same week NYC experienced a near-record rainfall on Monday, July 14, and transit crews worked expeditiously to restore service the evening of the storm and through the night to ensure a smooth commute the next day. Moreover, Wednesday’s ridership of 4,121,751 subway riders is a new post-pandemic ridership high for the summer.

    “We’re delivering a transit system that is safer and more reliable, and New Yorkers have responded by riding in record numbers,” Governor Hochul said. “Transit is the lifeblood of New York City, it powers our economy and makes city life possible for millions. When ridership is on the rise, New York is on the rise.”

    The four million mark has now been achieved seven times in three weeks, starting at the end of the school year. The first time the MTA reached four million subway riders in a single day during a summer season since the start of the pandemic was on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, followed by Thursday, June 26, 2025, Wednesday, July 9, 2025, and Thursday, July 10, 2025, and now July 17 through July 19. This milestone comes days after the Governor announced the Authority’s path towards a record-breaking year in ridership and on-time performance.

    This is the first summer NYC students are enjoying expanded benefits from Student OMNY cards distributed last September, which allow use after the conclusion of the school year. Student OMNY cards are valid 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Previously, Student MetroCards limited rides on days when the student’s school was open for class.

    MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber said, “New Yorkers are demonstrating their confidence in the MTA’s faster and more reliable transit, voting with their taps to get around the City this summer. And thanks to Governor Hochul’s investments in state-of-good-repair work, safety, and accessibility, we’re achieving post-pandemic ridership records every week.”

    New York City Transit President Demetrius Crichlow said, “Thanks to the dedication of New York City Transit workers, we’re continuing to see record-breaking ridership on subways and buses this year. And we’re not done yet – with a capital plan that funds new train cars, more accessible stations, and computerized signals that allow for increased speeds and shorter travel times, riders will continue to see improvements both in the short term and well into the future.” 

    On top of the ridership increases, tap-and-go continues to surge in popularity with 75 percent of riders deciding to tap their phones, contactless debit/credit cards, or OMNY cards to pay their fares during the week of July 14, up from 67 percent in March 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Salvaging SDGs still possible, but countries must act now: Guterres

    Source: United Nations 4

    Addressing ministers at UN Headquarters in New York, he called for urgent action to rescue lagging Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) amid war, inequality and fiscal strain.

    “Transformation is not only necessary – it is possible,” he declared, highlighting landmark commitments adopted in recent months: the Pandemic Agreement at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, pledges to expand marine protected areas at the third UN Ocean Conference in Nice, and the new vision for global finance agreed in Sevilla at the fourth International Financing for Development Conference.

    “These are not isolated wins, they are signs of momentum and signs that multilateralism can deliver.”

    The remarks opened the ministerial segment of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), the UN’s central platform for reviewing the 2030 Agenda and its 17 SDGs.

    Get back on track

    Mr. Guterres warned that the world remains far off track to meet the 2030 targets.

    “Only 35 per cent of SDG targets are on track or making moderate progress. Nearly half are moving too slowly. And 18 per cent are going backwards,” he said.

    He urged governments to act with urgency and ambition.

    “The Sustainable Development Goals are not a dream. They are a plan – a plan to keep our promises to the most vulnerable people, to each other, and to future generations.”

    Citing gains since 2015, including expanded social protection, declining child marriage and growing women’s representation, he said the SDGs remain “within reach” if world leaders channel resources and political will.

    The Secretary-General also linked development and peace, noting ongoing violence in Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, Ukraine and elsewhere.

    “At every step, we know sustainable peace requires sustainable development,” he said, calling for immediate ceasefires and renewed commitment to diplomacy.

    UN Photo/Loey Felipe

    ECOSOC President Bob Rae addresses the ministerial segment of the HLPF.

    Double down on multilateralism

    Bob Rae, President of the Economic and Social Council, echoed the Secretary‑General’s call, warning that global disruption – from climate change to economic disarray – requires deeper solidarity.

    “The SDGs are not optional ideals, but rather essential commitments,” he said.

    “Now is not the time for us to abandon our ideals…it is now actually the time to double down on our multilateral obligations to one another.”

    Mr. Rae cautioned that shrinking national budgets and rising nationalist politics are undermining progress but insisted that “multilateralism delivers real, tangible benefits for people at every level of society.”

    He called for closer partnerships with civil society, local governments, and the private sector, stressing that SDGs must be “integrated into budgets and policies around the world, not as at odds, but as the core of how governments should serve their people.”

    Match ambition and delivery

    Philémon Yang, President of the General Assembly, emphasized aligning political commitments with concrete action.

    He praised the Compromiso de Sevilla and last year’s Pact for the Future, which aim to reform global financial systems, scale up climate finance, and strengthen international tax cooperation.

    “The gap between ambition and delivery can only be closed through solidarity, resources and political will,” he said.

    “The deadlines for the 2030 Agenda are fast approaching,” he warned. “Whether we like it or not. And while progress is lagging, we have the tools and ambition to deliver.”

    Accountability and partnership

    The HLPF, established at the landmark Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, serves as the primary UN platform for monitoring SDG progress, including through Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs).

    This year’s forum, convened under the auspices of the ECOSOC, runs until 23 July with a focus on five goals: health, gender equality, decent work, life below water, and global partnerships.

    More than 150 countries have presented VNRs – with 36 reporting this year – showcasing national efforts and challenges in implementing the 2030 Agenda.

    Mr. Guterres praised the reviews as “acts of accountability” and “templates for other countries to follow and learn from.”

    With just five years left to meet the global goals, he urged ministers to “transform these sparks of transformation into a blaze of progress – for all countries.”

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Rightwing populist Sanseitō party shakes Japan with election surge

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rin Ushiyama, Lecturer in Sociology, Queen’s University Belfast

    Japan held elections for its upper house, the House of Councillors, on July 20. The vote proved a challenge for the conservative ruling Liberal Democratic party (LDP), which has been reeling from corruption scandals, rising prices and US tariffs on Japanese exports.

    The ruling coalition, composed of the LDP and its junior partner, Kōmeitō, lost its majority in the house. While the centre-left Constitutional Democratic party maintained its position as the largest opposition group, the breakout success of the election was that of Sanseitō, an ultranationalist populist party.

    Sanseitō successfully framed immigration as a central issue in the election campaign, with the provocative slogan “Japanese First”. The party won 14 seats in the 248-seat chamber, a substantial jump from the single seat it won in the last election in 2022.

    Sanseitō calls itself a party of “ordinary Japanese citizens with the same mindset who came together”. It was formed in 2020 by Sōhei Kamiya, a conservative career politician who served as a city councillor in Suita, a city in Osaka Prefecture, before being elected to the House of Councillors.

    Although Sanseitō was initially known for its stance against the COVID-19 vaccine, it has more recently campaigned on an anti-foreigner and anti-immigration platform. The party, which also holds three seats in the powerful lower house, has quickly gained seats in regional and national elections. It most recently won three seats in Tokyo’s prefectural elections in June 2025.

    Sanseitō is “anti-globalist”, urging voters to feel proud of their ethnicity and culture. Polls suggest the party is popular among younger men aged between 18 and 30.

    Throughout the most recent election campaign, Kamiya repeatedly spread far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation. This included arguing multinational corporations caused the pandemic, as well as that foreigners commit crimes en masse and can avoid paying inheritance tax. Social media has amplified Sanseitō’s xenophobic messaging.

    Sanseitō’s electoral success is reminiscent of other right-wing populist parties across Europe and North America, which also place immigration as a core issue.

    Kamiya denies being a xenophobe. But he has expressed support for the Republican party in the US, Reform in the UK, Alternativ für Deutschland in Germany and Rassemblement National in France. Echoing other right-wing populist leaders, Kamiya has promised tax cuts, home-grown industries, regulation of foreigners and patriotic education.

    However, while Sanseitō rides the global wave of right-wing populism, it also has deeply Japanese roots. Following Japan’s defeat in the second world war, a distinct current of right-wing thought developed, defending “traditional values” and glorifying Japan’s imperial past.

    Tensions have flared periodically over issues such as history education and official visits to Yasukuni Shrine, where those who died in service of Japan – including military leaders convicted of war crimes – are commemorated. There have also been disputes around the memorialisation of so-called “comfort women”, who were forced into sex slavery by Japanese forces before and during the war.

    Building on these currents, Sanseitō represents a new generation of Japanese conservatism, not just an emulation of foreign populist leaders.

    What happens next?

    Sanseitō’s rise could have a pivotal influence on Japan’s political landscape. While the prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, has indicated he will not resign, the ruling coalition has now lost control of both houses. Ishiba may need to seek support from other parties and may face leadership challenges.

    He also must respond to issues Sanseitō has raised. LDP policymakers are now aware of public anxieties surrounding migration, excessive tourism and cultural integration. Seeking to co-opt some of Sanseitō’s proposals, the government has already banned tourists from driving and set up a new government agency to address concerns about non-Japanese nationals. It has also pledged to reduce illegal immigration to zero.

    But the government is facing steep economic and demographic challenges, such as US tariffs, a rapidly ageing and declining population, and a record-low birth rate. So it cannot afford to cut immigration dramatically. Policymakers will have to balance economic needs with hardening public attitudes towards foreigners.

    It’s not just immigration that will be at stake. Ishiba will need to navigate wedge issues that could split the LDP’s conservative support base. These include same-sex marriage, the use of separate surnames by married couples, and female succession to the throne.

    It’s too early to say whether Sanseitō can sustain its momentum. Numerous populist leaders in Japan before Kamiya have succeeded in turning mistrust of the political class into votes at the ballot box. However, few have been able to translate it into meaningful political change across multiple election cycles.

    For instance, Shinji Ishimaru made headlines in 2024 after placing second in the race for Tokyo governor. But his Path to Reform party, which promised educational reform, struggled in the latest election. Reiwa Shinsengumi, the left populist party led by Tarō Yamamoto, also enjoyed success in previous elections but remains small.

    Only time will tell if Sanseitō will become a major political party or yet another minority group on the fringes. But it’s clear anti-immigration populism has arrived in Japan. And it looks like it’s here to stay.

    Rin Ushiyama 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. Rightwing populist Sanseitō party shakes Japan with election surge – https://theconversation.com/rightwing-populist-sanseito-party-shakes-japan-with-election-surge-261303

    MIL OSI Analysis –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Effective partnerships can stop the next pandemic

    Source: United Nations 2

    Dr. Ibrahim Abubakar, a professor of infectious diseases at University College London,  issued this warning at a recent meeting of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in New York.

    It is not a question of if but when, and Dr. Abubakar believes the answer is sooner than anyone wants in part because the global healthcare system remains drastically  siloed.

    This is a problem because, intrinsically, a pandemic cannot be stopped by one country alone.

    “Infectious diseases will not respect borders. Therefore, health systems to ensure equity, dignity and universal access must also be agile to implement policies across borders,” Dr. Abubakar said.

    Rather, stopping pandemics — and promoting broader global development — requires robust partnerships and consistent investment in multilateral systems as a practice, not just an ideal.

    “If we are to meet the ambitions of the 2030 Agenda, we must reimagine cooperation, not as a transactional action but as a dynamic, inclusive and future-ready partnership,” said Lok Bahadur Thapa, vice president of ECOSOC.

    A goal to unite all goals 

    The High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development is convening at UN Headquarters in New York to discuss progress – or lack thereof – towards the globally agreed 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

    The first 16 SDGs deal with specific aspects of development — such as poverty, gender equality and climate change — but the 17th puts forward a path to achieve the others. And this path lies in embracing global partnerships between State governments, civil society organizations, communities and the private sector.

    However, with an annual financing gap for the SDGs which exceeds $4 trillion, the partnerships of today are not sufficient to realize the goals for tomorrow.

    “We must forge truly transformative partnerships that break traditional silos: governments, civil society, the private sector and multilateral institutions all have roles to play in an inclusive coalition for sustainable development,” Dima Al-Khatib, director of the UN Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) said at an HLPF event.

    Prioritize prevention, not reaction

    Right now, the current health system, which includes pandemic preparedness, is oriented towards halting health emergencies once they emerge as opposed to proactively preventing them, according to Dr. Abubakar.

    Member States recently adopted a pandemic prevention treaty which endeavours to do just this — limit the likelihood of future pandemics.

    But for many, this emphasis on prevention extends beyond pandemics to issues like rehabilitation services and primary care, both of which experts say are critical investments not only in human well-being but also in peace and security.

    Moreover, these types of preventative medicine are cheaper than reactive medicine, according to Mandeep Dhaliwal, the Director of Health at the UN Development Programme (UNDP).  

    “It’s important to invest in prevention as much as it is in treatment, and it is more cost-effective because … you’re turning off the tap,” Ms. Dhaliwal said.

    However, convincing investors to support preventive care can be difficult because, when done correctly, tangible results are not necessarily visible.

    Health is in every system

    Nevertheless, investing in preventive medicine like primary care and the socioeconomic determinants of health — such as climate and nutrition — can help ensure that health systems are holistically supporting people before a crisis begins.

    “Health is not a silo… the factors that influence health are often outside the health sector,” Ms. Dhaliwal said, citing the example of air pollution which is a climate problem that inherently influences health.  

    This sort of holistic investment requires robust partnerships which work to ensure that every initiative — no matter how seemingly distanced — considers health implications.

    “We have too often treated [health] as a downstream issue, something that improves only if other systems are working. But we now understand that health and well-being is not simply the result of good developments. It’s the starting point,” said Tony Ott, a professor of agricultural sciences at the Pennsylvania State University.

    The weak link in the health system

    Migrants and displaced people tend to be among those least likely to have access to preventive medicine and often those most impacted by the social determinants of health.

    “Migration and displacement, whether it’s driven by conflict, climate change or economic factors, are defining factors in terms of our health,” he said.  

    By the end of 2024, 123.2 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide, a decade-high number which proves that in the 10 years since the SDGs were adopted, the world has regressed in relation to displacements.

    For Dr. Abubakar, these displaced people — and the millions more voluntary migrants — embody why the health system simply cannot continue to silo itself and must instead embrace cross-border partnerships.

    “Health systems must ensure access to essential services regardless of immigration status … Any community without access is that weak link that may mean we are all not protected,” Dr. Abubakar said, referring to the next pandemic.

    Communities at the centre

    The idea of partnerships as foundational to achieving the SDGs is logical for many people. After all, the goals are universal in nature and demand global collaboration.

    But this collaboration, especially for health, must do more than just engage experts — it must engage the people who seek out healthcare. Dr. Abubakar said that all health policies must be culturally appropriate to local contexts, something which can only happen if communities are placed at the centre of healthcare.

    “The new future that I see would embrace global partnership, including countries irrespective of income level, public and private sector, academic and civil society. And within this framework, communities must be at the centre… not just as recipients but as co-creators of solutions.”
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Is a ‘nanny state’ a price worth paying to keep the NHS free? The evidence shows it could work

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

    Nanny says no. SOK Studio/Shutterstock

    The UK government’s new ten-year-plan to transform the NHS includes a focus on preventing ill health rather than treating illness. But to what extent should people depend on the state to help them make healthy decisions?

    Some think any kind of nudge in that direction is symptomatic of a “nanny state” overstepping its boundaries. Others might argue that nanny knows best, or that governments should do whatever works best both economically and to keep people healthy.

    Either way, if a country like the UK wants to keep providing free (or at least tax-payer funded) and universal healthcare, rather than charging every patient for their specific needs, its choices are limited.

    Take obesity for example, which is estimated to cost the NHS around £12.6 billion a year – more than 5% of its total budget.

    In 2022, 28.7% of adults in the UK had obesity, compared to 10.9% in France, 14.3% in Denmark and 22% in Belgium. (In the US, it was 42.8%.)

    Government analysis claims that if everyone who is overweight reduced their calorie intake by just 216 calories a day – roughly equivalent to a single 500ml bottle of fizzy drink – obesity would be halved, and so would the associated costs. It also estimates that cutting the calorie count of a daily diet by just 50 calories would lift 340,000 children and 2 million adults out of obesity.

    But how should it persuade people to cut those calories? Happy to ignore accusations of being a nanny state, the UK government is now working with food retailers and manufacturers to encourage people to make healthier choices.

    Under the plan, products will be made with less sugar and fat. And the data that supermarkets own about your shopping habits (through online shopping and loyalty cards) will be used to nudge you towards more fruits and vegetables and fewer bags of crisps. Businesses that fail to induce changes in customer consumption will face financial penalties.

    And perhaps this is more effective than personal responsibility. Recent alternative policies which relied on individual action like following diets using the NHS weight loss app have not worked.

    The UK has also invested hundred of millions of pounds trying to encourage people to burn calories by walking and cycling more. But the country remains reluctant to reduce its car-dependence, with its cities poorly served by public transport. Walking and cycling are just not that popular.

    So perhaps state intervention is the only policy British people are willing to accept. Understandably, they want the freedom to make their own choices when it comes to exercise, eating and drinking, but they also want to keep the NHS free. Only 7% would support charging people for their use of healthcare.

    Fat tax

    Another option is to tax the consumption of fat and sugar to pay for the cost it imposes on others. In 2016, the UK was among the first countries to introduce a tax on sugary drinks. Since then, the total amount of sugar in British soft drinks has decreased by 46%, because changing the recipes means the producers pay less tax.

    Research shows that the tax also deters younger people from buying too much sugar. However, it does little to reduce consumption among those who have the most sugar-intensive diets, just like alcohol taxes do nothing to convince the most addicted alcoholics to drink less.

    There is also a valid argument that taxing sugar and fat is unfair. Unhealthy food is a much larger proportion of the budget of poorer households than it is for wealthier one, making it a regressive tax.

    Love for the NHS.
    John Gomez/Shutterstock

    Yet policies nudging people towards healthy choices often have a good track record. A study of food labelling policies which placed warning labels on high sugar and high calorie foods in Chile showed that people bought less of them.

    To stay below the threshold, firms then changed their recipes, just like with the tax. In that case, the warnings led to people consuming 11.5% less sugar and 2.8% less fat.

    While paternalistic interventions can be annoying or upsetting, pretending obesity is purely an individual choice is misleading. Obesity starts in childhood, and can destroy future choices. Children with obesity are more likely to be bullied, and don’t do as well at school.

    The state regularly bans harmful products without controversy. Even if you wanted to, you could not insulate your house with asbestos, and the UK is currently busy banning the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2009.

    With NHS waiting lists remaining at record highs, and a struggling economy, risk of the country becoming a nanny state by trying to encourage healthier food might actually be a pretty minor one.

    Renaud Foucart 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. Is a ‘nanny state’ a price worth paying to keep the NHS free? The evidence shows it could work – https://theconversation.com/is-a-nanny-state-a-price-worth-paying-to-keep-the-nhs-free-the-evidence-shows-it-could-work-260539

    MIL OSI Analysis –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: MHRA’s 2024–25 Annual Report and Accounts and Impact Report show progress on safety, innovation, and regulatory excellence

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    News story

    MHRA’s 2024–25 Annual Report and Accounts and Impact Report show progress on safety, innovation, and regulatory excellence

    The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has published its 2024–25 Annual Report and Accounts, and accompanying Impact Report.

    The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has published its 2024–25 Annual Report and Accounts, and accompanying Impact Report, demonstrating how we have enhanced patient safety across the UK, restored our performance to ensure we are meeting regulatory timelines, and sharing our success in enabling access to life-changing medical products.

    As an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care, the MHRA plays a critical role in protecting public health while supporting the UK’s £100 billion life sciences sector. Over the past year, the agency has significantly improved its core operations by enhancing safety systems, clearing licensing backlogs, and helping bring safe innovative treatments and technologies to patients faster.

    Highlights of the MHRA’s work in 2024–25 include:

    • Clearing all statutory backlogs by March 2025 and consistently meeting statutory targets for clinical trials.
    • Approving more than 2,000 licences for medicines, including 54 new medicines, such as treatments for Alzheimer’s, rare diseases, and cancer.
    • Assessing over 5,000 clinical trial applications and launching the UK’s most significant clinical trial regulatory reform in over two decades.
    • Supporting patient safety through the assessment of over 100,000 adverse drug reaction reports and blocking over 1.5 million unregulated online listings.
    • Piloting a world-first AI Airlock to safely develop artificial intelligence in medical devices.
    • Providing over 127,000 units of biological standards worldwide and launching new World Health Organisation-endorsed standards to strengthen global pandemic preparedness.

    The reports also reflect the MHRA’s strengthened focus on patient and public engagement, environmental sustainability, and global regulatory collaboration, with over £7 million in research grants supporting cutting-edge regulatory science.

    The reports also highlight the MHRA’s focus on strengthening internal capability and real-world evidence. Through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), the agency continues to support public health research with anonymised data from UK GP practices.

    Internally, the MHRA has enhanced its digital infrastructure, improved cyber resilience, and modernised customer services, while investing in its people through graduate schemes, apprenticeships, and strong governance.

    View the MHRA Annual Report and Accounts 2024–25 and MHRA Impact Report 2024–25.

    For media enquiries, please contact: newscentre@mhra.gov.uk or call 020 3080 7651.

    Share this page

    The following links open in a new tab

    • Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
    • Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

    Updates to this page

    Published 21 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Secretary-General’s remarks to the High-level Political Forum [bilingual as delivered, scroll down for all-English and all-French]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    This year’s High-Level Political Forum arrives at a time of profound challenge – but also real possibility.

    Despite enormous headwinds, we have seen just in the last two months what can be achieved when countries come together with conviction and focus.

    We saw it in Geneva, where the World Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement — a vital step toward a safer, more equitable global health architecture.

    We saw it in Nice at the Third UN Ocean Conference, where governments committed to expand marine protected areas and tackle plastic pollution and illegal fishing.

    And we saw it in Sevilla at the Fourth International Financing for Development Conference, where countries agreed on a new vision for global finance — one that expands fiscal space, lowers the cost of capital, and ensures developing countries have a stronger voice and participation in the organizations that shape their future. 

    These are not isolated wins.

    They are signs of momentum.

    Signs that multilateralism can deliver.

    Signs that transformation is not only necessary — it is possible.

    And that is the spirit we bring to this High-Level Political Forum.

    Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

    This Forum is about renewing our common promise — to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all.

    We also recognize the deep linkages between development and peace.

    We meet against the backdrop of global conflicts that are pushing the Sustainable Development Goals further out of reach.

    That’s why we must keep working for peace in the Middle East.

    Over the weekend in Gaza, we saw yet more mass shootings and killings of people seeking UN aid for their families – an atrocious and inhumane act which I utterly condemn.

    We need an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the immediate release of all hostages, and unimpeded humanitarian access as a first step to achieve the two-State solution.

    We need the ceasefire between Iran and Israel to hold.

    We need a just and lasting peace in Ukraine based on the UN Charter, international law and UN resolutions. 

    We need an end to the horror and bloodshed in Sudan.

    And the list goes on, from the DRC to Somalia, from the Sahel to Myanmar.

    At every step, we know sustainable peace requires sustainable development.

    The Sustainable Development Goals are not a dream.

    They are a plan.

    A plan to keep our promises — to the most vulnerable people, to each other, and to future generations.

    People win when we channel our energy into development.

    Since 2015, millions more people have access to electricity, clean cooking, and the internet.

    Social protection now reaches over half the world’s population — up from just a quarter a decade ago.

    More girls are completing school.

    Child marriage is declining.

    Women’s representation is growing — from the boardrooms of business to the halls of political power.  

    But we must face a tough reality:

    Only 35 per cent of SDG targets are on track or making moderate progress.

    Nearly half are moving too slowly.

    And 18 per cent are going backwards.

    Meanwhile, the global economy is slowing.

    Trade tensions are rising.

    Inequalities are growing.

    Aid budgets are being decimated while military spending soars.

    And mistrust, division and outright conflicts are placing the international problem-solving system under unprecedented strain.

    We cannot sugarcoat these facts. But we must not surrender to them either.

    The SDGs are still within reach — if we act with urgency and ambition.

    This year’s Forum focuses on five critical Goals: health, gender equality, decent work, life below water, and global partnerships.

    All are essential. All are interconnected. All can spur change across other goals.

    On health, COVID-19 exposed and deepened inequalities – and today, far too many people still lack access to basic care.
    We know what works.

    We must boost investment in universal health coverage, rooted in strong primary care and prevention, reaching those furthest behind first.

    On gender equality, gaps remain wide.

    Women and girls face systemic barriers — from violence and discrimination to unpaid care and limited political voice.

    But we also see growing momentum: from grassroots movements to national reforms.

    Now is the time to turn that momentum into transformation — with rights-based policies, accountability, and real financing into programmes that support inclusion and equality for women and girls.

    On decent work, the global economy is leaving billions behind.

    Over 2 billion people are in informal jobs. Youth unemployment is stubbornly high.

    But we have tools to change this.

    The Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection is helping countries invest in expanded social protection initiatives, skills training, and the creation of sustainable livelihoods — including in growing industries like clean energy.

    Tomorrow, I will deliver an address on the enormous opportunities of the renewables revolution.

    The upcoming World Summit on Social Development can help spur further progress.

    Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

    On life below water, our ocean and the communities that count on it are paying the price of overfishing, pollution, and climate change.

    We must deliver on the commitments of the Nice Ocean Conference — to protect marine ecosystems and support the millions who depend on them.

    And, finally, on global partnerships — SDG 17 — we need to strengthen all the elements that can support progress.

    This means investing in science, data, and local capacity.

    And harnessing digital innovation — including artificial intelligence — to accelerate progress, not deepen divides.

    Throughout, we must recognize the need to reform the unfair global financial system, which no longer represents today’s world or the challenges faced by developing countries.

    We must ensure a reform for developing countries to have a stronger voice and greater participation to help advance the Sustainable Development Goals on the ground.

    The Sevilla Commitment that emerged from the Conference on Financing for Development includes important steps: 

    Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need.

    By increasing the capacity of governments to substantially mobilize domestic resources, including through tax reform.

    And by establishing a more effective framework for debt relief and tripling the lending capacity of multilateral development banks to the benefit of developing countries. 

    Excellences,

    Au cours de l’année à venir, nous devons continuer à construire.

    Nous devons renforcer et élargir les partenariats qui portent leurs fruits – y compris avec le secteur privé et les organisations de la société civile et les pouvoirs locaux. 

    Nous devons faire en sorte que chaque décision s’inscrive dans une réflexion à long terme, comme nous nous y sommes engagés dans la Déclaration sur les générations futures.

    Et nous devons continuer d’apprendre les uns des autres.

    Les Examens nationaux volontaires, qui constituent la clé de voûte de ce forum, sont bien plus que de simples rapports.

    Ce sont des actes de responsabilité.

    Ce sont de véritables parcours d’introspection, que les pays suivent à mesure qu’ils se développent et se construisent.

    Et ce sont des modèles que les autres pays peuvent suivre et dont ils peuvent s’inspirer.

    À la fin de ce forum politique de haut niveau pour le développement durable, nous aurons dépassé les 400 examens, et plus de 150 pays en auront présenté plus d’un.

    Il s’agit là d’un signal fort d’engagement.

    Une preuve indéniable que des solutions existent et qu’elles peuvent être reproduites et étendues.

    À cinq ans de l’échéance, le temps est venu de convertir ces prémices de transformation en un puissant élan de progrès – qui bénéficie à tous les pays.

    Agissons avec détermination, justice et vision.

    Et concrétisons le développement – pour les personnes et pour la planète.

    Je vous remercie.

    ****
    [all-English]

    This year’s High-Level Political Forum arrives at a time of profound challenge – but also real possibility.

    Despite enormous headwinds, we have seen just in the last two months what can be achieved when countries come together with conviction and focus.

    We saw it in Geneva, where the World Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement — a vital step toward a safer, more equitable global health architecture.

    We saw it in Nice at the Third UN Ocean Conference, where governments committed to expand marine protected areas and tackle plastic pollution and illegal fishing.

    And we saw it in Sevilla at the Fourth International Financing for Development Conference, where countries agreed on a new vision for global finance — one that expands fiscal space, lowers the cost of capital, and ensures developing countries have a stronger voice and participation in the organizations that shape their future.

    These are not isolated wins.

    They are signs of momentum.

    Signs that multilateralism can deliver.

    Signs that transformation is not only necessary — it is possible.

    And that is the spirit we bring to this High-Level Political Forum.

    Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

    This Forum is about renewing our common promise — to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all.

    We also recognize the deep linkages between development and peace.

    We meet against the backdrop of global conflicts that are pushing the Sustainable Development Goals further out of reach.

    That’s why we must keep working for peace in the Middle East.
    Over the weekend in Gaza, we saw yet more mass shootings and killings of people seeking UN aid for their families – an atrocious and inhumane act which I utterly condemn.

    We need an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the immediate release of all hostages, and unimpeded humanitarian access as a first step to achieve the two-State solution.

    We need the ceasefire between Iran and Israel to hold.

    We need a just and lasting peace in Ukraine based on the UN Charter, international law and UN resolutions. 

    We need an end to the horror and bloodshed in Sudan.

    And the list goes on, from the DRC to Somalia, from the Sahel to Myanmar.

    At every step, we know sustainable peace requires sustainable development.

    The Sustainable Development Goals are not a dream.

    They are a plan.

    A plan to keep our promises — to the most vulnerable people, to each other, and to future generations.

    People win when we channel our energy into development.

    Since 2015, millions more people have access to electricity, clean cooking, and the internet.
    Social protection now reaches over half the world’s population — up from just a quarter a decade ago.

    More girls are completing school.

    Child marriage is declining.

    Women’s representation is growing — from the boardrooms of business to the halls of political power.  

    But we must face a tough reality:

    Only 35 per cent of SDG targets are on track or making moderate progress.

    Nearly half are moving too slowly.

    And 18 per cent are going backwards.

    Meanwhile, the global economy is slowing.
    Trade tensions are rising.

    Inequalities are growing.

    Aid budgets are being decimated while military spending soars.

    And mistrust, division and outright conflicts are placing the international problem-solving system under unprecedented strain.

    We cannot sugarcoat these facts. But we must not surrender to them either.

    The SDGs are still within reach — if we act with urgency and ambition.

    This year’s Forum focuses on five critical Goals: health, gender equality, decent work, life below water, and global partnerships.

    All are essential. All are interconnected. All can spur change across other goals.

    On health, COVID-19 exposed and deepened inequalities – and today, far too many people still lack access to basic care.
    We know what works.

    We must boost investment in universal health coverage, rooted in strong primary care and prevention, reaching those furthest behind first.

    On gender equality, gaps remain wide.

    Women and girls face systemic barriers — from violence and discrimination to unpaid care and limited political voice.

    But we also see growing momentum: from grassroots movements to national reforms.

    Now is the time to turn that momentum into transformation — with rights-based policies, accountability, and real financing into programmes that support inclusion and equality for women and girls.

    On decent work, the global economy is leaving billions behind.

    Over 2 billion people are in informal jobs. Youth unemployment is stubbornly high.

    But we have tools to change this.

    The Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection is helping countries invest in expanded social protection initiatives, skills training, and the creation of sustainable livelihoods — including in growing industries like clean energy.

    Tomorrow, I will deliver an address on the enormous opportunities of the renewables revolution.

    The upcoming World Summit on Social Development can help spur further progress.

    Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

    On life below water, our ocean and the communities that count on it are paying the price of overfishing, pollution, and climate change.

    We must deliver on the commitments of the Nice Ocean Conference — to protect marine ecosystems and support the millions who depend on them.

    And, finally, on global partnerships — SDG 17 — we need to strengthen all the elements that can support progress.

    This means investing in science, data, and local capacity.

    And harnessing digital innovation — including artificial intelligence — to accelerate progress, not deepen divides.

    Throughout, we must recognize the need to reform the unfair global financial system, which no longer represents today’s world or the challenges faced by developing countries.

    We must ensure a reform for developing countries to have a stronger voice and greater participation to help advance the Sustainable Development Goals on the ground.

    The Sevilla Commitment that emerged from the Conference on Financing for Development includes important steps: 

    Through new domestic and global commitments that can channel public and private finance to the areas of greatest need.

    By increasing the capacity of governments to substantially mobilize domestic resources, including through tax reform.

    And by establishing a more effective framework for debt relief and tripling the lending capacity of multilateral development banks to the benefit of developing countries. 

    Excellencies,

    In the coming year, we must keep building.

    We must strengthen and scale up partnerships that deliver — including with the private sector and civil society organizations and local authorities. 

    We must embed long-term thinking into every decision, as we committed in the Declaration on Future Generations.

    And we must continue to learn from each other.

    Voluntary National Reviews — the backbone of this Forum — are more than reports.

    They are acts of accountability.

    They are journeys of self-discovery as countries develop and build. 

    And they are templates for other countries to follow and learn from.

    By the end of this HLPF, we will have surpassed 400 reviews — with over 150 countries presenting more than once.

    That is a powerful signal of commitment.

    A clear demonstration that solutions exist and can be replicated and expanded.

    With five years left, it’s time to transform these sparks of transformation into a blaze of progress — for all countries.

    Let us act with determination, justice and direction.

    And let’s deliver on development — for people and for planet. 

    Thank you.

    [all-French]

    Cette année, le forum politique de haut niveau pour le développement durable se tient à une période marquée par de profondes remises en question, mais également par de réelles perspectives.

    Malgré de très puissants vents contraires, nous avons vu, ces deux derniers mois, ce qu’il est possible d’accomplir lorsque les pays s’unissent avec conviction et détermination.

    Nous l’avons vu à Genève, où l’Assemblée mondiale de la Santé a adopté l’Accord sur les pandémies, étape essentielle vers l’établissement d’une architecture mondiale de la santé plus sûre et plus équitable.

    Nous l’avons vu à Nice lors de la troisième Conférence des Nations Unies sur l’océan, où les gouvernements se sont engagés à étendre les aires marines protégées et à lutter contre la pollution plastique et la pêche illicite.

    Nous l’avons vu à Séville lors de la quatrième Conférence internationale sur le financement du développement, où les pays se sont mis d’accord sur une nouvelle conception de ce que doit être le financement mondial : une conception qui donne une plus grande marge de manœuvre budgétaire, qui réduise le coût du capital et qui permette aux pays en développement de mieux se faire entendre et la participation aux organisations qui partagent leur avenir.

    Ce ne sont pas là que des victoires isolées.

    Ce sont des signes qu’une dynamique se crée.

    Des signes que le multilatéralisme peut fonctionner.

    Des signes que, mieux que nécessaire, la transformation est possible.

    Et c’est l’esprit dans lequel nous abordons ce forum politique de haut niveau.

    Excellences,
    Mesdames et Messieurs,

    Le but de cette édition du forum est de renouveler l’engagement que nous avons pris ensemble : celui d’éliminer la pauvreté, protéger la planète et garantir la prospérité pour tous et toutes.

    Et nous sommes bien conscients des liens étroits qui existent entre le développement et la paix.

    Nous nous réunissons aujourd’hui dans le contexte de conflits mondiaux qui mettent les objectifs de développement durable encore plus hors de portée.

    C’est pourquoi nous devons continuer d’œuvrer à la paix au Moyen-Orient.

    Au cours du week-end à Gaza, nous avons assisté à de nouvelles fusillades et à de nouveaux meurtres de personnes cherchant l’aide de l’ONU pour leurs familles – un acte atroce et inhumain que je condamne catégoriquement.

    La solution des deux États doit se réaliser, mais pour cela, à titre préliminaire, il nous faut un cessez-le-feu immédiat à Gaza, une libération immédiate de tous les otages et un accès humanitaire sans entrave.

    Le cessez-le-feu entre l’Iran et Israël doit tenir.

    Il nous faut une paix juste et durable en Ukraine – une paix fondée sur la Charte des Nations Unies, le droit international et les résolutions des organes des Nations Unies.

    L’horreur et le bain de sang doivent cesser au Soudan.

    Au Soudan comme en RDC, en Somalie, au Sahel ou au Myanmar – et la liste est encore longue.

    Et toujours, nous devons nous souvenir qu’il n’y a pas de paix durable sans développement durable.

    Les objectifs de développement durable ne sont pas qu’un idéal.

    Ils portent tout un projet.

    Un projet qui doit nous aider à tenir nos promesses : les promesses faites aux personnes les plus vulnérables, celles que nous nous sommes faites mutuellement et celles que nous avons faites aux générations futures.

    Tout le monde est gagnant lorsque nous appliquons notre énergie au développement.

    Depuis 2015, des millions de personnes supplémentaires ont accès à l’électricité, à des solutions de cuisson propre et à Internet.

    Plus de la moitié de la population mondiale bénéficie désormais de la protection sociale ; ce n’était le cas que d’un quart de la population il y a dix ans.

    Davantage de filles achèvent leur scolarité.

    Les mariages d’enfants sont en baisse.

    Les femmes sont de plus en plus représentées, que ce soit dans les conseils d’administration des entreprises ou dans les sphères du pouvoir politique.

    Pourtant, nous devons reconnaître une dure réalité :

    Seuls 35 % des cibles des objectifs de développement durable sont en voie d’être atteints, ou du moins, enregistrent des progrès modérés dans ce sens.

    Ces progrès sont trop lents pour près de la moitié des cibles.

    Et c’est un recul qui est enregistré pour 18 % d’entre elles.

    Pendant ce temps, l’économie mondiale ralentit.

    Les tensions commerciales s’accentuent.

    Les inégalités augmentent.

    Les budgets consacrés à l’aide sont amputés alors que les dépenses militaires explosent.

    Et, comme jamais, la défiance, les divisions et les conflits ouverts mettent le système international de règlement des problèmes à rude épreuve.

    Cette réalité ne peut être édulcorée, mais elle ne doit pas nous faire fléchir.

    Nous pouvons toujours atteindre les objectifs de développement durable, si nous agissons de toute urgence et avec ambition.

    Cette année, le forum porte sur cinq objectifs fondamentaux : la santé, l’égalité des sexes, le travail décent, la vie aquatique et les partenariats mondiaux.

    Tous sont essentiels. Tous sont interdépendants. Tous sont porteurs de changement dans des domaines relevant d’autres objectifs.

    En ce qui concerne la santé, la COVID-19 a révélé et aggravé les inégalités, et aujourd’hui, beaucoup trop de personnes n’ont toujours pas accès aux soins de base.

    Nous savons ce qui fonctionne.

    Nous devons intensifier les investissements en faveur d’une couverture sanitaire universelle fondée sur un système solide de soins primaires et de prévention, qui servirait en premier lieu les personnes les plus laissées-pour-compte.

    En ce qui concerne l’égalité des sexes, le fossé reste immense.

    Les femmes et les filles se heurtent à des obstacles systémiques, qui vont de la violence et de la discrimination aux travaux domestiques non rémunérés et à un manque de représentation sur la scène politique.

    Nous assistons toutefois également à l’amorce d’une nouvelle dynamique, dans les mouvements locaux, les réformes nationales.

    Le moment est venu de transformer cette dynamique en véritable transformation, en faisant en sorte que des politiques fondées sur les droits, des dispositifs de responsabilité effective et des financements concrets soient mis au service de programmes qui favorisent l’inclusion et l’égalité pour les femmes et les filles.

    En ce qui concerne le travail décent, des milliards de personnes ne profitent pas de l’économie mondiale.

    Elles sont plus de 2 milliards à occuper des emplois informels. Le chômage des jeunes est obstinément élevé.

    Mais nous disposons d’outils pour changer la donne.

    L’Accélérateur mondial pour l’emploi et la protection sociale aide les pays à investir dans des initiatives de protection sociale élargies, dans la formation professionnelle et dans la création de moyens de subsistance durables, notamment dans des secteurs en forte croissance tels que les énergies propres.

    Demain, je prononcerai un discours sur l’immense potentiel que recèle la révolution des énergies renouvelables.

    Le prochain Sommet mondial pour le développement social peut aussi contribuer à accélérer les progrès.

    Excellences, mesdames et messieurs

    En ce qui concerne la vie aquatique, notre océan et les populations qui en dépendent paient le prix de la surpêche, de la pollution et des changements climatiques.

    Nous devons honorer les engagements qui ont été pris lors de la Conférence de Nice sur l’océan, à savoir protéger les écosystèmes marins et soutenir les millions de personnes qui en sont tributaires.

    Enfin, en ce qui concerne les partenariats mondiaux (l’objectif de développement durable no 17), nous devons consolider tous les facteurs de progrès potentiels.

    Autrement dit, il faut investir dans la science, les données et les capacités locales.

    Et exploiter l’innovation numérique – notamment l’intelligence artificielle – pour accélérer le progrès, et non creuser la fracture.

    Ce faisant, nous devons tenir compte de la nécessité de réformer le système financier mondial : un système inéquitable qui n’est plus représentatif du monde d’aujourd’hui ni des problématiques auxquelles font face les pays en développement.

    Nous devons mettre en œuvre une réforme permettant aux pays en développement de mieux se faire entendre et de participer davantage à la réalisation des Objectifs de développement durable sur le terrain.

    L’Engagement de Séville, adopté à l’occasion de la Conférence sur le financement du développement, prévoit un certain nombre de mesures majeures vers :
     

    • de nouveaux engagements nationaux et mondiaux susceptibles de diriger les financements publics et privés vers les secteurs où les besoins sont les plus importants ;
    • un renforcement de la capacité des États à mobiliser des ressources nationales en grandes quantités, notamment au moyen d’une réforme fiscale ;
    • une réforme de l’architecture financière mondiale, visant à permettre aux pays en développement, qui comptent sur ce système pour mieux servir et soutenir leurs populations, de mieux se faire entendre et de participer davantage ;
    • l’établissement d’un cadre plus efficace pour l’allégement de la dette et le triplement des capacités de prêt des banques multilatérales de développement au profit des pays en développement.

    Excellences,

    Au cours de l’année à venir, nous devons continuer à construire.

    Nous devons renforcer et élargir les partenariats qui portent leurs fruits – y compris avec le secteur privé et les organisations de la société civile et les pouvoirs locaux.

    Nous devons faire en sorte que chaque décision s’inscrive dans une réflexion à long terme, comme nous nous y sommes engagés dans la Déclaration sur les générations futures.

    Et nous devons continuer d’apprendre les uns des autres.

    Les Examens nationaux volontaires, qui constituent la clé de voûte de ce forum, sont bien plus que de simples rapports.

    Ce sont des actes de responsabilité.

    Ce sont de véritables parcours d’introspection, que les pays suivent à mesure qu’ils se développent et se construisent.

    Et ce sont des modèles que les autres pays peuvent suivre et dont ils peuvent s’inspirer.

    À la fin de ce forum politique de haut niveau pour le développement durable, nous aurons dépassé les 400 examens, et plus de 150 pays en auront présenté plus d’un.

    Il s’agit là d’un signal fort d’engagement.

    Une preuve indéniable que des solutions existent et qu’elles peuvent être reproduites et étendues.

    À cinq ans de l’échéance, le temps est venu de convertir ces prémices de transformation en un puissant élan de progrès – qui bénéficie à tous les pays.

    Agissons avec détermination, justice et vision.

    Et concrétisons le développement – pour les personnes et pour la planète.

    Je vous remercie.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Urges U.S. Sentencing Commission To Consider Impacts Of Chronic Underfunding And Understaffing At BOP

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    CHICAGO – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission in response to its proposed priorities for the 2025-2026 amendment cycle. In the letter, Durbin urged the Commission to consider the impact that the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) resources and staffing levels have on BOP’s ability to adequately discharge its mission.

    “For years, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has faced significant challenges in the performance of its mandate, undermining the Commission’s intent to tailor recommended sentences to anticipated outcomes for incarcerated individuals. I therefore urge the Commission to prioritize ‘[a]ssessing the degree to which certain practices of the Bureau of Prisons are effective in meeting the purposes of sentencing as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2) and considering any appropriate responses, including possible consideration of recommendations or amendments’ in the upcoming amendment cycle,” Durbin wrote.

    As Durbin notes in his letter, BOP has been chronically underfunded and understaffed, resulting in longstanding issues related to physical infrastructure of facilities, inadequate medical care for inmates, and concerns about the agency’s ability to ensure the safety and security of inmates and BOP employees, among other challenges.

    “Inadequate funding and staffing levels affect all aspects of BOP’s ability to discharge its mission. We have asked the agency to do far too much with far too little for far too long—and the ripple effects of severe BOP under resourcing are apparent across facilities nationwide,” Durbin wrote.

    Despite BOP’s limitations in carrying out its own mission, the Trump Administration has saddled the agency with additional responsibilities in accepting and processing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detainees. Durbin denounced this effort by the Trump Administration, emphasizing that this move further hampers BOP’s ability to address its own shortfalls.

    “Despite these limitations, the Administration has now asked BOP to add an additional mission by accepting and processing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detainees. As I have previously written to the Attorney General, this decision further threatens the safety and well-being of incarcerated individuals,” Durbin wrote.

    Durbin concluded his letter by calling on the Sentencing Commission to focus on recommendations and amendments that will support BOP in remedying its deficiencies.

    “Given the myriad difficulties facing our federal prison system, I respectfully urge the Commission to consider possible recommendations or amendments in the upcoming amendment cycle that account for the limited ‘nature and capacity of . . . facilities and services available’ to incarcerated individuals,” Durbin concluded his letter.

     

    A copy of the letter can be found here and below:

     

    July 18, 2025

     

    Dear Chair Reeves:

     

    I write in response to the Sentencing Commission’s request for comment on its Proposed 2025-2026 Priorities.

     

    Proposed Priority: Bureau of Prisons practices and effectiveness in meeting the purposes of sentencing.

     

    In the federal criminal justice system, district courts must seek to achieve the purposes of sentencing—retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation—when deciding upon a defendant’s sentence,[1] by imposing one that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to:

     

    (A) reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.[[2]]

     

    The United States Sentencing Commission, too, must strive to ensure the Sentencing Guidelines meet these purposes.[3] Though no longer binding, the Sentencing Guidelines nevertheless “serve an important role” by providing courts with “‘a meaningful benchmark’ in the initial determination of a sentence” and guidance “throughout the sentencing process.”[4] Indeed, in Fiscal Year 2024, 28,038 sentences—or 45.7 percent—were imposed within the recommended range, not including cases where a departure applied, evidencing the central role that the Guidelines play in guiding thousands of federal criminal justice outcomes annually.[5]

     

    Of course, the relevance to the goals of sentencing of the type and length of a recommended sentence under the Guidelines will necessarily vary depending on how that sentence is executed. For years, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has faced significant challenges in the performance of its mandate, undermining the Commission’s intent to tailor recommended sentences to anticipated outcomes for incarcerated individuals. I therefore urge the Commission to prioritize “[a]ssessing the degree to which certain practices of the Bureau of Prisons are effective in meeting the purposes of sentencing as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2) and considering any appropriate responses including possible consideration of recommendations or amendments” in the upcoming amendment cycle.[6]

     

    Chronically underfunded and understaffed, BOP has struggled to maintain safe and effective carceral settings for nearly 156,000 federal inmates, over 143,000 of whom are in BOP custody.[7]Currently, BOP is authorized to have 14,900 correctional officer positions, with 12,766 active officers in pay status.[8] Authorized “other” full time positions were recently reduced from 27,498 to 23,949, and there are 23,896 active employees in pay status.[9] The resulting challenges BOP faces are both longstanding and pervasive:

     

    • Infrastructure. In May 2023, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released the results of an audit of BOP’s “aging and failing infrastructure,” finding issues such as buckling concrete, crumbling façades, water leaks, poor ventilation, and energy inefficiencies.[10] Late last year, BOP announced plans to permanently close one facility and idle six others due in part to “crumbling infrastructure.”[11] That BOP would need to close facilities as a result of unsustainable cost is not new—just three years prior, BOP closed Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) New York “after an in-depth conditions assessment found that substantial building deficiencies jeopardized the safety and security of the staff and inmates who occupied the building.”[12] As of February 2024, then-BOP Director Colette Peters estimated that BOP had a maintenance and repair backlog of approximately $3 billion.[13]
    • Medical Care. In 2023, NPR reported on severely inadequate medical care within BOP facilities.[14] One common complaint among sources was the agency’s failure to timely screen and treat inmates with serious illnesses, and the report found “[m]ore than a dozen waited months or even years for treatment, including inmates with obviously concerning symptoms: unexplained bleeding, a suspicious lump, intense pain.”[15] Many suffered worsened conditions; some lost their lives.[16] These problems persist.[17] In a series of unannounced site inspections, OIG has identified several concerning medical practices and failures across various institutions.[18] Most recently, OIG released an inspection last December of Federal Medical Center (FMC) Devens, finding “serious issues with . . . provision of healthcare” even at this dedicated medical facility, including “potentially dangerous medication distribution, lack of preventive healthcare screening, inappropriate placement of inmates in the Memory Disorder Unit (MDU), and inconsistent processes for requesting and accessing care.”[19] Like other BOP institutions across the nation, FMC Devens suffers from a substantial employee shortage, “substantially affect[ing] the health, welfare, and safety of . . . inmates.”[20] It is perhaps unsurprising that in Fiscal Year 2024, district court judges granted compassionate release requests under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) on the basis, at least in part, of medical-related concerns in a notable number of cases.[21] In one recent order granting compassionate release, a district court judge found BOP’s failure to provide necessary and “relatively straightforward” treatment to the petitioner “incomprehensible and very far below the standards that I expect for anyone held in custody.”[22]
    • Safety and Security. Several factors undermine BOP’s ability to ensure the safety of those in its custody. For example, in 2022, the union representing BOP employees condemned a deadly fight at United States Penitentiary (USP) Beaumont, decrying the “chronic understaffing” that “is jeopardizing the lives of both workers and inmates.”[23] Indeed, in a February 2024 OIG report evaluating issues surrounding inmate deaths, “BOP specifically identified insufficient staffing as an issue in at least 30 of the inmate deaths in [OIG’s] scope.”[24] Correctional staff shortages hinder efforts to prevent and respond to immediate threats, while medical staff shortages limit the ability to provide risk-mitigation treatments and programming.[25] In addition to other challenges, BOP also faces longstanding obstacles to effective interdiction of contraband drugs and weapons, overreliance on mandated staff overtime and augmentation, and “fundamentally ineffective” staff discipline processes—each compounding the serious risk to institutional safety.[26]

     

    While these concerns significantly limit BOP’s ability to effectively meet the purposes of sentencing, they are by no means exhaustive. Inadequate funding and staffing levels affect all aspects of BOP’s ability to discharge its mission. We have asked the agency to do far too much with far too little for far too long—and the ripple effects of severe BOP under resourcing are apparent across facilities nationwide.[27] Despite these limitations, the Administration has now asked BOP to add an additional mission by accepting and processing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detainees.[28] As I have previously written to the Attorney General, this decision further threatens the safety and well-being of incarcerated individuals.[29]

     

    Given the myriad difficulties facing our federal prison system, I respectfully urge the Commission to consider possible recommendations or amendments in the upcoming amendment cycle that account for the limited “nature and capacity of . . . facilities and services available”[30] to incarcerated individuals.

     

    Sincerely,

    -30-


    [1] Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 325 (2011). The Supreme Court explained in Tapia, however, that “a particular purpose may apply differently, or even not at all, depending on the kind of sentence under consideration.” Id. at 326. Retribution, § 3553(a)(2)(A), for example, cannot be considered for imposing supervised release terms, id., and rehabilitative needs, § 3553(a)(2)(D), cannot be used to impose or lengthen a prison term, id. at 335.

    [2] 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2).

    [3] 28 U.S.C. § 994(g).

    [4] Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 133 (2018) (quoting Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 541, (2013)).

    [5] U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Datafile (2024), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/annual-reports-and-sourcebooks/2024/Table29.pdf.

    [6] Federal Register Notice of Proposed 2025-2026 Priorities, U.S. Sent’g Comm’n,

    https://www.ussc.gov/policymaking/federal-register-notices/federal-register-notice-proposed-2025-2026-priorities (last visited July 9, 2025).

    [7] Statistics, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp#:~:text=155%2C933%20Total%20Federal%20Inmates&text=Last%20Updated%20July%203%2C%202025,Thursday%20at%2012%3A00%20A.M(last visited July 9, 2025). An additional nearly 12,800 federal inmates are reported to be in “other types of facilities.” Id.

    [8] Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Fed. Bureau of Prisons Fact Sheet (2025), https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/docs/fbop_fact_sheet.pdf.

    [9] Id.; Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Fed. Bureau of Prisons Fact Sheet (2024), https://web.archive.org/web/20250226151445/https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/docs/fbop_fact_sheet.pdf.

    [10] U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Inspector Gen., No. 23-064, Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Efforts to Maintain and Construct Institutions 6 (2023), https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/23-064_1.pdf.

    [11] Michael R. Sisak & Michael Balsamo, The US government is closing a women’s prison and other facilities after years of abuse and decay, Associated Press (Dec. 5, 2024), https://apnews.com/article/federal-prisons-closing-ap-investigation-abuse-decay-c02c96b6f6a3c5535cc3e3025d5d2585.

    [12] U.S. Dep’t of Just., supra note 10 at 5.

    [13] Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, Examining and Preventing Deaths of Incarcerated Individuals in Federal

    Prisons (Feb. 28, 2024), at 00:30:45.

    [14] Meg Anderson, 1 in 4 inmate deaths happens in the same federal prison. Why?, NPR (Sept. 23, 2023),

    https://www.npr.org/2023/09/23/1200626103/federal-prison-deaths-butner-medical-center-sick-inmates.

    [15] Id.

    [16] Id.

    [17] See Walter Pavlo, Cases Show Medical Care Under Scrutiny At Federal Bureau Of Prisons, Forbes (Mar. 13, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2025/03/13/cases-show-medical-care-under-scrutiny-at-federal-bureau-of-prisons/.

    [18] To date, OIG has released the results of five inspections. In the first four inspections, OIG found, in part: at FCI Waseca, inmates with higher care levels than the institutions at which they were housed, significant delays in nonemergency medical care, and limited ability to provide psychology services beyond “crisis focused” care, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Inspector Gen., 23-068, Inspection of the Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Fed. Corr. Inst. Waseca 1, 26–29 (2023),https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/23-068.pdf; at FCI Tallahassee, suboptimal timing of medication dispensation, such as insulin and psychiatric medication, which can negatively affect drug efficacy, insufficient availability of bilingual staff to communicate with patients, and incomplete health care screenings at intake, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Inspector Gen., 24-005, Inspection of the Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Fed. Corr. Inst. Tallahassee 1, 34–35 (2023),https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/24-005.pdf; at FCI Sheridan, a longstanding phlebotomist vacancy that, while eventually filled, led to a backlog at one point of over 700 laboratory orders, barriers to inmates requesting and accessing care for routine conditions, delays in medical and dental care due to lack of medical equipment and supplies, a backlog of outside medical visits, and potentially dangerous medication distribution practices, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Inspector Gen., 24-070, Inspection of the Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Fed. Corr. Inst. Sheridan 1, 8–13 (2024), https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/24-070_0.pdf; and at FCI Lewisburg, intake screening errors, certain prescription medication discontinuation decisions made without speaking with or examining the patients in advance and without tapering as recommended by BOP clinical guidance, colorectal cancer screenings provided to less than half of inmates within the recommended risk range and significant delays in providing colonoscopies to those for whom it was ordered, and failure to provide A1C tests to the majority of qualifying inmates within recommended time frames, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Inspector Gen., 24-113, Inspection of the Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Fed. Corr. Inst. Lewisburg 1, 10–14 (2024), https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/24-113.pdf.

    [19] U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Inspector Gen., 25-009, Inspection of the Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Fed. Corr. Inst. Devens i (2024), https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/25-009.pdf.

    [20] Id.

    [21] Sentencing courts listed serious physical or medical condition in 12.5 percent of cases, ongoing COVID-19 pandemic concerns unable to be timely mitigated in 3.3 percent of cases, and BOP failure to provide treatment in 1.7 percent of cases, among other reasons. U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Compassionate Release Data Report 1, 17 (2025), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/federal-sentencing-statistics/compassionate-release/FY24-Compassionate-Release.pdf.

    [22] Order for Immediate Release of Defendant Bovis, United States v. Bovis, No. 20-cr-00204, Dkt. 100 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025); see also United States v. Diggs, No. 02-CR-1129, 2025 WL 1371367, at *8 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2025) (granting compassionate release after finding “BOP has shown no intention and/or ability to provide the necessary care [to the petitioner], despite its doctors’ recommendations”).

    [23] Angel San Juan, Prison Pay: Low Pay Rates for Correctional Officers is Creating a Staffing Crisis, 6KFDM (May 19, 2023), https://kfdm.com/news/local/prison-pay-low-pay-rates-for-correctional-officers-is-creating-a-staffing-crisis.

    [24] U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Inspector Gen., 24-041, Evaluation of Issues Surrounding Inmate deaths in Fed. Bureau of Prisons Inst. 1, 65 (2024), https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/24-041.pdf.

    [25] Id.

    [26] Id. at 54, 67, 70.

    [27] Though Congress recently provided $5 billion in additional funding to BOP, see Act of July 4, 2025, Pub. L. No. 119-21, this appropriation represents just the first small step needed to begin to correct the institutional problems caused by underfunding BOP. Commission consideration in this area remains imminently necessary given the longstanding and ongoing impacts of BOP challenges on effectuating the purposes of sentencing.

    [28] Letter from Richard J. Durbin, U.S. Senator, Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator, Mazie K. Hirono, U.S. Senator, Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senator, Alex Padilla, U.S. Senator, and Peter Welch, U.S. Senator, to Pam Bondi, U.S. Att’y Gen. (Feb. 25, 2025), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20AG%20Bondi%20re%20BOP%20facilities%20for%20ICE.pdf.

    [29] Id.

    [30] 28 U.S.C. § 994(g).

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Submissions: I watched a simulated oil spill in the Indian Ocean – here’s how island and coastal countries worked together to avoid disaster

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kate Sullivan de Estrada, Associate Professor in the International Relations of South Asia, University of Oxford

    Preparing to react to a maritime ’emergency’. Romuald Robert, CC BY

    The coils of black hose, drum skimmers designed to collect oil from the ocean’s surface, and orangey-red containment booms all looked out of place on the white sand of Mombasa’s touristy Nyali beach. But on July 9, dozens of emergency responders in red and orange hi-vis gear took over a portion of this beach. They were braving the wind and choppy Indian Ocean waves as they mock up the onshore response to a simulated oil spill at sea.

    I research how countries in the western Indian Ocean cooperate to make the seas around them safer, and I was there to observe a field training exercise that brought together around 200 participants from ten coastal and island states for one week in east Africa’s largest port city. Codenamed MASEPOLREX25, it put two types of emergency response to the test.

    The first was Kenya’s national-level response to marine oil pollution, guided by its national contingency plan. The second was a regional-level response that can bring in outside help from other nations. The organiser of the exercise, the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) – an intergovernmental group of Western Indian Ocean islands headquartered in Mauritius – wanted the countries of the region to rehearse a joint response to marine pollution.

    Preparations begin on Kenya’s Nyali beach for the emergency exercise.
    Romuald Robert., CC BY

    The exercise put two IOC-designed regional centres through their paces. Think of them like a pair of regional helpdesks for ocean security, each with a distinct purpose.

    How does it unfold?

    The exercise began the day before with a briefing on the marine pollution scenario. The Kenyan authorities had received a distress call from the fictional captains of two damaged vessels.

    An oil tanker with a deadweight tonnage of 50,000 had collided with a feeder ship in Tanzanian waters, just south of Kenya’s maritime zone. The captain of the tanker suspected that 3,000-to-4,000 metric tonnes of intermediate fuel oil (persistent, thick oil that won’t evaporate by itself) had spilled into the ocean.

    Such an incident is plausible. A 2023 IOC-commissioned internal study pinpointed the Kenya-Tanzania border as a hotspot for marine pollution risk. Two major ports sit in close proximity in a busy maritime transit corridor.

    Clustered around an incident board, Kenya’s incident management team mounted their national response. Nuru Mohammed, liaison officer for the Kenya Maritime Authority, explained that the assessment of the size of the spill and expectations of its behaviour had already led the team to anticipate the need for regional support. At this time of year, the sea current would carry the slick northward into Kenyan waters.

    At the back of everyone’s minds was the 2020 Wakashio incident, in which a bulk carrier owned by a Japanese shipping company but flagged to Panama ran aground to the southeast of Mauritius. An estimated 800-to-1,000 tonnes of fuel oil spilled into the sea, affecting 30km of Mauritian coastline. The cost to marine life, food security and human health were compounded by economic and connectivity challenges posed by the COVID pandemic.

    Responders prepare oil-spill equipment on the beach near Mombasa.
    Romuald Robert, CC BY-SA

    For the exercise, aerial surveillance of the mock spill triggered the first attempt at containment. A live video feed of the offshore national response showed rice husks, a substitute for the oil, afloat on the waves. Two vessels sprayed simulated oil-spill dispersants in challenging winds.

    In real life, as in this exercise, oil properties determine how the spill will behave. IOC consultant Peter Taylor warned that churning waves could mix with the oil forming emulsions that were viscous and not dispersible.

    We turned our attention to the chat feed on SeaVision, an information-sharing platform. A notification popped up. The Regional Maritime Information Fusion Centre (RMIFC) in Madagascar had shared mapped and timestamped projections of the drift of the oil slick for the following 72 hours. The centre’s director, Alex Ralaiarivony, later explained how it could provide other technical support such as satellite imagery, and could calculate the proportions of oil that were likely to become submerged, evaporate, remain adrift and reach the shoreline.

    By July 9, the fictional oil spill had reached the coast. The team on Nyali beach hurried to deploy an oil containment boom, a floating barrier that can shield sensitive areas such as shorelines.

    Back at headquarters, SeaVision was busy with messages. The other centre, the Regional Coordination of Operations Centre (RCOC) in Seychelles, was urgently requesting more shoreline equipment to help with oil spills, such as booms, from regional partners. Mauritius and Madagascar both made offers to help that Kenya accepted, and the RCOC coordinated a Dornier aircraft from Seychelles for collection and delivery.

    How does the emergency response work?

    The two centres help countries in the Western Indian Ocean secure their maritime zones against threats such as piracy, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, the trafficking of illicit goods – and marine pollution incidents.

    In Madagascar, the RMIFC gathers and analyses maritime data from multiple sources to detect potential threats at sea. This enables early warning of threats like oil spills, as well as suspicious ships or boats engaged in illicit maritime activities.

    The RCOC in Seychelles responds to these threats. It draws on a shared pool of aircraft and ships belonging to its members, using these to coordinate joint responses – whether through sea patrols, boarding and inspecting ships, or laying the legal groundwork to prosecute offenders.

    The two regional centres serve seven states: IOC island members Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles and France — through its island territory of La Réunion — as well as East African coastal states Kenya and Djibouti.

    On July 10, the exercise ended with an evaluation. One takeaway was that the two regional centres could have been used even more – for instance, to coordinate technical assistance from different partners. But a key purpose of the exercise was to help participating countries understand what the centres offer, and get them used to a regional-level response.

    Coastal and island states thousands of kilometres apart are being brought closer by maritime threats in their shared ocean. And the two centres are building their operational capacity to support the whole region, while also creating trust among countries. This matters in a geopolitical context of strategic competition in the Indian Ocean, where islands and East African coastal states sometimes want to put their own needs first.

    At the end of the exercise, IOC officer-in-charge Raj Mohabeer reminded participants that the island and coastal states of the Western Indian Ocean have vast maritime zones and face multiple seaborne security threats to their economies, ecologies and livelihoods. “No developing country can deal with a significant marine pollution event alone.”

    Kate Sullivan de Estrada receives funding from Research England’s Policy Support Fund allocation to the University of
    Oxford via the Public Policy Challenge Fund. Her project under the Fund is titled “Balancing ‘Sovereignty Trade-offs’ in Small-State Maritime Security Co-operation: The Case of the Indian Ocean Commission.”

    – ref. I watched a simulated oil spill in the Indian Ocean – here’s how island and coastal countries worked together to avoid disaster – https://theconversation.com/i-watched-a-simulated-oil-spill-in-the-indian-ocean-heres-how-island-and-coastal-countries-worked-together-to-avoid-disaster-260895

    MIL OSI –

    July 22, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Roper Technologies announces second quarter financial results and acquisition of Subsplash; Increasing full year guidance

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SARASOTA, Fla., July 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Roper Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ROP) reported financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2025.

    Second quarter 2025 highlights

    • Revenue increased 13% to $1.94 billion; organic revenue was +7% and acquisition contribution was +6%
    • GAAP net earnings increased 12% to $378 million; adjusted net earnings increased 9% to $528 million
    • Adjusted EBITDA increased 12% to $775 million
    • GAAP operating cash flow increased 5% to $404 million; adjusted operating cash flow increased 13% to $434 million
    • GAAP DEPS increased 12% to $3.49; adjusted DEPS increased 9% to $4.87

    “We delivered another strong quarter, highlighted by 13% total revenue growth, 7% organic revenue growth, and 10% free cash flow growth,” said Neil Hunn, Roper Technologies’ President and CEO. “Our businesses continued to execute at a high level, while further innovating and investing to drive durable, long-term growth. We are particularly excited about how AI capabilities are enhancing our solutions and creating new opportunities, broadly, across our portfolio. Our second quarter growth was balanced across all three segments, as expected, and positions us well for a strong second half.”

    “We are once again increasing our full year outlook, supported by our strong second quarter results, the continued expansion of our recurring revenue base, and resilient demand for our businesses’ mission critical solutions. With significant M&A capacity and our proven acquisition model, we remain well positioned to execute our disciplined capital deployment strategy against a large pipeline of attractive opportunities. The combination of our durable business portfolio and proven M&A capability continues to fuel compelling long-term cash flow compounding for our shareholders.”

    Subsplash acquisition

    Last week, Roper signed a definitive agreement to acquire Subsplash, a leading provider of AI-enabled, cloud-based software and fintech solutions that serve over 20,000 faith-based organizations and churches, for a purchase price of $800 million.

    “Subsplash is a terrific business that meets each of our long-standing acquisition criteria while enhancing shareholder value creation with its high-teens organic growth profile and the ability to expand margins under Roper’s long-term ownership. We are excited to welcome the Subsplash team to the Roper family and look forward to partnering with them to execute their long-term growth strategy. We see significant potential for Subsplash to further advance their AI capabilities and deliver powerful solutions that will drive increased engagement for their customers,” concluded Mr. Hunn.

    Increasing 2025 guidance

    Roper now expects full year 2025 adjusted DEPS of $19.90 – $20.05, compared to previous guidance of $19.80 – $20.05. The Company increased its full year total revenue growth outlook to ~13%, compared to a previous outlook of ~12%, and continues to expect organic revenue growth of +6 – 7%.

    For the third quarter of 2025, the Company expects adjusted DEPS of $5.08 – $5.12.

    Roper’s guidance includes the impact of the Subsplash acquisition, which is expected to close later this month. The Company’s guidance excludes the impact of unannounced future acquisitions or divestitures.

    Conference call to be held at 8:00 AM (ET) today

    A conference call to discuss these results has been scheduled for 8:00 AM ET on Monday, July 21, 2025. The call can be accessed via webcast or by dialing +1 800-836-8184 (US/Canada) or +1 646-357-8785, using conference call ID 87418. Webcast information and conference call materials will be made available in the Investors section of Roper’s website (www.ropertech.com) prior to the start of the call. The webcast can also be accessed directly by using the following URL https://event.webcast. Telephonic replays will be available for up to two weeks and can be accessed by dialing +1 646-517-4150 with access code 87418#.

    Use of non-GAAP financial information

    The Company supplements its consolidated financial statements presented on a GAAP basis with certain non-GAAP financial information to provide investors with greater insight, increase transparency and allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the information used by management in its financial and operational decision-making. Reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to their most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in the accompanying financial schedules or tables. The non-GAAP financial measures disclosed by the Company should not be considered a substitute for, or superior to, financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP, and the financial results prepared in accordance with GAAP and reconciliations from these results should be carefully evaluated.

    Minority interest

    Following the sale of a majority stake in its industrial businesses to CD&R, Roper holds a minority interest in Indicor. The fair value of Roper’s equity investment in Indicor is updated on a quarterly basis and reported as “equity investments (gain) loss, net.” Roper makes non-GAAP adjustments for the impacts associated with this investment.

    Table 1: Revenue and adjusted EBITDA reconciliation ($M)
      Q2 2024   Q2 2025   V %
    GAAP revenue $ 1,717     $ 1,944       13 %
               
    Components of revenue growth          
    Organic           7 %
    Acquisitions           6 %
    Foreign exchange           — %
    Revenue growth           13 %
               
    Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation          
    GAAP net earnings $ 337     $ 378      
    Taxes   88       107      
    Interest expense   68       79      
    Depreciation   9       10      
    Amortization   192       213      
    EBITDA $ 694     $ 788       14 %
               
    Transaction-related expenses for completed
    acquisitions
      —       4      
    Financial impacts associated with the minority
    investments in Indicor & Certinia
      1       (17 ) A  
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 695     $ 775       12 %
    Adjusted EBITDA margin   40.5 %     39.9 %     (60 bps )
    Table 2: Adjusted net earnings reconciliation ($M)
      Q2 2024   Q2 2025   V %
    GAAP net earnings $ 337     $ 378       12 %
    Transaction-related expenses for completed
    acquisitions
      —       3      
    Financial impacts associated with the minority
    investments in Indicor & Certinia
      —       (13 ) A  
    Amortization of acquisition-related intangible
    assets
      146       160   B  
    Adjusted net earnings C $ 483     $ 528       9 %
               
    Table 3: Adjusted DEPS reconciliation
      Q2 2024   Q2 2025   V %
    GAAP DEPS $ 3.12     $ 3.49       12 %
    Transaction-related expenses for completed
    acquisitions
      —       0.03      
    Financial impacts associated with the minority
    investments in Indicor & Certinia
      —       (0.12 ) A  
    Amortization of acquisition-related intangible
    assets
      1.35       1.48   B  
    Adjusted DEPS C $ 4.48     $ 4.87       9 %
               
    Table 4: Adjusted cash flow reconciliation ($M)
      Q2 2024   Q2 2025   V %
    Operating cash flow $ 384     $ 404       5 %
    Taxes paid in period related to divestiture   —       30   D  
    Adjusted operating cash flow $ 384     $ 434       13 %
    Capital expenditures   (7 )     (16 )    
    Capitalized software expenditures   (11 )     (14 )    
    Adjusted free cash flow $ 367     $ 403       10 %
               
    Table 5: Forecasted adjusted DEPS reconciliation
      Q3 2025   FY 2025
      Low end   High end   Low end   High end
    GAAP DEPS E $ 3.61     $ 3.65     $ 13.89     $ 14.04  
    YTD transaction-related expenses for
    completed acquisitions
      —       —       0.03       0.03  
    YTD financial impacts associated with the
    minority investment in Indicor A
      —       —       0.17       0.17  
    Amortization of acquisition-related
    intangible assets B
      1.47       1.47       5.81       5.81  
    Adjusted DEPS C $ 5.08     $ 5.12     $ 19.90     $ 20.05  
                   

    Footnotes:

    A.  Adjustments related to the financial impacts associated with the minority investment in Indicor as shown below ($M, except per share data). Forecasted results do not include any potential impacts associated with our minority investment in Indicor, as these potential impacts cannot be reasonably predicted. These impacts will be excluded from all non-GAAP results in future periods.
                         
        Q2 2025A     Q3 2025E   FY 2025E     YTD 2025A
      Pretax $ (17 )     TBD   TBD     $ 28
      After-tax $ (13 )     TBD   TBD     $ 18
      Per share $ (0.12 )     TBD   TBD     $ 0.17
                         
    B. Actual results and forecast of estimated amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets as shown below ($M, except per share data). Forecasted results do not include amortization of intangible assets associated with the announced acquisition of Subsplash, as the valuation of acquisition-related intangible assets is incomplete. This item will be excluded from all non-GAAP results in future periods.
                         
        Q2 2025A     Q3 2025E   FY 2025E      
      Pretax $ 203       $ 202   $ 798      
      After-tax $ 160       $ 160   $ 630      
      Per share $ 1.48       $ 1.47   $ 5.81      
                         
    C. All actual and forecasted non-GAAP adjustments are taxed at 21% with the exception of the financial impacts associated with minority investments.
                         
    D. Cash taxes paid in the quarter associated with Roper’s gain on the sale of its minority interest in Certinia.
                         
    E. Forecasted GAAP DEPS do not include any potential impacts associated with our minority investment in Indicor, nor amortization of intangible assets associated with the announced acquisition of Subsplash, as the valuation of acquisition-related intangible assets is incomplete. These impacts will be excluded from all non-GAAP results in future periods.
       

    Note: Numbers may not foot due to rounding.  

    About Roper Technologies

    Roper Technologies is a constituent of the Nasdaq 100, S&P 500, and Fortune 1000. Roper has a proven, long-term track record of compounding cash flow and shareholder value. The Company operates market leading businesses that design and develop vertical software and technology enabled products for a variety of defensible niche markets. Roper utilizes a disciplined, analytical, and process-driven approach to redeploy its excess capital toward high-quality acquisitions. Additional information about Roper is available on the Company’s website at www.ropertech.com.

    Contact information:
    Investor Relations
    941-556-2601
    investor-relations@ropertech.com

    The information provided in this press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. These forward-looking statements may include, among others, statements regarding operating results, the success of our internal operating plans, and the prospects for newly acquired businesses to be integrated and contribute to future growth, profit and cash flow expectations. Forward-looking statements may be indicated by words or phrases such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plans,” “expects,” “projects,” “should,” “will,” “believes,” “intends” and similar words and phrases. These statements reflect management’s current beliefs and are not guarantees of future performance. They involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement. Such risks and uncertainties include our ability to identify and complete acquisitions consistent with our business strategies, integrate acquisitions that have been completed, realize expected benefits and synergies from, and manage other risks associated with, acquired businesses, including obtaining any required regulatory approvals with respect thereto. We also face other general risks, including our ability to realize cost savings from our operating initiatives, general economic conditions and the conditions of the specific markets in which we operate, including risks related to labor shortages and rising interest rates, changes in foreign exchange rates, risks related to changing U.S. and foreign trade policies, including increased trade restrictions or tariffs, risks associated with our international operations, cybersecurity and data privacy risks, including litigation resulting therefrom, risks related to political instability, armed hostilities, incidents of terrorism, public health crises (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) or natural disasters, increased product liability and insurance costs, increased warranty exposure, future competition, changes in the supply of, or price for, parts and components, including as a result of inflation and potential supply chain constraints, environmental compliance costs and liabilities, risks and cost associated with litigation, potential write-offs of our substantial intangible assets, and risks associated with obtaining governmental approvals and maintaining regulatory compliance for new and existing products. Important risks may be discussed in current and subsequent filings with the SEC. You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. These statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update publicly any of them in light of new information or future events.

    Roper Technologies, Inc.      
    Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited)    
    (Amounts in millions)      
           
      June 30, 2025   December 31, 2024
    ASSETS:      
           
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 242.4     $ 188.2  
    Accounts receivable, net   868.8       885.1  
    Inventories, net   132.2       120.8  
    Income taxes receivable   50.0       25.6  
    Unbilled receivables   140.0       127.3  
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets   220.9       195.7  
    Total current assets   1,654.3       1,542.7  
           
    Property, plant and equipment, net   156.5       149.7  
    Goodwill   20,507.6       19,312.9  
    Other intangible assets, net   9,627.4       9,059.6  
    Deferred taxes   54.6       54.1  
    Equity investment   739.7       772.3  
    Other assets   480.3       443.4  
    Total assets $ 33,220.4     $ 31,334.7  
           
    LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY:      
           
    Accounts payable $ 159.4     $ 148.1  
    Accrued compensation   213.8       289.0  
    Deferred revenue   1,618.1       1,737.4  
    Other accrued liabilities   520.3       546.2  
    Income taxes payable   53.1       68.4  
    Current portion of long-term debt, net   999.8       1,043.1  
    Total current liabilities   3,564.5       3,832.2  
           
    Long-term debt, net of current portion   7,859.2       6,579.9  
    Deferred taxes   1,706.0       1,630.6  
    Other liabilities   456.8       424.4  
    Total liabilities   13,586.5       12,467.1  
           
    Common stock   1.1       1.1  
    Additional paid-in capital   3,187.1       3,014.6  
    Retained earnings   16,565.9       16,034.9  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss   (104.1 )     (166.5 )
    Treasury stock   (16.1 )     (16.5 )
    Total stockholders’ equity   19,633.9       18,867.6  
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 33,220.4     $ 31,334.7  
           
    Roper Technologies, Inc.          
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings (unaudited)        
    (Amounts in millions, except per share data)        
                   
      Three months ended
    June 30,
      Six months ended
    June 30,
        2025       2024       2025       2024  
    Net revenues $ 1,943.6     $ 1,716.8     $ 3,826.4     $ 3,397.5  
    Cost of sales   598.2       523.5       1,187.3       1,023.2  
    Gross profit   1,345.4       1,193.3       2,639.1       2,374.3  
                   
    Selling, general and administrative expenses   797.1       699.1       1,565.0       1,398.8  
    Income from operations   548.3       494.2       1,074.1       975.5  
                   
    Interest expense, net   79.1       67.5       142.0       120.7  
    Equity investments (gain) loss, net   (16.6 )     0.8       27.8       (56.2 )
    Other expense, net   0.5       0.6       1.0       1.8  
                   
    Earnings before income taxes   485.3       425.3       903.3       909.2  
                   
    Income taxes   107.0       88.2       193.9       190.1  
                   
    Net earnings $ 378.3     $ 337.1     $ 709.4     $ 719.1  
                   
    Net earnings per share:              
    Basic $ 3.52     $ 3.15     $ 6.60     $ 6.72  
    Diluted $ 3.49     $ 3.12     $ 6.55     $ 6.66  
                   
    Weighted average common shares outstanding:              
    Basic   107.6       107.1       107.5       107.0  
    Diluted   108.4       107.9       108.3       107.9  
    Roper Technologies, Inc.                
    Selected Segment Financial Data (unaudited)                
    (Amounts in millions; percentages of net revenues)                
                                   
      Three months ended June 30,   Six months ended June 30,
        2025       2024       2025       2024  
      Amount   %   Amount   %   Amount   %   Amount   %
    Net revenues:                              
    Application Software $ 1,094.9         $ 931.8         $ 2,163.1         $ 1,827.0      
    Network Software   385.4           364.2           761.3           735.0      
    Technology Enabled
    Products
      463.3           420.8           902.0           835.5      
    Total $ 1,943.6         $ 1,716.8         $ 3,826.4         $ 3,397.5      
                                   
                                   
    Gross profit:                              
    Application Software $ 753.3       68.8 %   $ 641.1       68.8 %   $ 1,474.1       68.1 %   $ 1,266.8       69.3 %
    Network Software   320.8       83.2 %     307.8       84.5 %     636.4       83.6 %     624.1       84.9 %
    Technology Enabled
    Products
      271.3       58.6 %     244.4       58.1 %     528.6       58.6 %     483.4       57.9 %
    Total $ 1,345.4       69.2 %   $ 1,193.3       69.5 %   $ 2,639.1       69.0 %   $ 2,374.3       69.9 %
                                   
                                   
    Operating profit*:                              
    Application Software $ 294.6       26.9 %   $ 251.1       26.9 %   $ 571.4       26.4 %   $ 490.7       26.9 %
    Network Software   169.3       43.9 %     159.1       43.7 %     336.0       44.1 %     326.1       44.4 %
    Technology Enabled
    Products
      164.1       35.4 %     146.7       34.9 %     317.7       35.2 %     282.9       33.9 %
    Total $ 628.0       32.3 %   $ 556.9       32.4 %   $ 1,225.1       32.0 %   $ 1,099.7       32.4 %
                                   
                                   
    * Segment operating profit is before unallocated corporate general and administrative expenses and enterprise-wide stock-based compensation. These expenses were $79.7 and $62.7 for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and $151.0 and $124.2 for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively.
    Roper Technologies, Inc.  
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (unaudited)
    (Amounts in millions)
      Six months ended
    June 30,
        2025       2024  
    Cash flows from operating activities:      
    Net earnings $ 709.4     $ 719.1  
    Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to cash flows from operating
    activities:
         
    Depreciation and amortization of property, plant and equipment   19.6       18.5  
    Amortization of intangible assets   417.2       377.2  
    Amortization of deferred financing costs   5.5       4.5  
    Non-cash stock compensation   82.7       73.3  
    Equity investments (gain) loss, net   27.8       (56.2 )
    Income tax provision   193.9       190.1  
    Changes in operating assets and liabilities, net of acquired businesses:      
    Accounts receivable   37.4       96.7  
    Unbilled receivables   (9.7 )     (17.7 )
    Inventories   (9.6 )     (11.0 )
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets   (22.9 )     (30.7 )
    Accounts payable   7.0       4.5  
    Other accrued liabilities   (115.4 )     (47.3 )
    Deferred revenue   (132.7 )     (122.6 )
    Cash taxes paid for gain on disposal of equity investment   (30.2 )     —  
    Cash income taxes paid, excluding tax associated with gain on disposal of
    equity investment
      (233.7 )     (284.3 )
    Other, net   (13.5 )     1.5  
    Cash provided by operating activities   932.8       915.6  
           
    Cash flows from (used in) investing activities:      
    Acquisitions of businesses, net of cash acquired   (2,005.2 )     (1,858.3 )
    Capital expenditures   (26.0 )     (15.9 )
    Capitalized software expenditures   (26.8 )     (20.5 )
    Distributions from equity investment   5.1       8.4  
    Other   1.6       (1.1 )
    Cash used in investing activities   (2,051.3 )     (1,887.4 )
           
    Cash flows from (used in) financing activities:      
    Borrowings under revolving line of credit, net   1,275.0       1,090.0  
    Cash dividends to stockholders   (177.2 )     (160.6 )
    Proceeds from stock-based compensation, net   73.8       75.9  
    Treasury stock sales   12.5       10.3  
    Other, net   (43.9 )     (0.2 )
    Cash provided by financing activities   1,140.2       1,015.4  
           
    Effect of exchange rate changes on cash   32.5       (6.4 )
           
    Net increase in cash and cash equivalents   54.2       37.2  
           
    Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period   188.2       214.3  
           
    Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 242.4     $ 251.5  
           

    The MIL Network –

    July 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: HBT Financial, Inc. Announces Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Second Quarter Highlights

    • Net income of $19.2 million, or $0.61 per diluted share; return on average assets (“ROAA”) of 1.53%; return on average stockholders’ equity (“ROAE”) of 13.47%; and return on average tangible common equity (“ROATCE”)(1) of 15.55%
    • Adjusted net income(1) of $19.8 million; or $0.63 per diluted share; adjusted ROAA(1) of 1.58%; adjusted ROAE(1) of 13.87%; and adjusted ROATCE(1) of 16.02%
    • Asset quality remained strong with nonperforming assets to total assets of 0.13% and net charge-offs to average loans of 0.12%, on an annualized basis
    • Net interest margin increased 2 basis points to 4.14% and net interest margin (tax-equivalent basis)(1)increased 3 basis points to 4.19%

    BLOOMINGTON, Ill., July 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — HBT Financial, Inc. (NASDAQ: HBT) (the “Company” or “HBT Financial” or “HBT”), the holding company for Heartland Bank and Trust Company, today reported net income of $19.2 million, or $0.61 diluted earnings per share, for the second quarter of 2025. This compares to net income of $19.1 million, or $0.60 diluted earnings per share, for the first quarter of 2025, and net income of $18.1 million, or $0.57 diluted earnings per share, for the second quarter of 2024.

    J. Lance Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer of HBT Financial, said, “During the second quarter of 2025, our team continued to deliver consistently strong earnings with adjusted net income(1) of $19.8 million, or $0.63 per diluted share. This was driven by an increase in adjusted pre-provision net revenue(1) of 5.2%, compared to the first quarter of 2025. Adjusted ROAA(1) was 1.58% and adjusted ROATCE(1) was 16.02% for the second quarter while our net interest margin on a tax equivalent basis(1) increased 3 basis points to 4.19%. Our strong profitability coupled with an improvement in our accumulated other comprehensive income due to lower interest rates resulted in a $0.59 increase in our tangible book value per share(1) to $16.02, an increase of 3.8% for the quarter and 17.4% over the last 12 months.

    Our balance sheet remains strong as all capital ratios increased during the quarter and asset quality remained stable with nonperforming assets to total assets of only 0.13%. We saw a decrease in loans during the quarter as seasonal paydowns on grain elevator lines of credit caused a decrease in commercial and industrial loans and a higher amount of property sales caused higher payoffs in several other portfolios. We expect to see loan growth return in the third quarter of 2025 due to higher loan pipelines at the end of the second quarter than at the end of the first quarter and fewer payoffs projected.

    Our credit discipline, strong profitability and solid balance sheet give us confidence that we are prepared for a variety of economic and interest rate environments. Our capital levels and operational structure support attractive acquisition opportunities should the right opportunity arise.”
    ____________________________________
    (1) See “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to their most closely comparable GAAP financial measures.

    Adjusted Net Income

    In addition to reporting GAAP results, the Company believes non-GAAP measures such as adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share, which adjust for acquisition expenses, branch closure expenses, gains (losses) on closed branch premises, realized gains (losses) on sales of securities, mortgage servicing rights fair value adjustments, and the tax effect of these pre-tax adjustments, provide investors with additional insight into its operational performance. The Company reported adjusted net income of $19.8 million, or $0.63 adjusted diluted earnings per share, for the second quarter of 2025. This compares to adjusted net income of $19.3 million, or $0.61 adjusted diluted earnings per share, for the first quarter of 2025, and adjusted net income of $18.1 million, or $0.57 adjusted diluted earnings per share, for the second quarter of 2024 (see “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” tables below for reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to their most closely comparable GAAP financial measures).

    Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin

    Net interest income for the second quarter of 2025 was $49.7 million, an increase of 2.0% from $48.7 million for the first quarter of 2025. The increase was primarily attributable to improved yields on debt securities and lower funding costs which were partially offset by a decrease in average loan balances.

    Relative to the second quarter of 2024, net interest income increased 5.6% from $47.0 million. The increase was primarily attributable to lower funding costs, improved yields on debt securities, and higher average loan balances. Additionally, a $0.5 million increase in nonaccrual interest recoveries and loan fees contributed to the increase in net interest income.

    Net interest margin for the second quarter of 2025 was 4.14%, compared to 4.12% for the first quarter of 2025, and net interest margin (tax-equivalent basis)(1) for the second quarter of 2025 was 4.19%, compared to 4.16% for the first quarter of 2025. The increase was primarily attributable to improved yields on debt securities, which increased 11 basis points to 2.60%, and lower funding costs, which decreased 3 basis points to 1.29%.

    Relative to the second quarter of 2024, net interest margin increased 19 basis points from 3.95% and net interest margin (tax-equivalent basis)(1) increased 19 basis points from 4.00%. The increase was primarily attributable to lower funding costs, higher yields on interest-earning assets, and an increase in nonaccrual interest recoveries and loan fees. The increase in the contribution of nonaccrual interest recoveries and loan fees accounted for 4 basis points of the increase in net interest margin.
    ____________________________________
    (1) See “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to their most closely comparable GAAP financial measures.

    Noninterest Income

    Noninterest income for the second quarter of 2025 was $9.1 million, a 1.8% decrease from $9.3 million for the first quarter of 2025. The decrease was primarily attributable to changes in the mortgage servicing rights (“MSR”) fair value adjustment, with a $0.8 million negative MSR fair value adjustment included in the second quarter 2025 results compared to a $0.3 million negative MSR fair value adjustment included in the first quarter 2025 results. Partially offsetting this decrease were seasonal increases in card income of $0.2 million and gains on sale of mortgage loans of $0.2 million.

    Relative to the second quarter of 2024, noninterest income decreased 4.9% from $9.6 million. The decrease was primarily attributable to changes in the MSR fair value adjustment, with a $0.8 million negative MSR fair value adjustment included in the second quarter 2025 results compared to a $0.1 million negative MSR fair value adjustment included in the second quarter 2024 results. Partially offsetting the decrease was a $0.2 million increase in wealth management fees.

    Noninterest Expense

    Noninterest expense for the second quarter of 2025 was $31.9 million, nearly unchanged from the first quarter of 2025. A $0.6 million decrease in salaries expense, which was impacted by seasonal variations in vacation accruals, was largely offset by a $0.4 million increase in other noninterest expense and a $0.3 million increase in employee benefits expense, primarily driven by higher medical benefit costs.

    Relative to the second quarter of 2024, noninterest expense increased 4.6% from $30.5 million. The increase was primarily attributable to a $0.7 million increase in employee benefits expense, primarily driven by higher medical benefit costs, a $0.3 million increase in other noninterest expense, and a $0.2 million increase in bank occupancy expense, primarily due to planned building maintenance and upgrades.

    Income Taxes

    During the second quarter of 2025 our effective tax rate increased to 27.0% when compared to 25.2% during the first quarter of 2025. This increase was primarily related to $0.3 million of additional tax expense related to the nonrecurring reversal of a stranded tax effect included in accumulated other comprehensive income, in connection with the maturity of a derivative designated as a cash flow hedge during the second quarter of 2025. Additionally, the first quarter of 2025 included a $0.2 million tax benefit from stock-based compensation that vested during the quarter.

    Loan Portfolio

    Total loans outstanding, before allowance for credit losses, were $3.35 billion at June 30, 2025, compared with $3.46 billion at March 31, 2025, and $3.39 billion at June 30, 2024. The $113.6 million decrease from March 31, 2025 was primarily attributable to $72.0 million of paydowns from property sales, a seasonal reduction of $25.1 million in grain elevator lines of credit included in the commercial and industrial segment, and additional payoffs across other segments. These reductions were partially offset by draws on existing loans in the construction and development segment and new originations to existing customers. Additionally, increases in the multi-family and commercial real estate – non-owner occupied segments were primarily due to completed projects being moved out of the construction and land development category.

    Deposits

    Total deposits were $4.31 billion at June 30, 2025, compared with $4.38 billion at March 31, 2025, and $4.32 billion at June 30, 2024. The $78.1 million decrease from March 31, 2025 was primarily attributable to higher outflows for tax payments by depositors and lower balances maintained in existing retail accounts which were partially offset by higher public funds balances.

    Asset Quality

    Nonperforming assets totaled $6.5 million, or 0.13% of total assets, at June 30, 2025, compared with $5.6 million, or 0.11% of total assets, at March 31, 2025, and $8.8 million, or 0.17% of total assets, at June 30, 2024. Additionally, of the $5.6 million of nonperforming loans held as of June 30, 2025, $1.9 million were either wholly or partially guaranteed by the U.S. government. The $0.9 million increase in nonperforming assets from March 31, 2025 was primarily attributable to higher nonperforming loan balances in the commercial and industrial and the construction and land development segments.

    The Company recorded a provision for credit losses of $0.5 million for the second quarter of 2025. The provision for credit losses primarily reflects a $1.0 million increase in required reserves driven by changes in the economic forecast; a $0.8 million increase in required reserves resulting from changes in qualitative factors; a $1.2 million decrease in required reserves driven by changes within the portfolio; and a $0.1 million decrease in specific reserves.
    The Company had net charge-offs of $1.0 million, or 0.12% of average loans on an annualized basis, for the second quarter of 2025, compared to net charge-offs of $0.4 million, or 0.05% of average loans on an annualized basis, for the first quarter of 2025, and net charge-offs of $0.7 million, or 0.08% of average loans on an annualized basis, for the second quarter of 2024. Charge-offs during second quarter of 2025 were primarily recognized in the commercial and industrial and one-to-four family residential segments.

    The Company’s allowance for credit losses was 1.24% of total loans and 741% of nonperforming loans at June 30, 2025, compared with 1.22% of total loans and 825% of nonperforming loans at March 31, 2025. In addition, the allowance for credit losses on unfunded lending-related commitments totaled $3.1 million as of June 30, 2025, compared with $3.2 million as of March 31, 2025.

    Capital

    As of June 30, 2025, the Company exceeded all regulatory capital requirements under Basel III as summarized in the following table:

        June 30, 2025   For Capital
    Adequacy Purposes
    With Capital
    Conservation Buffer
             
    Total capital to risk-weighted assets   17.74 %   10.50 %
    Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets   15.60     8.50  
    Common equity tier 1 capital ratio   14.26     7.00  
    Tier 1 leverage ratio   11.86     4.00  
                 

    The ratio of tangible common equity to tangible assets(1) increased to 10.21% as of June 30, 2025, from 9.73% as of March 31, 2025, and tangible book value per share(1) increased by $0.59 to $16.02 as of June 30, 2025, when compared to March 31, 2025.

    During the second quarter of 2025, the Company repurchased 135,997 shares of its common stock at a weighted average price of $21.30 under its stock repurchase program. The Company’s Board of Directors has authorized the repurchase of up to $15.0 million of HBT Financial common stock under its stock repurchase program, which is in effect until January 1, 2026. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had $12.1 million remaining under the stock repurchase program.
    ____________________________________
    (1) See “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to their most closely comparable GAAP financial measures.

    About HBT Financial, Inc.

    HBT Financial, Inc., headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois, is the holding company for Heartland Bank and Trust Company, and has banking roots that can be traced back to 1920. HBT Financial provides a comprehensive suite of financial products and services to consumers, businesses, and municipal entities throughout Illinois and eastern Iowa through 66 full-service branches. As of June 30, 2025, HBT Financial had total assets of $5.0 billion, total loans of $3.3 billion, and total deposits of $4.3 billion.

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    Some of the financial measures included in this press release are not measures of financial performance recognized in accordance with GAAP. These non-GAAP financial measures include adjusted net income, adjusted earnings per share, adjusted ROAA, pre-provision net revenue, pre-provision net revenue less charge-offs (recoveries), adjusted pre-provision net revenue, adjusted pre-provision net revenue less charge-offs (recoveries), net interest income (tax-equivalent basis), net interest margin (tax-equivalent basis), efficiency ratio (tax-equivalent basis), adjusted efficiency ratio (tax-equivalent basis), the ratio of tangible common equity to tangible assets, tangible book value per share, adjusted ROAE, ROATCE, and adjusted ROATCE. Our management uses these non-GAAP financial measures, together with the related GAAP financial measures, in its analysis of our performance and in making business decisions. Management believes that it is a standard practice in the banking industry to present these non-GAAP financial measures, and accordingly believes that providing these measures may be useful for peer comparison purposes. These disclosures should not be viewed as substitutes for the results determined to be in accordance with GAAP; nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP financial measures that may be presented by other companies. See our reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures in the “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” tables.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    Readers should note that in addition to the historical information contained herein, this press release contains, and future oral and written statements of the Company and its management may contain, “forward-looking statements” within the meanings of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements generally can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “will,” “propose,” “may,” “plan,” “seek,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” or “should,” or similar terminology. Any forward-looking statements presented herein are made only as of the date of this press release, and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect changes in assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events, or otherwise.

    Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: (i) the strength of the local, state, national and international economies and financial markets (including effects of inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints); (ii) effects on the U.S. economy resulting from the threat or implementation of, or changes to, existing policies and executive orders including tariffs, immigration policy, regulatory or other governmental agencies, foreign policy and tax regulations; (iii) the economic impact of any future terrorist threats and attacks, widespread disease or pandemics, acts of war or other threats thereof (including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East), or other adverse events that could cause economic deterioration or instability in credit markets, and the response of the local, state and national governments to any such adverse external events; (iv) new and revised accounting policies and practices, as may be adopted by state and federal regulatory banking agencies, the Financial Accounting Standards Board or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; (v) changes in local, state and federal laws, regulations and governmental policies concerning the Company’s general business and any changes in response to bank failures; (vi) the imposition of tariffs or other governmental policies impacting the value of products produced by the Company’s commercial borrowers; (vii) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of the Company’s assets; (viii) increased competition in the financial services sector, including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and fintech companies, and the inability to attract new customers; (ix) technological changes implemented by us and other parties, including our third-party vendors, which may have unforeseen consequences to us and our customers, including the development and implementation of tools incorporating artificial intelligence; (x) unexpected results of acquisitions, which may include failure to realize the anticipated benefits of acquisitions and the possibility that transaction costs may be greater than anticipated; (xi) the loss of key executives and employees, talent shortages and employee turnover; (xii) changes in consumer spending; (xiii) unexpected outcomes or costs of existing or new litigation or other legal proceedings and regulatory actions involving the Company; (xiv) the economic impact on the Company and its customers of climate change, natural disasters and of exceptional weather occurrences such as tornadoes, floods and blizzards; (xv) fluctuations in the value of securities held in our securities portfolio, including as a result of changes in interest rates; (xvi) credit risks and risks from concentrations (by type of borrower, geographic area, collateral and industry) within our loan portfolio (including commercial real estate loans) and large loans to certain borrowers; (xvii) the overall health of the local and national real estate market; (xviii) the ability to maintain an adequate level of allowance for credit losses on loans; (xix) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current FDIC insurance limits and who may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (xx) the ability to successfully manage liquidity risk, which may increase dependence on non-core funding sources such as brokered deposits, and may negatively impact the Company’s cost of funds; (xxi) the level of nonperforming assets on our balance sheet; (xxii) interruptions involving our information technology and communications systems or third-party servicers; (xxiii) the occurrence of fraudulent activity, breaches or failures of our third-party vendors’ information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents, including as a result of sophisticated attacks using artificial intelligence and similar tools or as a result of insider fraud; (xxiv) the effectiveness of the Company’s risk management framework, and (xxv) the ability of the Company to manage the risks associated with the foregoing as well as anticipated. Readers should note that the forward-looking statements included in this press release are not a guarantee of future events, and that actual events may differ materially from those made in or suggested by the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning the Company and its business, including additional factors that could materially affect the Company’s financial results, is included in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    CONTACT:
    Peter Chapman
    HBTIR@hbtbank.com 
    (309) 664-4556

    HBT Financial, Inc.
    Unaudited Consolidated Financial Summary
             
        As of or for the Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)   June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025       2024  
    Interest and dividend income   $ 63,919     $ 63,138     $ 62,824     $ 127,057     $ 124,785  
    Interest expense     14,261       14,430       15,796       28,691       31,069  
    Net interest income     49,658       48,708       47,028       98,366       93,716  
    Provision for credit losses     526       576       1,176       1,102       1,703  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses     49,132       48,132       45,852       97,264       92,013  
    Noninterest income     9,140       9,306       9,610       18,446       15,236  
    Noninterest expense     31,914       31,935       30,509       63,849       61,777  
    Income before income tax expense     26,358       25,503       24,953       51,861       45,472  
    Income tax expense     7,128       6,428       6,883       13,556       12,144  
    Net income   $ 19,230     $ 19,075     $ 18,070     $ 38,305     $ 33,328  
                         
    Earnings per share – diluted   $ 0.61     $ 0.60     $ 0.57     $ 1.21     $ 1.05  
                         
    Adjusted net income (1)   $ 19,803     $ 19,253     $ 18,139     $ 39,056     $ 36,212  
    Adjusted earnings per share – diluted (1)     0.63       0.61       0.57       1.23       1.14  
                         
    Book value per share   $ 18.44     $ 17.86     $ 16.14          
    Tangible book value per share (1)     16.02       15.43       13.64          
                         
    Shares of common stock outstanding     31,495,434       31,631,431       31,559,366          
    Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding, including all dilutive potential shares     31,588,541       31,711,671       31,666,811       31,649,766       31,734,999  
                         
    SUMMARY RATIOS                    
    Net interest margin *     4.14 %     4.12 %     3.95 %     4.13 %     3.95 %
    Net interest margin (tax-equivalent basis) * (1)(2)     4.19       4.16       4.00       4.18       3.99  
                         
    Efficiency ratio     53.10 %     53.85 %     52.61 %     53.47 %     55.40 %
    Efficiency ratio (tax-equivalent basis) (1)(2)     52.61       53.35       52.10       52.97       54.83  
                         
    Loan to deposit ratio     77.75 %     78.95 %     78.39 %        
                         
    Return on average assets *     1.53 %     1.54 %     1.45 %     1.53 %     1.34 %
    Return on average stockholders’ equity *     13.47       13.95       14.48       13.70       13.46  
    Return on average tangible common equity * (1)     15.55       16.20       17.21       15.87       16.03  
                         
    Adjusted return on average assets * (1)     1.58 %     1.55 %     1.45 %     1.56 %     1.45 %
    Adjusted return on average stockholders’ equity * (1)     13.87       14.08       14.54       13.97       14.63  
    Adjusted return on average tangible common equity * (1)     16.02       16.36       17.27       16.18       17.42  
                         
    CAPITAL                    
    Total capital to risk-weighted assets     17.74 %     16.85 %     16.01 %        
    Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets     15.60       14.77       13.98          
    Common equity tier 1 capital ratio     14.26       13.48       12.66          
    Tier 1 leverage ratio     11.86       11.64       10.83          
    Total stockholders’ equity to total assets     11.58       11.10       10.18          
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets (1)     10.21       9.73       8.74          
                         
    ASSET QUALITY                    
    Net charge-offs (recoveries) to average loans *     0.12 %     0.05 %     0.08 %     0.09 %     0.03 %
    Allowance for credit losses to loans, before allowance for credit losses     1.24       1.22       1.21          
    Nonperforming loans to loans, before allowance for credit losses     0.17       0.15       0.25          
    Nonperforming assets to total assets     0.13       0.11       0.17          
                                     

    ____________________________________

    (1) See “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to their most closely comparable GAAP financial measures.
    (2) On a tax-equivalent basis assuming a federal income tax rate of 21% and a state tax rate of 9.5%. 

    HBT Financial, Inc.
    Unaudited Consolidated Financial Summary
    Consolidated Statements of Income
     
      Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data) June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025       2024  
    INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME                  
    Loans, including fees:                  
    Taxable $ 53,156     $ 53,369     $ 52,177     $ 106,525     $ 104,103  
    Federally tax exempt   1,215       1,168       1,097       2,383       2,191  
    Debt securities:                  
    Taxable   7,434       6,936       6,315       14,370       12,519  
    Federally tax exempt   457       469       521       926       1,118  
    Interest-bearing deposits in bank   1,544       1,065       2,570       2,609       4,522  
    Other interest and dividend income   113       131       144       244       332  
    Total interest and dividend income   63,919       63,138       62,824       127,057       124,785  
    INTEREST EXPENSE                  
    Deposits   12,835       12,939       14,133       25,774       27,726  
    Securities sold under agreements to repurchase   —       22       129       22       281  
    Borrowings   30       109       121       139       246  
    Subordinated notes   469       470       469       939       939  
    Junior subordinated debentures issued to capital trusts   927       890       944       1,817       1,877  
    Total interest expense   14,261       14,430       15,796       28,691       31,069  
    Net interest income   49,658       48,708       47,028       98,366       93,716  
    PROVISION FOR CREDIT LOSSES   526       576       1,176       1,102       1,703  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses   49,132       48,132       45,852       97,264       92,013  
    NONINTEREST INCOME                  
    Card income   2,797       2,548       2,885       5,345       5,501  
    Wealth management fees   2,826       2,841       2,623       5,667       5,170  
    Service charges on deposit accounts   1,915       1,944       1,902       3,859       3,771  
    Mortgage servicing   1,042       990       1,111       2,032       2,166  
    Mortgage servicing rights fair value adjustment   (751 )     (308 )     (97 )     (1,059 )     (17 )
    Gains on sale of mortgage loans   459       252       443       711       741  
    Realized gains (losses) on sales of securities   —       —       —       —       (3,382 )
    Unrealized gains (losses) on equity securities   23       8       (96 )     31       (112 )
    Gains (losses) on foreclosed assets   14       13       (28 )     27       59  
    Gains (losses) on other assets   (128 )     54       —       (74 )     (635 )
    Income on bank owned life insurance   167       164       166       331       330  
    Other noninterest income   776       800       701       1,576       1,644  
    Total noninterest income   9,140       9,306       9,610       18,446       15,236  
    NONINTEREST EXPENSE                  
    Salaries   16,452       17,053       16,364       33,505       33,021  
    Employee benefits   3,580       3,285       2,860       6,865       5,665  
    Occupancy of bank premises   2,471       2,625       2,243       5,096       4,825  
    Furniture and equipment   575       445       548       1,020       1,098  
    Data processing   2,687       2,717       2,606       5,404       5,531  
    Marketing and customer relations   1,020       1,144       996       2,164       1,992  
    Amortization of intangible assets   694       695       710       1,389       1,420  
    FDIC insurance   551       562       565       1,113       1,125  
    Loan collection and servicing   360       383       475       743       927  
    Foreclosed assets   67       5       10       72       59  
    Other noninterest expense   3,457       3,021       3,132       6,478       6,114  
    Total noninterest expense   31,914       31,935       30,509       63,849       61,777  
    INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAX EXPENSE   26,358       25,503       24,953       51,861       45,472  
    INCOME TAX EXPENSE   7,128       6,428       6,883       13,556       12,144  
    NET INCOME $ 19,230     $ 19,075     $ 18,070     $ 38,305     $ 33,328  
                       
    EARNINGS PER SHARE – BASIC $ 0.61     $ 0.60     $ 0.57     $ 1.21     $ 1.05  
    EARNINGS PER SHARE – DILUTED $ 0.61     $ 0.60     $ 0.57     $ 1.21     $ 1.05  
    WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING   31,510,759       31,584,989       31,579,457       31,547,669       31,621,205  
                                           
    HBT Financial, Inc.
    Unaudited Consolidated Financial Summary
    Consolidated Balance Sheets
               
    (dollars in thousands) June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
    ASSETS          
    Cash and due from banks $ 25,563     $ 25,005     $ 22,604  
    Interest-bearing deposits with banks   170,179       186,586       172,636  
    Cash and cash equivalents   195,742       211,591       195,240  
               
    Interest-bearing time deposits with banks   —       —       520  
    Debt securities available-for-sale, at fair value   773,206       706,135       669,055  
    Debt securities held-to-maturity   481,942       490,398       512,549  
    Equity securities with readily determinable fair value   3,346       3,323       3,228  
    Equity securities with no readily determinable fair value   2,609       2,629       2,613  
    Restricted stock, at cost   4,979       5,086       5,086  
    Loans held for sale   2,316       2,721       858  
               
    Loans, before allowance for credit losses   3,348,211       3,461,778       3,385,483  
    Allowance for credit losses   (41,659 )     (42,111 )     (40,806 )
    Loans, net of allowance for credit losses   3,306,552       3,419,667       3,344,677  
               
    Bank owned life insurance   24,320       24,153       24,235  
    Bank premises and equipment, net   68,523       67,272       65,711  
    Bank premises held for sale   140       190       317  
    Foreclosed assets   890       460       320  
    Goodwill   59,820       59,820       59,820  
    Intangible assets, net   16,454       17,148       19,262  
    Mortgage servicing rights, at fair value   17,768       18,519       18,984  
    Investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries   1,614       1,614       1,614  
    Accrued interest receivable   20,624       22,735       22,425  
    Other assets   37,553       38,731       59,685  
    Total assets $ 5,018,398     $ 5,092,192     $ 5,006,199  
               
    LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY          
    Liabilities          
    Deposits:          
    Noninterest-bearing $ 1,034,387     $ 1,065,874     $ 1,045,697  
    Interest-bearing   3,272,144       3,318,716       3,272,996  
    Total deposits   4,306,531       4,384,590       4,318,693  
               
    Securities sold under agreements to repurchase   556       2,698       29,330  
    Federal Home Loan Bank advances   7,240       7,209       13,734  
    Subordinated notes   39,593       39,573       39,514  
    Junior subordinated debentures issued to capital trusts   52,879       52,864       52,819  
    Other liabilities   30,702       40,201       42,640  
    Total liabilities   4,437,501       4,527,135       4,496,730  
               
    Stockholders’ Equity          
    Common stock   329       329       328  
    Surplus   297,479       297,024       296,430  
    Retained earnings   341,750       329,169       290,386  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)   (32,739 )     (38,446 )     (54,656 )
    Treasury stock at cost   (25,922 )     (23,019 )     (23,019 )
    Total stockholders’ equity   580,897       565,057       509,469  
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 5,018,398     $ 5,092,192     $ 5,006,199  
    SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING   31,495,434       31,631,431       31,559,366  
                           
    HBT Financial, Inc.
    Unaudited Consolidated Financial Summary
               
    (dollars in thousands) June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
               
    LOANS          
    Commercial and industrial $ 419,430   $ 441,261   $ 400,276
    Commercial real estate – owner occupied   317,475     321,990     289,992
    Commercial real estate – non-owner occupied   907,073     891,022     889,193
    Construction and land development   310,252     376,046     365,371
    Multi-family   453,812     424,096     429,951
    One-to-four family residential   451,197     455,376     484,335
    Agricultural and farmland   271,644     292,240     285,822
    Municipal, consumer, and other   217,328     259,747     240,543
    Total loans $ 3,348,211   $ 3,461,778   $ 3,385,483
                     
    (dollars in thousands) June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
               
    DEPOSITS          
    Noninterest-bearing deposits $ 1,034,387   $ 1,065,874   $ 1,045,697
    Interest-bearing deposits:          
    Interest-bearing demand   1,097,086     1,143,677     1,094,797
    Money market   831,292     812,146     769,386
    Savings   568,971     575,558     582,752
    Time   774,795     787,335     796,069
    Brokered   —     —     29,992
    Total interest-bearing deposits   3,272,144     3,318,716     3,272,996
    Total deposits $ 4,306,531   $ 4,384,590   $ 4,318,693
                     
    HBT Financial, Inc.
    Unaudited Consolidated Financial Summary
       
      Three Months Ended
      June 30, 2025   March 31, 2025   June 30, 2024
    (dollars in thousands) Average Balance   Interest   Yield/Cost *   Average Balance   Interest   Yield/Cost *   Average Balance   Interest   Yield/Cost *
                                       
    ASSETS                                  
    Loans $ 3,417,582     $ 54,371   6.38 %   $ 3,460,906     $ 54,537   6.39 %   $ 3,374,058     $ 53,274   6.35 %
    Debt securities   1,217,386       7,891   2.60       1,204,424       7,405   2.49       1,187,795       6,836   2.31  
    Deposits with banks   160,726       1,544   3.85       120,014       1,065   3.60       211,117       2,570   4.90  
    Other   12,519       113   3.66       12,677       131   4.19       12,588       144   4.60  
    Total interest-earning assets   4,808,213     $ 63,919   5.33 %     4,798,021     $ 63,138   5.34 %     4,785,558     $ 62,824   5.28 %
    Allowance for credit losses   (42,118 )             (42,061 )             (40,814 )        
    Noninterest-earning assets   270,580               276,853               283,103          
    Total assets $ 5,036,675             $ 5,032,813             $ 5,027,847          
                                       
    LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY                                  
    Liabilities                                  
    Interest-bearing deposits:                                  
    Interest-bearing demand $ 1,125,787     $ 1,569   0.56 %   $ 1,120,608     $ 1,453   0.53 %   $ 1,123,592     $ 1,429   0.51 %
    Money market   813,531       4,463   2.20       807,728       4,397   2.21       788,744       4,670   2.38  
    Savings   569,193       374   0.26       569,494       370   0.26       592,312       393   0.27  
    Time   780,536       6,429   3.30       784,099       6,719   3.48       763,507       7,117   3.75  
    Brokered   —       —   —       —       —   —       38,213       524   5.51  
    Total interest-bearing deposits   3,289,047       12,835   1.57       3,281,929       12,939   1.60       3,306,368       14,133   1.72  
    Securities sold under agreements to repurchase   1,420       —   0.05       8,754       22   1.02       30,440       129   1.70  
    Borrowings   7,225       30   1.70       12,890       109   3.41       13,466       121   3.60  
    Subordinated notes   39,582       469   4.76       39,563       470   4.82       39,504       469   4.78  
    Junior subordinated debentures issued to capital trusts   52,871       927   7.03       52,856       890   6.83       52,812       944   7.18  
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   3,390,145     $ 14,261   1.69 %     3,395,992     $ 14,430   1.72 %     3,442,590     $ 15,796   1.85 %
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   1,044,539               1,045,733               1,043,614          
    Noninterest-bearing liabilities   29,486               36,373               39,806          
    Total liabilities   4,464,170               4,478,098               4,526,010          
    Stockholders’ Equity   572,505               554,715               501,837          
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 5,036,675             $ 5,032,813             $ 5,027,847          
                                       
    Net interest income/Net interest margin (1)     $ 49,658   4.14 %       $ 48,708   4.12 %       $ 47,028   3.95 %
    Tax-equivalent adjustment (2)       548   0.05           545   0.04           553   0.05  
    Net interest income (tax-equivalent basis)/
    Net interest margin (tax-equivalent basis) (2) (3)
        $ 50,206   4.19 %       $ 49,253   4.16 %       $ 47,581   4.00 %
    Net interest rate spread (4)         3.64 %           3.62 %           3.43 %
    Net interest-earning assets (5) $ 1,418,068             $ 1,402,029             $ 1,342,968          
    Ratio of interest-earning assets to interest-bearing liabilities   1.42               1.41               1.39          
    Cost of total deposits         1.19 %           1.21 %           1.31 %
    Cost of funds         1.29             1.32             1.42  
                                             

    ____________________________________

    * Annualized measure.

    (1) Net interest margin represents net interest income divided by average total interest-earning assets.
    (2) On a tax-equivalent basis assuming a federal income tax rate of 21% and a state income tax rate of 9.5%.
    (3) See “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to their most closely comparable GAAP financial measures.
    (4) Net interest rate spread represents the difference between the yield on average interest-earning assets and the cost of average interest-bearing liabilities.
    (5) Net interest-earning assets represents total interest-earning assets less total interest-bearing liabilities. 

    HBT Financial, Inc.
    Unaudited Consolidated Financial Summary
     
      Six Months Ended
      June 30, 2025   June 30, 2024
    (dollars in thousands) Average Balance   Interest   Yield/Cost *   Average Balance   Interest   Yield/Cost *
                           
    ASSETS                      
    Loans $ 3,439,124     $ 108,908   6.39 %   $ 3,372,640     $ 106,294   6.34 %
    Debt securities   1,210,941       15,296   2.55       1,200,871       13,637   2.28  
    Deposits with banks   140,483       2,609   3.75       189,207       4,522   4.81  
    Other   12,597       244   3.93       12,787       332   5.22  
    Total interest-earning assets   4,803,145     $ 127,057   5.33 %     4,775,505     $ 124,785   5.25 %
    Allowance for credit losses   (42,089 )             (40,526 )        
    Noninterest-earning assets   273,193               280,676          
    Total assets $ 5,034,249             $ 5,015,655          
                           
    LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY                      
    Liabilities                      
    Interest-bearing deposits:                      
    Interest-bearing demand $ 1,123,212     $ 3,022   0.54 %   $ 1,125,638     $ 2,740   0.49 %
    Money market   810,645       8,860   2.20       800,714       9,467   2.38  
    Savings   569,343       744   0.26       601,768       836   0.28  
    Time   782,307       13,148   3.39       714,003       13,042   3.67  
    Brokered   —       —   —       60,181       1,641   5.48  
    Total interest-bearing deposits   3,285,507       25,774   1.58       3,302,304       27,726   1.69  
    Securities sold under agreements to repurchase   5,067       22   0.89       31,448       281   1.80  
    Borrowings   10,042       139   2.79       13,235       246   3.73  
    Subordinated notes   39,573       939   4.79       39,494       939   4.78  
    Junior subordinated debentures issued to capital trusts   52,864       1,817   6.93       52,804       1,877   7.15  
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   3,393,053     $ 28,691   1.71 %     3,439,285     $ 31,069   1.82 %
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   1,045,133               1,040,007          
    Noninterest-bearing liabilities   32,404               38,457          
    Total liabilities   4,470,590               4,517,749          
    Stockholders’ Equity   563,659               497,906          
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 5,034,249               5,015,655          
                           
    Net interest income/Net interest margin (1)     $ 98,366   4.13 %       $ 93,716   3.95 %
    Tax-equivalent adjustment (2)       1,093   0.05           1,128   0.04  
    Net interest income (tax-equivalent basis)/
    Net interest margin (tax-equivalent basis) (2) (3)
        $ 99,459   4.18 %       $ 94,844   3.99 %
    Net interest rate spread (4)         3.62 %           3.43 %
    Net interest-earning assets (5) $ 1,410,092             $ 1,336,220          
    Ratio of interest-earning assets to interest-bearing liabilities   1.42               1.39          
    Cost of total deposits         1.20 %           1.28 %
    Cost of funds         1.30             1.39  

    ____________________________________
    (1) Net interest margin represents net interest income divided by average total interest-earning assets.
    (2) On a tax-equivalent basis assuming a federal income tax rate of 21% and a state income tax rate of 9.5%.
    (3) See “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to their most closely comparable GAAP financial measures.
    (4) Net interest rate spread represents the difference between the yield on average interest-earning assets and the cost of average interest-bearing liabilities.
    (5) Net interest-earning assets represents total interest-earning assets less total interest-bearing liabilities. 

    HBT Financial, Inc.
    Unaudited Consolidated Financial Summary
               
    (dollars in thousands) June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
               
    NONPERFORMING ASSETS          
    Nonaccrual $ 5,615     $ 5,102     $ 8,425  
    Past due 90 days or more, still accruing   9       4       7  
    Total nonperforming loans   5,624       5,106       8,432  
    Foreclosed assets   890       460       320  
    Total nonperforming assets $ 6,514     $ 5,566     $ 8,752  
               
    Nonperforming loans that are wholly or partially guaranteed by the U.S. Government $ 1,878     $ 1,350     $ 2,132  
               
    Allowance for credit losses $ 41,659     $ 42,111     $ 40,806  
    Loans, before allowance for credit losses   3,348,211       3,461,778       3,385,483  
               
    CREDIT QUALITY RATIOS          
    Allowance for credit losses to loans, before allowance for credit losses   1.24 %     1.22 %     1.21 %
    Allowance for credit losses to nonaccrual loans   741.92       825.38       484.34  
    Allowance for credit losses to nonperforming loans   740.74       824.74       483.94  
    Nonaccrual loans to loans, before allowance for credit losses   0.17       0.15       0.25  
    Nonperforming loans to loans, before allowance for credit losses   0.17       0.15       0.25  
    Nonperforming assets to total assets   0.13       0.11       0.17  
    Nonperforming assets to loans, before allowance for credit losses, and foreclosed assets   0.19       0.16       0.26  
                           
      Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands) June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025       2024  
                       
    ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES                  
    Beginning balance $ 42,111     $ 42,044     $ 40,815     $ 42,044     $ 40,048  
    Provision for credit losses   595       496       677       1,091       1,237  
    Charge-offs   (1,252 )     (665 )     (870 )     (1,917 )     (1,097 )
    Recoveries   205       236       184       441       618  
    Ending balance $ 41,659     $ 42,111     $ 40,806     $ 41,659     $ 40,806  
                       
    Net charge-offs $ 1,047     $ 429     $ 686     $ 1,476     $ 479  
    Average loans   3,417,582       3,460,906       3,374,058       3,439,124       3,372,640  
                       
    Net charge-offs to average loans *   0.12 %     0.05 %     0.08 %     0.09 %     0.03 %
                                           

    ____________________________________

    * Annualized measure.

      Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands) June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025     2024
                       
    PROVISION FOR CREDIT LOSSES                  
    Loans $ 595     $ 496   $ 677   $ 1,091   $ 1,237
    Unfunded lending-related commitments   (69 )     80     499     11     466
    Total provision for credit losses $ 526     $ 576   $ 1,176   $ 1,102   $ 1,703
                                   
    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –
    Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Return on Average Assets
        Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands)   June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025       2024  
                         
    Net income   $ 19,230     $ 19,075     $ 18,070     $ 38,305     $ 33,328  
    Less: adjustments                    
    Gains (losses) on closed branch premises     (50 )     59       —       9       (635 )
    Realized gains (losses) on sales of securities     —       —       —       —       (3,382 )
    Mortgage servicing rights fair value adjustment     (751 )     (308 )     (97 )     (1,059 )     (17 )
    Total adjustments     (801 )     (249 )     (97 )     (1,050 )     (4,034 )
    Tax effect of adjustments (1)     228       71       28       299       1,150  
    Total adjustments after tax effect     (573 )     (178 )     (69 )     (751 )     (2,884 )
    Adjusted net income   $ 19,803     $ 19,253     $ 18,139     $ 39,056     $ 36,212  
                         
    Average assets   $ 5,036,675     $ 5,032,813     $ 5,027,847     $ 5,034,249     $ 5,015,655  
                         
    Return on average assets *     1.53 %     1.54 %     1.45 %     1.53 %     1.34 %
    Adjusted return on average assets *     1.58       1.55       1.45       1.56       1.45  
                                             

    ____________________________________

    * Annualized measure.

    (1) Assumes a federal income tax rate of 21% and a state tax rate of 9.5%.

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –
    Adjusted Earnings Per Share — Basic and Diluted
        Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025     2024
                         
    Numerator:                    
    Net income   $ 19,230   $ 19,075   $ 18,070   $ 38,305   $ 33,328
                         
    Adjusted net income   $ 19,803   $ 19,253   $ 18,139   $ 39,056   $ 36,212
                         
    Denominator:                    
    Weighted average common shares outstanding     31,510,759     31,584,989     31,579,457     31,547,669     31,621,205
    Dilutive effect of outstanding restricted stock units     77,782     126,682     87,354     102,097     113,794
    Weighted average common shares outstanding, including all dilutive potential shares     31,588,541     31,711,671     31,666,811     31,649,766     31,734,999
                         
    Earnings per share – basic   $ 0.61   $ 0.60   $ 0.57   $ 1.21   $ 1.05
    Earnings per share – diluted   $ 0.61   $ 0.60   $ 0.57   $ 1.21   $ 1.05
                         
    Adjusted earnings per share – basic   $ 0.63   $ 0.61   $ 0.57   $ 1.24   $ 1.15
    Adjusted earnings per share – diluted   $ 0.63   $ 0.61   $ 0.57   $ 1.23   $ 1.14
                                   
    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –
    Pre-Provision Net Revenue, Pre-Provision Net Revenue Less Net Charge-offs (Recoveries),
    Adjusted Pre-Provision Net Revenue, and Adjusted Pre-Provision Net Revenue Less Net Charge-offs (Recoveries)
        Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands)   June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025       2024  
                         
    Net interest income   $ 49,658     $ 48,708     $ 47,028     $ 98,366     $ 93,716  
    Noninterest income     9,140       9,306       9,610       18,446       15,236  
    Noninterest expense     (31,914 )     (31,935 )     (30,509 )     (63,849 )     (61,777 )
    Pre-provision net revenue     26,884       26,079       26,129       52,963       47,175  
    Less: adjustments                    
    Gains (losses) on closed branch premises     (50 )     59       —       9       (635 )
    Realized gains (losses) on sales of securities     —       —       —       —       (3,382 )
    Mortgage servicing rights fair value adjustment     (751 )     (308 )     (97 )     (1,059 )     (17 )
    Total adjustments     (801 )     (249 )     (97 )     (1,050 )     (4,034 )
    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue   $ 27,685     $ 26,328     $ 26,226     $ 54,013     $ 51,209  
                         
    Pre-provision net revenue   $ 26,884     $ 26,079     $ 26,129     $ 52,963     $ 47,175  
    Less: net charge-offs     1,047       429       686       1,476       479  
    Pre-provision net revenue less net charge-offs   $ 25,837     $ 25,650     $ 25,443     $ 51,487     $ 46,696  
                         
    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue   $ 27,685     $ 26,328     $ 26,226     $ 54,013     $ 51,209  
    Less: net charge-offs     1,047       429       686       1,476       479  
    Adjusted pre-provision net revenue less net charge-offs   $ 26,638     $ 25,899     $ 25,540     $ 52,537     $ 50,730  
                                             
    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –
    Net Interest Income (Tax-equivalent Basis) and Net Interest Margin (Tax-equivalent Basis)
        Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands)   June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025       2024  
                         
    Net interest income (tax-equivalent basis)                    
    Net interest income   $ 49,658     $ 48,708     $ 47,028     $ 98,366     $ 93,716  
    Tax-equivalent adjustment (1)     548       545       553       1,093       1,128  
    Net interest income (tax-equivalent basis) (1)   $ 50,206     $ 49,253     $ 47,581     $ 99,459     $ 94,844  
                         
    Net interest margin (tax-equivalent basis)                    
    Net interest margin *     4.14 %     4.12 %     3.95 %     4.13 %     3.95 %
    Tax-equivalent adjustment * (1)     0.05       0.04       0.05       0.05       0.04  
    Net interest margin (tax-equivalent basis) * (1)     4.19 %     4.16 %     4.00 %     4.18 %     3.99 %
                         
    Average interest-earning assets   $ 4,808,213     $ 4,798,021     $ 4,785,558     $ 4,803,145     $ 4,775,505  
                                             

    ____________________________________

    * Annualized measure.

    (1) On a tax-equivalent basis assuming a federal income tax rate of 21% and a state tax rate of 9.5%. 

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –
    Efficiency Ratio (Tax-equivalent Basis) and Adjusted Efficiency Ratio (Tax-equivalent Basis)
        Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands)   June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025       2024  
                         
    Total noninterest expense   $ 31,914     $ 31,935     $ 30,509     $ 63,849     $ 61,777  
    Less: amortization of intangible assets     694       695       710       1,389       1,420  
    Noninterest expense excluding amortization of intangible assets   $ 31,220     $ 31,240     $ 29,799     $ 62,460     $ 60,357  
                         
    Net interest income   $ 49,658     $ 48,708     $ 47,028     $ 98,366     $ 93,716  
    Total noninterest income     9,140       9,306       9,610       18,446       15,236  
    Operating revenue     58,798       58,014       56,638       116,812       108,952  
    Tax-equivalent adjustment (1)     548       545       553       1,093       1,128  
    Operating revenue (tax-equivalent basis) (1)     59,346       58,559       57,191       117,905       110,080  
    Less: adjustments to noninterest income                    
    Gains (losses) on closed branch premises     (50 )     59       —       9       (635 )
    Realized gains (losses) on sales of securities     —       —       —       —       (3,382 )
    Mortgage servicing rights fair value adjustment     (751 )     (308 )     (97 )     (1,059 )     (17 )
    Total adjustments to noninterest income     (801 )     (249 )     (97 )     (1,050 )     (4,034 )
    Adjusted operating revenue (tax-equivalent basis) (1)   $ 60,147     $ 58,808     $ 57,288     $ 118,955     $ 114,114  
                         
    Efficiency ratio     53.10 %     53.85 %     52.61 %     53.47 %     55.40 %
    Efficiency ratio (tax-equivalent basis) (1)     52.61       53.35       52.10       52.97       54.83  
    Adjusted efficiency ratio (tax-equivalent basis) (1)     51.91       53.12       52.02       52.51       52.89  
                                             

    ____________________________________
    (1) On a tax-equivalent basis assuming a federal income tax rate of 21% and a state tax rate of 9.5%.

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –
    Ratio of Tangible Common Equity to Tangible Assets and Tangible Book Value Per Share
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)   June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
                 
    Tangible Common Equity            
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 580,897     $ 565,057     $ 509,469  
    Less: Goodwill     59,820       59,820       59,820  
    Less: Intangible assets, net     16,454       17,148       19,262  
    Tangible common equity   $ 504,623     $ 488,089     $ 430,387  
                 
    Tangible Assets            
    Total assets   $ 5,018,398     $ 5,092,192     $ 5,006,199  
    Less: Goodwill     59,820       59,820       59,820  
    Less: Intangible assets, net     16,454       17,148       19,262  
    Tangible assets   $ 4,942,124     $ 5,015,224     $ 4,927,117  
                 
    Total stockholders’ equity to total assets     11.58 %     11.10 %     10.18 %
    Tangible common equity to tangible assets     10.21       9.73       8.74  
                 
    Shares of common stock outstanding     31,495,434       31,631,431       31,559,366  
                 
    Book value per share   $ 18.44     $ 17.86     $ 16.14  
    Tangible book value per share     16.02       15.43       13.64  
                             
    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –
    Return on Average Tangible Common Equity,
    Adjusted Return on Average Stockholders’ Equity and Adjusted Return on Average Tangible Common Equity
        Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended June 30,
    (dollars in thousands)   June 30,
    2025
      March 31,
    2025
      June 30,
    2024
        2025       2024  
                         
    Average Tangible Common Equity                    
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 572,505     $ 554,715     $ 501,837     $ 563,659     $ 497,906  
    Less: Goodwill     59,820       59,820       59,820       59,820       59,820  
    Less: Intangible assets, net     16,782       17,480       19,605       17,130       19,970  
    Average tangible common equity   $ 495,903     $ 477,415     $ 422,412     $ 486,709     $ 418,116  
                         
    Net income   $ 19,230     $ 19,075     $ 18,070     $ 38,305     $ 33,328  
    Adjusted net income     19,803       19,253       18,139       39,056       36,212  
                         
    Return on average stockholders’ equity *     13.47 %     13.95 %     14.48 %     13.70 %     13.46 %
    Return on average tangible common equity *     15.55       16.20       17.21       15.87       16.03  
                         
    Adjusted return on average stockholders’ equity *     13.87 %     14.08 %     14.54 %     13.97 %     14.63 %
    Adjusted return on average tangible common equity *     16.02       16.36       17.27       16.18       17.42  

    ____________________________________

    * Annualized measure.

    The MIL Network –

    July 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Findings of the COVID-19 crisis management unit of the Robert Koch Institute – E-002656/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002656/2025/rev.1
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Gerald Hauser (PfE)

    The Robert Koch Institute is the central federal institute in the field of infection control in the Federal Republic of Germany. Its expertise is also in great demand at international level and it works closely with institutions worldwide, including the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Since Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross-border threats to health, it has been determined that in the event of a pandemic, the Commission shall be responsible for coordinating all measures and there is to be an unrestricted exchange of information between EU Member States and the Commission. Austria’s former Minister of Health, for example, stated that the Austrian Government has been receiving the findings of the Robert Koch Institute’s COVID-19 crisis management unit since March 2020.

    • 1.When did the Commission start receiving the findings of the Robert Koch Institute’s COVID-19 crisis management unit?
    • 2.Since when have other Commission bodies or advisory committees – in particular the ECDC or the EMA – also been receiving the findings of the Robert Koch Institute’s COVID-19 crisis management unit?
    • 3.What protocols, data, recommendations or information has the Robert Koch Institute received in return from the Commission or its bodies and advisory committees since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and since when?

    Submitted: 1.7.2025

    Last updated: 21 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    July 21, 2025
  • Japan’s shaky government loses upper house control

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Japan’s ruling coalition lost control of the upper house in an election on Sunday, further weakening Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s grip on power even as he vowed to remain party leader, citing a looming tariff deadline with the United States.

    While the ballot does not directly determine whether Ishiba’s administration will fall, it heaps pressure on the embattled leader who also lost control of the more powerful lower house in October.

    Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partner Komeito returned 47 seats, short of the 50 seats it needed to ensure a majority in the 248-seat upper chamber in an election where half the seats were up for grabs.

    That comes on top of its worst showing in 15 years in October’s lower house election, a vote which has left Ishiba’s administration vulnerable to no-confidence motions and calls from within his own party for leadership change.

    Speaking late on Sunday evening after exit polls closed, Ishiba told NHK he “solemnly” accepted the “harsh result”.

    “We are engaged in extremely critical tariff negotiations with the United States…we must never ruin these negotiations. It is only natural to devote our complete dedication and energy to realizing our national interests,” he later told TV Tokyo.

    Asked whether he intended to stay on as premier, he said “that’s right”.

    Japan, the world’s fourth largest economy, faces a deadline of August 1 to strike a trade deal with the United States or face punishing tariffs in its largest export market.

    The main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party finished second with 22 seats.

    Meanwhile, the far-right Sanseito party announced its arrival in mainstream politics, adding 14 seats to one elected previously. Launched on YouTube a few years ago, the populist party found wider appeal with its ‘Japanese First’ campaign and warnings about a “silent invasion” of foreigners.

    ‘HAMMERED HOME’

    Opposition parties advocating for tax cuts and welfare spending struck a chord with voters, as rising consumer prices – particularly a jump in the cost of rice – have sowed frustration at the government’s response.

    “The LDP was largely playing defence in this election, being on the wrong side of a key voter issue,” said David Boling, a director at consulting firm Eurasia Group.

    “Polls show that most households want a cut to the consumption tax to address inflation, something that the LDP opposes. Opposition parties seized on it and hammered that message home.”

    The LDP has been urging fiscal restraint, with one eye on a very jittery government bond market, as investors worry about Japan’s ability to refinance the world’s largest debt pile. Any concessions the LDP must now strike with opposition parties to pass policy will only further elevate those nerves, analysts say.

    “The ruling party will have to compromise in order to gain the cooperation of the opposition, and the budget will continue to expand,” said Yu Uchiyama, a politics professor at the University of Tokyo.

    “Overseas investors’ evaluation of the Japan economy will also be quite harsh.”

    Sanseito, which first emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic spreading conspiracy theories about vaccinations and a cabal of global elites, is among those advocating fiscal expansion.

    But it is its tough talk on immigration that has grabbed attention, dragging once-fringe political rhetoric into the mainstream.

    It remains to be seen whether the party can follow the path of other far-right parties with which it has drawn comparisons, such as Germany’s AfD and Reform UK.

    “I am attending graduate school but there are no Japanese around me. All of them are foreigners,” said Yu Nagai, a 25-year-old student who voted for Sanseito earlier on Sunday.

    “When I look at the way compensation and money are spent on foreigners, I think that Japanese people are a bit disrespected,” Nagai said after casting his ballot at a polling station in Tokyo’s Shinjuku ward.

    Japan, the world’s fastest aging society, saw foreign-born residents hit a record of about 3.8 million last year.

    That is still just 3% of the total population, a much smaller fraction than in the United States and Europe, but comes amid a tourism boom that has made foreigners far more visible across the country.

    (Reuters)

    July 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Australia: Opinion piece: Going further together in times of uncertainty

    Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

    At times of global uncertainty, resilience doesn’t come from retreating inward – it comes from reaching outward.

    That’s the lesson of past economic shocks, and it’s one we must heed again as we confront the fourth major economic disruption in just 2 decades.

    It’s also the principle guiding Australia and Indonesia’s engagement at this week’s G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Meeting in South Africa.

    We’re neighbours by geography, but partners by choice – and by the shared actions we take on the world stage.

    Last year, we marked 75 years of diplomatic ties, 50 years since Australia became ASEAN’s first dialogue partner, and 25 years of cooperation in the G20.

    Since then, we’ve modernised the ASEAN‑Australia‑New Zealand Free Trade Agreement and celebrated 5 years since IA‑CEPA was signed – a partnership that’s already seen our 2‑way trade double to $35 billion.

    To build on this momentum, Indonesia and Australia have agreed to review the IA‑CEPA, so we can generate broader and deeper economic integration.

    This review will also help ensure that the agreement remains relevant and continues to deliver value for our 2 economies.

    This is just one example of how we’re deepening our economic relationship even further.

    Subject to market conditions, Indonesia will also issue its first‑ever AUD‑denominated ‘Kangaroo bond’ in August – a vote of confidence and meaningful step forward, reflecting our deep bilateral ties.

    This will open new pathways for Australian investors to find quality investment products, support Indonesia’s growth and strengthen financial integration.

    It’s a practical example of the ambition that underpins our economic partnership – and the shared belief that resilience is built through cooperation, reform, and openness.

    Together, Australia and Indonesia are helping lead this effort within the G20 – just as we have for a quarter of a century, since the Asian Financial Crisis first brought finance ministers and central bankers around the same table.

    This year, our cooperation is more critical than ever.

    Around the world, growth is softening, inflation has been sticky, and global trade is under pressure from fragmentation and rising geopolitical risk.

    These challenges make our partnership – and our collective work in international forums – even more important.

    Both Australia and Indonesia have shown remarkable resilience.

    In Australia, inflation has moderated in a substantial and sustained way. Unemployment remains close to historic lows, real wages are growing again and we’ve delivered the first back‑to‑back budget surpluses in nearly 2 decades – alongside the biggest nominal budget turnaround in our history.

    Indonesia, too, has performed strongly – recording one of the highest growth rates in the G20, with inflation and unemployment consistently at the lowest rates since 1998, supported by a rapid fiscal consolidation after the pandemic and the creation of more than 3.5 million new jobs in the past year alone.

    This strength gives us momentum – but it doesn’t make us immune.

    We need to stay focused on the long‑term foundations of growth: productivity, fiscal sustainability, and resilience.

    Productivity, in particular, sits at the heart of both our national economic agendas – because it’s what drives better wages, better jobs, and stronger, more inclusive growth.

    For Indonesia, lifting productivity will be vital to reaching high‑income status by 2045. In Australia, it’s central to building a more modern, more adaptable, more inclusive economy.

    That means upskilling our workforces, attracting productive capital, and unlocking innovation – individually and together.

    And we both recognise the importance of fiscal sustainability, having pushed down our debt to GDP ratios to pre pandemic levels.

    Strong, responsible public finances are not just a fiscal shield – they’re a platform for long‑term investment, resilience and reform.

    At this week’s G20, Australia and Indonesia are standing together to supports sustainable, inclusive growth and open, fair and transparent trade in the spirit of multilateralism.

    Because in a world of churn and change, the right response is not retreat – it’s resolve.

    You see that in our collaboration on IA‑CEPA. You see it through Australia’s Southeast Asia economic strategy. You see it in Indonesia’s new Kangaroo bond. And you see it in our shared ambition to build a more integrated and more prosperous Indo‑Pacific.

    We’ve been close partners for decades. But in this moment of global challenge, we’re choosing to go further – and faster – together.

    MIL OSI News –

    July 21, 2025
  • MIL-Evening Report: Cook Islanders flock from outer islands for 60th anniversary celebrations

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    The Cook Islands’ outer islands, or Pa Enua, are emptying as people make the pilgrimage to Rarotonga for constitution celebrations.

    This year is particularly significant, August 4 marks 60 years of the Cook Islands being in free association with New Zealand.

    Cook Islands Secretary of Culture Emile Kairua said this year’s Te Maeva Nui, which is the name for the annual celebrations, is going to be huge.

    “For the first time in a long time, we are able to bring all our people together for a long-awaited reunion, from discussions with the teams that have already arrived, there’s only handful of people that’s been left on each of our outer islands,” Kairua said.

    “Basically, the outer islands have been emptied out.”

    According to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Management, more than 900 people are making the trip to Rarotonga from the Pa Enua which are spread across an area similar to the size of Mexico.

    Cook Islands News reports that the government has allocated $4.1 mllion for event transport.

    Biggest calendar event
    Kairua said Te Maeva Nui is the biggest event on the Cook Islands’ calendar.

    “Te Maeva Nui has become an iconic event for the Cook Islands, for the nation, as well as the diaspora.”

    A comparable event was in 2015 when 50 years was marked.

    Kairua said for many people it will be the first time visiting Rarotonga since the start of the covid-19 pandemic.

    “Sixty years looks like it’s going to be a lot bigger than 50 for a number of reasons, because we’ve had that big gap since covid hit. If we liken it to covid it’s like the borders being lifted, and everyone now has that freedom to come to Raro.”

    Two ships, one from Tonga and the other from Tuvalu, are tasked with transporting people from the Northern Group islands to Rarotonga.

    While, Air Rarotonga has the job of moving people from the Southern Group.

    Tourist season peak
    The airline’s general manager Sarah Moreland said Te Maeva Nui comes during the peak of the tourism season, making July a very busy month.

    “We’ve got about 73 people from Mauke, 76 passengers from Mangaia, 88 from Aitutaki, 77 from Atiu and even 50 coming from the small island of Mitiaro, Nukuroa,” Moreland said.

    She said transporting people for Te Maeva Nui is a highlight for staff.

    “They love it, I think it’s so cool that we get to bring the Pa Enua from the islands, they just come to Rarotonga, they bring a whole different vibe. They’re so energetic, they’re ready for the competition, it just adds to the buzz of the whole Te Maeva Nui, it’s actually awesome.”

    The executive officer of Atiu Taoro Brown said two months of preparation had gone into the performances which represents the growth of the nation over the past 60 years.

    “It’s an exciting time, we come together, we’re meeting all our cousins and all our families from all the other islands, our sister islands, it’s a special moment.”

    Brown said this year the island had given performance slots to people from Atiu living in Rarotonga, Australia and New Zealand.

    “We wanted everybody from around the region to participate in celebrations.”

    Friendly competition
    Food is another big part of the event, an area Brown said there’s a bit of friendly competition in between islands.

    Pigs, taro, and “organic chicken” had all been sent to Rarotonga from Atiu.

    “Everyone likes to think they’ve got this the best dish but the food I feel, it’s all the same, you know, the island foods, it’s about the time that you put in.”

    For Kairua and his team at the Ministry of Culture, he said they needed to mindful to not allow the event to pass in a blur.

    “Otherwise we end up organising the whole thing and not enjoying it.

    “This is not our first big rodeo, or mine. I was responsible for taking away probably the biggest contingency to Hawai’i for the FestPAC and because we got so busy with organising it and worrying about the minor details, many of us at the management desk forgot to enjoy it, but this time, we are aware.”

    Turbulent relationship
    In the backdrop of celebrations, the Cook Islands and New Zealand’s relationship is in turbulent period.

    Last month, New Zealand paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the nation, citing a lack of consultation over several controversial deals with China.

    Unlike for the 50th celebrations, New Zealand’s prime minister and foreign minister will not attend the celebrations, with the Governor-General representing New Zealand.

    A statement from the Cook Islands Office of the Prime Minister last week said officials from the country have reconfirmed their commitment to restore mutual trust with New Zealand in a meeting on 10 July.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    July 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI China: US rejects amended WHO health regulations

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

    The United States said on Friday that the country has rejected amendments to the international health regulations adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) last year.

    U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a joint statement to formally reject the WHO’s 2024 International Health Regulations Amendments.

    The statement accused the amendments of being “vague and broad” in terminology, claiming that U.S. agencies “put Americans first in all our actions” and “will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy or personal liberties.”

    The pact, which was adopted in Geneva in June 2024, aims to ensure that drugs, therapeutics and vaccines are globally accessible when the next pandemic occurs.

    MIL OSI China News –

    July 20, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How the QAnon movement entered mainstream politics – and why the silence on Epstein files matters

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

    QAnon supporters wait for Donald Trump to speak at a campaign rally at Atlantic Aviation on September 22, 2020, in Moon Township, Pennsylvania. eff Swensen/Getty Images

    The Justice Department asked a federal court on July 18, 2025, to unseal grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein’s case. The direction from President Donald Trump came after weeks of frustration among some far-right groups over his administration’s refusal to release the complete and unredacted “Epstein files.”

    Epstein, a wealthy financier with high-profile connections, was arrested in 2019 on sex trafficking charges and later died by suicide in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial.

    In early 2025, a federal court unsealed portions of the court documents. While names of some of the alleged clients and victims were released, many were redacted or withheld.

    Epstein’s arrest and death became a central focus for QAnon followers, who saw them as proof of a hidden global elite engaged in child trafficking and protected by powerful institutions. The release – or withholding – of the Epstein files is often cited within QAnon movement circles as evidence of a broader cover-up by the so-called “deep state.”

    Some followers of the MAGA – Make America Great Again – movement and the Republican Party believe in the false claim that the United States is secretly controlled by a cabal of elites who are pedophiles, sex traffickers and satanists.

    Over time, what started as a baseless conspiracy on obscure platforms has migrated into the mainstream. It has influenced rhetoric and policy debates, and even reshaped the American political landscape. The foundational belief of many of the QAnon followers is that Trump is a heroic figure fighting the elite pedophile ring.

    Trump’s attempts at downplaying or obstructing the very disclosures they believe would validate their worldview has led to confusion. To some, the delay in the release of the files feels like a betrayal, or even the possibility of his wrongdoing. Others are trying to reinterpret Trump’s actions through increasingly baseless conspiracy logic.

    Trump has publicly dismissed demands for the full release of the Epstein Files as a “hoax.” He has also made false claims. On July 15, 2025, Trump said: “And I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey. They were made up by Obama.”

    As a scholar who studies extremism, I know that the movement views Trump as a mythological figure and it interprets Trump’s actions to fit this overarching narrative – an elasticity which makes the movement both durable and dangerous.

    From Pizzagate to QAnon

    The QAnon movement began with the Pizzagate conspiracy theory in 2016, which falsely claimed that high-ranking Democrats were operating a child sex trafficking ring out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria. The baseless theory gained enough online momentum that a man armed with an assault rifle stormed the restaurant, seeking to “free the children.”

    In 2017, an anonymous figure called “Q” began posting cryptic messages on message boards like 4chan and 8kun. The baseless accusations of a global network of elites involved in controlling global institutions, including governments, businesses, and the media, as well as operating a child trafficking and ritual abuse, were central to the QAnon movement’s narrative.

    Supporters of President Donald Trump with messages referring to the QAnon conspiracy theory at a campaign rally at Las Vegas Convention Center on February 21, 2020.
    Mario Tama/Getty Images

    The movement has recruited followers through language like “Save the Children,” to mobilize around issues of child trafficking.

    The QAnon movement recruits new followers through appeals to stop child trafficking.
    Hollie Adams/Getty Images

    Many QAnon adherents, particularly women, were drawn to the movement through such appeals to child protection. According to psychologists Sophia Moskalenko and Mia Bloom, this type of appeal taps into powerful emotional instincts, making conspiracy theories like QAnon more persuasive and harder to dislodge, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

    QAnon movement’s rise

    QAnon followers perceived Trump as a messianic figure working to expose this cabal in a climactic reckoning known as “The Storm” – a moment when mass arrests would finally bring justice.

    They claimed that this moment would eventually bring about a “Great Awakening,” a reference to the religious revivalist movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. In this context the phrase described the supposed political and spiritual enlightenment that would follow “The Storm” – a moment of mass realization when people would “wake up” to the truth about the “deep state.”

    Trump reposted an image of himself wearing a Q lapel pin overlaid with the words ‘The Storm is Coming.’
    Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

    In 2019, the FBI identified QAnon as a domestic terrorism threat, and major social media platforms began banning related content, but by then, QAnon had bled into mainstream conservative politics. Q-endorsing candidates, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, ran for and won elected office a year later.

    Trump and QAnon

    During Trump’s first administration – from 2017 to 2021 – the QAnon movement flourished. The posts from Q claimed to reveal insider knowledge of a secret war being waged by the president, often in coordination with the military, against the powerful elite.

    Trump never explicitly endorsed the movement, but he did little to distance himself from it.

    His administration also included figures, like former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who openly interacted with Q content online.

    Trump’s rhetoric, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election, gave new life to QAnon narratives. When he questioned the integrity of the electoral process, QAnon followers interpreted it as confirmation of the deep state’s meddling.

    However, after Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race, QAnon followers revised their original prophecy to maintain belief in “The Storm” and “The Great Awakening.” Some claimed the defeat was part of a larger secret plan, with Biden’s presidency serving as a cover for exposing the deep state. Some believed Trump remained the true president behind the scenes, while others reframed the awakening as a spiritual rather than political event.

    Indeed, by 2020, several congressional candidates openly embraced or showed sympathy for the QAnon movement.

    At various campaign rallies in 2022 and after Trump used the movement’s symbolism. On Truth Social, his social media platform, he retweeted Q-affiliated accounts, and praised QAnon supporters as “people who love our country.” That same year he reposted an image of himself wearing a Q lapel pin overlaid with the words “The Storm is Coming.”

    After the 2020 elections

    Trump’s departure from the White House in January 2021 created an existential crisis for the QAnon movement. Predictions that he would declare martial law or arrest Joe Biden and other Democrats on Inauguration Day failed to materialize. Q’s posts also stopped, leaving many followers adrift.

    Some abandoned the theory. Others rationalized the failed predictions or embraced new conspiracy narratives, such as the belief that Trump was still secretly in charge or that the military would soon act to reinstate him.

    Some QAnon communities merged with or were absorbed into broader anti-vaccine, anti-globalist, and Christian nationalist movements.

    How big is the movement?

    Estimating the number of QAnon believers is difficult because many individuals do not openly identify with the movement, and those who do often hold a range of loosely connected or partial beliefs rather than adhering to a consistent or uniform ideology. Not everyone who shares a Q meme or echoes a Q talking point identifies as being part of the movement.

    That said, surveys by groups like the 2024 Public Religion Research Institute and the Associated Press have found that 15–20% of Americans believe in some of QAnon’s core claims, such as the existence of a secret group of Satan-worshipping elites controlling the government.

    Among Republican voters, the number is often higher.

    This does not mean all these people are hardcore QAnon adherents, but it does show how far the narrative, or parts of it, has seeped into mainstream thinking.

    Epstein as evidence of ‘the cabal’

    The Trump administration’s failure to disclose the information in Epstein files has fueled internal confusion, disillusionment and even radicalization within the movement.

    For some QAnon believers, this failure was a turning point: if Trump – once seen as the hero in the conspiracy narrative – would not or could not reveal the truth, then the “deep state” must be more entrenched than imagined.

    At the same time, frustrations have grown within MAGA and the QAnon movement’s spaces. Some see it as a failure to fulfill one of his most important promises: exposing elite pedophiles. Others believe the delay is strategic, another example of “the plan” requiring more patience.

    The QAnon movement continues to evolve, even as its central figure hedges and hesitates, showing how potent myths can be in times of uncertainty. In my view, understanding why this belief continues to gain traction is essential for understanding the current state of American democracy.

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

    – ref. How the QAnon movement entered mainstream politics – and why the silence on Epstein files matters – https://theconversation.com/how-the-qanon-movement-entered-mainstream-politics-and-why-the-silence-on-epstein-files-matters-261316

    MIL OSI Analysis –

    July 20, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Africa: Combating Gender-Based Violence (GBV) and sexual harassment: Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) strengthens the capacities of ivorian actors

    Source: APO


    .

    The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Centre for Gender Development (CCDG), in partnership with the Ministry of Women, Family and Children, has initiated a national training workshop on the prevention of and response to gender-based violence (GBV) and sexual harassment from Thursday 26 to Saturday 28 June 2025 in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire.

    As part of the implementation of the regional strategy adopted in 2021 to eradicate violence against women and girls in the community, the three-day meeting brought together judicial, health and social actors with the aim of strengthening their skills and coordinating a holistic approach to the care of victims of violence. The aim was to strengthen participants’ skills in the prevention, detection and management of GBV and sexual harassment.

    Speaking at the opening, Moussa Diarassouba, Chief of Staff representing the Minister for Women, stressed the urgency of taking action. “These overwhelming figures are voices crying out for justice, redress and protection. Inaction is no longer an option,” he warned. He called on judicial actors to guarantee access to justice and fight against impunity, including health professionals to become more involved in the medical and psychological care of victims, and social workers to support survivors in their social and economic reintegration.

    The ECOWAS Resident Representative in Côte d’Ivoire, Ambassador Fanta Cissé, praised the efforts of the Ivorian government, which have enabled Côte d’Ivoire to take the lead in the fight against GBV. She did not fail to call on everyone to mobilise more strongly against the multiple forms of violence, which have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. ‘The challenges are immense and require the combined efforts of all to achieve zero tolerance for gender-based violence and sexual harassment,’ she said.

    For her part, the Director of the CCDG, Ms Sandra Oulaté-Fattoh, said that professionals and other actors have a key role to play in the early recognition, appropriate treatment and support of survivors of such violence. “To fulfil this role effectively, you need adequate training to enable you to recognise the signs and symptoms of gender-based violence and sexual harassment, even in cases where victims do not explicitly disclose their situation. This includes awareness of the different forms of violence, including physical, sexual, psychological and economic, as well as the cultural and social contexts that influence these situations,” she emphasised.

    As a reminder, in the ECOWAS region, more than 10% of women experience physical, sexual or emotional violence, often within the family. This situation has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has seen cases of GBV skyrocket, with an increase of up to 50% in some countries in the region. Côte d’Ivoire alone recorded 9,607 cases of gender-based violence in 2024, affecting 7,950 women and 3,290 children, according to official figures.

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

    MIL OSI Africa –

    July 19, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: MTA Installs Platform Barriers at More than 50 Stations

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today announced the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has installed protective platform edge barriers at 56 subway stations. Halfway through 2025, the MTA is on track to deliver on Governor Hochul’s 2025 State of the State direction to install barriers at more than 100 subway stations by the end of the year. This directive is part of a larger set of initiatives Governor Hochul announced in her State of the State address to protect subway riders and workers. The MTA continues to upgrade station lighting with brighter, safer LED bulbs. LEDs are now installed in 342 stations, on schedule for all 472 subway stations to be upgraded by the end of the year. Safety in the subway system continues to improve with overall major crimes dropping by 3 percent from the same period last year and by almost 10 percent when compared to pre-pandemic levels.

    “New Yorkers’ safety will always be my number one priority, and customers need to both feel and be secure every time they ride the subway,” Governor Hochul said. “At my direction, the MTA has ramped up the installation of protective platform barriers, building on their efforts to brighten stations with LED lighting and equip every subway car with security cameras. Transit crime is down in 2025, and these efforts will make the subway system safer for everyone.”

    MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber said, “Under Governor Hochul’s leadership, we’re making investments to ensure that our system not only is safe but — equally important — feels safe to riders. With new platform barriers, MTA’s thousands of new security cameras, increased deployments from the NYPD, and 10 percent less crime before COVID, it’s no wonder customer satisfaction has risen dramatically this year.”

    MTA Construction and Development President Jamie Torres-Springer said, “This is the new MTA in action: working better, faster, and cheaper to improve the rider experience and keep customers safe. Using in-house labor has driven down costs and increased our pace on this project, and we’re ready to make even greater strides in the second half of 2025.”

    NYC Transit President Demetrius Crichlow said, “Customers are telling us platform barriers make them feel safer and they want to see more of them. Thanks to Governor Hochul’s support, we’re getting barriers into stations quickly with more than 50 already installed and over 50 more on the way by the end of the year. I’m proud of the NYC Transit team for the incredible work they’re doing in-house to build and install barriers and look forward to keeping up the momentum.”

    Recent customer surveys have shown that 59 percent of riders wanted the installation of protective platform barriers throughout the system — including 88 percent of riders over the age of 65. A majority of respondents have also noted that they believe the presence of platform barriers in the station makes them feel safer and believe the barriers will protect against falls onto the tracks. Platform barriers are built and installed using in-house New York City Transit (NYCT) labor with in-house machinery in a NYCT facility resulting in lower costs and a faster installation timeline.

    The selection of stations for the installation process prioritizes feasibility, including stations with standard car-stopping positions in segments of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, F, M and L trains. Among these train lines, stations with higher ridership levels and island platforms are prioritized.

    The following stations have platform barriers now installed:

    Brooklyn:

    • Clark St – 2, 3
    • Morgan Av – L
    • Grand St – L
    • Dekalb Av – L
    • Halsey St – L
    • Bushwick Av-Aberdeen St – L
    • Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs – L, M
    • Graham Av – L
    • Jefferson St – L
    • Bedford Av – L
    • Lorimer St – L
    • Wilson Av – L
    • Montrose Av – L
    • Eastern Pkwy-Brooklyn Museum – 2, 3
    • Grand Army Plaza – 2, 3
    • President St – 2, 3
    • Hoyt St – 2, 3
    • Beverly Rd – 2, 5
    • Sterling St – 2, 5
    • Winthrop St – 2, 5
    • Bergen St – 2, 3

    Manhattan:

    • 191 St – 1
    • 5 Av – 7
    • 1 Av – L
    • 6 Av – L
    • 125 St – 4, 5, 6
    • Bowery – J, Z
    • Fulton St – J, Z
    • Broad St – J, Z
    • Canal St – J, Z
    • Wall St – 2, 3
    • 23 St – 6
    • 125 St – 2, 3
    • Central Park North-110 St – 2, 3
    • 135 St – 2, 3
    • Astor Place – 6
    • 8 Av – L
    • Bleecker St – 6
    • Fulton St – 2, 3
    • Spring St – 6
    • 103 St – 6
    • Park Place – 2, 3
    • 28 St – 6
    • 68 St-Hunter College – 6
    • 33 St – 6
    • 96 St – 6
    • 77 St – 6
    • 145 St – 1
    • Grand Central-42 St – 7
    • Christopher St-Stonewall – 1

    Queens:

    • Flushing-Main St – 7
    • 46 St – M, R
    • 67 Av – M, R
    • 75 Av – E, F
    • Woodhaven Blvd – M, R
    • Jamaica Center-Parsons Blvd-Archer Av – E, J, Z

    Assemblymember Alex Bores said, “Protective platform edge barriers save lives. In addition to providing a safe place to stand, the barriers give riders peace of mind and encourage ridership; and a fully populated subway system is a safer system. Additionally, platform barriers are quick to install and extremely cost-effective, saving taxpayers money. I have advocated for these barriers from before my life in public office, and I am grateful to the Governor for incorporating these lifesaving tools into her comprehensive subway safety plan.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 19, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Highlights – Strengthening the availability of critical medicinal products – Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

    Source: European Parliament

    On 15 July 2025, the Commission presented its legislative proposal which aims to tackle shortages of critical medical products on EU level, and to strengthen supply chains, improve supply security, as well support innovation. It complements and builds on other pieces of legislation, such as pharmaceutical reform, as well builds on industrial policy measures. The proposal foresees using public procurement as a tool, inter alia to support resilient products via award criteria.

    The Commission will issue guidelines on this. Moreover, the proposal covers the facilitation of cross border procurement and acting by the Commission as public buyer on behalf of Member States. Members broadly welcomed the initiative, recognizing the need for structural solutions to secure access to medicines and avoid future crises similar to the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns were raised regarding the balance of competences between the EU and Member States, the risk of unnecessary bureaucracy and the absence of a full impact assessment of the proposal. Some Members stressed that access of patients to medical products must remain the core focus. They also highlighted the importance of defining clear sustainability criteria, ensuring fair distribution among Member States, and avoiding protectionist approaches.

    The Commission said the goal is to make sure that all EU citizens have fair access to critical medical products, and to reduce dependence on third countries.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    July 19, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Incoming UConn Medical Students Get Hands-On Summer Research Experience

    Source: US State of Connecticut

    This summer four soon-to-be medical students in UConn School of Medicine’s Class of 2029 had the inaugural opportunity to participate in the longstanding Summer Research Fellowship Program of the Health Career Opportunity Programs.

    Class of 2029’s Bria Slater with her summer research poster (John Atashian Photo/ UConn Health – July 17, 2025).

    “This is the first time we have ever had incoming medical students join our summer research program,” said Dr. Marja Hurley, founding director and associate dean of the Health Career Opportunity Programs (HCOP) and its Aetna Health Professions Partnership Initiative. “This is a great opportunity for the new medical students to make some connections and maybe even decide to later go back and do more research in the faculty mentor’s lab.”

    The incoming members of the Class of 2029 were thrilled to present their summer research posters outside the Academic Rotunda on July 17 and cannot wait for medical school at UConn!

    Bria Slater, 22, hails from Atlanta, Georgia and believes attending UConn medical school is meant to be.

    UConn SOM Class of 2029 student Bria Slater discussing her summer research (John Atashian Photo/UConn Health – July 17, 2025).

    “It’s fate. UConn came out of the blue,” applauded Slater of the medical school’s communication outreach, and she is already bleeding UConn blue even before medical school officially starts in August.

    “UConn is a very supportive environment and where faculty will have your back. That sealed the deal,” says Slater about her decision to choose UConn School of Medicine. “I’m excited to be a part of this community! I’m looking forward to meeting my peers.”

    Slater’s summer research experience at UConn was “amazing” she exclaimed in the exciting neuroscience research lab of Feliks Trakhtenberg, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Department of Neuroscience.

    Her research focused on further testing as a local treatment of a promising developed fibronectin (Fn)-based peptide in mice to promote possible axon regeneration for spinal cord injury. Trakhtenberg’s Lab has previously shown that the peptide promotes axon regeneration in injured optic nerves of mice.

    Slater looks forward to pursing her interest in neurology, concluding, “I can see myself doing this for the rest of my career.”

    Incoming UConn medical student Sophia Fernandes (John Atashian Photo/UConn Health – July 17, 2025).

    Sophia Fernandes, 25, from Lincoln, Rhode Island is entering the SOM Class of 2029. She was paired for her summer research experience with Dr. Dyanne Tappin, assistant professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

    “I’ve had a great summer research experience. Dr. Tappin has been a great resource,” says Fernandes. “I have had an interest in maternal health disparities. Black women are two times more susceptible to Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorders.  I had no idea before doing this research!”

    Her summer research identified gaps in access to Perinatal Mental Health care in Hartford County and made recommendations for care improvements, especially for those in minority communities.

    She is excited to get underway at the School of Medicine as a medical student.

    “I chose UConn for its supportive environment and HCOP. It’s such a good resource,” Fernandes stated.

    Christopher Morales, 23, of Derby, Connecticut is also soon entering the School of Medicine Class 2029 and is already feeling at home at UConn’s medical school.

    “I love this place,” says Morales. “I found a medical school where I already feel comfortable. Everyone here is wonderful!”

    Class of 2029 Christopher Morales presenting his summer research findings. He already loves UConn’s medical school (John Atashian Photo/UConn Health – July 17, 2025).

    Morales first learned about HCOP’s opportunities during his medical school interview process.

    “I was an immediate yes,” he says to attending UConn. “I love the medical school’s programming of team-based learning and early patient care experiences in the CLIC program. I love working with patients.” In fact, Morales worked for two years in the ophthalmology care field before medical school.

    His mother immigrated to the U.S. from Brazil and Morales is proudly the first generation in his family to gradate college, and now to go on to medical school.

    Christopher Morales’ summer research faculty mentor Alice Burghard, Ph.D., assistant professor of Neuroscience (center) with fellow mentor Dr. Dyanne Tappin, assistant professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology (left) and Dr. Marja Hurley, founder and director of HCOP (right). (John Atashian Photo/UConn Health – July 17, 2025).

    “I never thought I would be here,” says Morales. “I am very grateful.”

    He looks forward to donning his medical school white coat on Friday, August 22 at the traditional White Coat Ceremony held for new medical students at UConn School of Medicine.

    Morales loves exploring all about the central nervous system and knows he wants to be a teaching physician someday, so UConn’s academic medical center is a “perfect fit” for him to learn.

    His summer research mentor is Alice Burghard, Ph.D., assistant professor of Neuroscience who also enjoyed mentoring Morales and says, “I’m very happy about the study findings.”

    In mouse models Morales examined the age and sex differences when it comes to susceptibility to hearing loss due to sound exposure. Interestingly, he found that young females were the most resilient to noise exposure.

    “It’s surreal, I’m excited,” says Dany Skaf, 25, from Florida about getting ready to attend UConn for medical school.

    Excited Class of 2029 incoming med student Dany Skaf presenting his summer research findings from Dr. Francesco Celi’s Lab. (John Atashian Photo/UConn Health – July 17, 2025).

    UConn’s medical school has been on his radar. During COVID-19 in 2020 his in-person HCOP summer research program experience turned virtual due to the pandemic concerns.

    But he finally had his chance to participate in the HCOP summer research program in-person in the lab of Chair of the Department of Medicine and endocrinology physician-scientist Dr. Francesco Celi. In Celi’s Lab this summer Skaf helped successfully create a Fibroblast Growth Factor 2 Flox AdipoCre mice colony for further study of the key protein, performed genotype testing, and to further explore the protein’s impact on metabolism, especially for diabetes. As the protein increases one’s likelihood of developing diabetes.

    “I hope to continue working on this research. Hopefully, this research opens the door to potentially help improve insulin resistance and to prevent diseases like diabetes and obesity,” says Skaf.

    There was a big turnout for the HCOP summer research program poster presentations on July 17, 2025 outside the Academic Rotunda (John Atashian Photo/UConn Health – July 17, 2025).

    Congratulations to all the student summer researchers and presenters in both the Summer Research Fellowship Program and the Health Disparities Clinical Summer Research Fellowship Program.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    July 19, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Submissions: ‘People who spent years saving lives are now struggling to survive’ – how we witnessed Trump’s USAID cuts devastate health programmes in Kenya

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachael Eastham, Lecturer in Young People’s Health Inequalities, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University

    Homabay, Kenya, in February 2025. Rachael Eastham, CC BY

    My phone wouldn’t stop ringing – nurses, social workers, young mothers – all begging for help. ‘I’ve lost my job,’ ‘I have no food,’ ‘What do we do now?’ I felt helpless.

    These are the words of Rogers Omollo, founder and CEO of Activate Action – a youth-led non-profit organisation that supports young people with HIV and disabilities in Homa Bay, a town in west Kenya on the shores of Lake Victoria.

    As specialists in youth and sexual and reproductive health, we were on a field trip to learn from Omollo and others like him. We wanted to find out about the work they were doing to tackle HIV, stigma and health inequalities.

    But our time there was dominated by one thing: President Donald Trump’s executive order which put almost all international spending by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on pause for a 90-day review and subsequently took a wrecking ball to all international aid programmes funded by the US.

    In July, research published in The Lancet medical journal found that the US funding cuts towards foreign humanitarian aid could cause more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, with a third of those at risk of premature deaths being children. Davide Rasella, who co-authored the report, said low- and middle-income countries were facing a shock “comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict”.

    In the immediate aftermath, we saw firsthand the profound impact the “pause” had in this community. Activate Action is not directly funded by USAID, but as we followed in the footsteps of our host, Omollo, meeting the organisation’s collaborators and beneficiaries, the true extent of the funding freeze became shockingly apparent.

    Places like Homa Bay relied heavily on USAID funding to keep hospitals and clinics running, to ensure access to essential medicines, and to support reproductive health and HIV programmes. The executive order, in principle, resulted in the immediate halting of over US$68 billion (£51 billion) in foreign aid, a substantial portion of which supports lifesaving reproductive health and HIV programmes worldwide.


    The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.


    As we walked through abandoned offices and healthcare facilities speaking to bewildered people out of work and in need of critical services in February 2025, the chilling reality set in. Omollo reflected:

    People who have spent years saving lives are now struggling to survive. The clinics are empty, the hope in their voices fading. It broke my heart. I wanted to scream, to fix it, but the truth hit hard – we can’t depend on one lifeline. If funding stops, lives should not. We must build something stronger, something that lasts.

    Research shows that global financial strain can foster a conservative political climate. For example, the global financial crisis of 2008 has been associated with the rise of right-wing populism.

    The current populist political climate is demonstrably hostile towards matters like reproductive health and rights. There are reports that reproductive rights are “backsliding” globally. For example, in the US abortion services have been increasingly restricted. In countries like Kenya, this is compounded by the longstanding global tendency towards anti-African or anti-black sentiment reflected in the foregrounding of stories that primarily depict Africa as a problem or a failure.

    So, before we even set off on our research trip to unite sexual and reproductive health advocates and collaborate with African partners, we knew we were swimming against this tide.

    Final figures remain unclear but in early 2025, the abrupt suspension of an estimated US$500 million of funding to Kenya was suggested by Amnesty International to have led to the layoff of 54,000 community health workers – many of whom had been part of robust, locally led responses to HIV, tuberculosis and malaria.

    The decision to do this was driven by US audit and efficiency “reevaluations” over 8,000 miles away in Washington. Decisions were made and implemented by small numbers of people within the Trump administration including Elon Musk, whose estimated individual wealth far exceeds the gross domestic product of many entire east African nations, including Kenya.

    Despite years of progress in community-based healthcare systems managed by Kenyans just like Activate Action, these cuts by one external donor disrupted critical services overnight. This also demonstrated that African health systems, no matter how effective, remain subject to profound external control.

    Our project was funded in October 2024, before Trump’s re-election. One week of activities in the UK, one week in Kenya. By the time Activate Action visited Lancaster, in the north of England, in January 2025, we had already started to raise eyebrows as our colleagues began receiving communications from USAID-funded initiatives about pausing projects. Two weeks later, by the time we gathered in Kenya, the immediate human cost was clear to see.

    ‘The field has been eviscerated’

    We sat at the back of a meeting observing training for an Activate Action initiative that would see community health champions offer peer support for their neighbours on safer sex and HIV prevention. In a building that was usually busy and populated by USAID-funded staff, the lights remained on in only one room.

    Before visiting Homa Bay, we knew of its reputation when it came to the so-called triple threat of gender-based violence, HIV infection and teenage pregnancy rates – all of which disproportionately affects this semi-rural county in west Kenya.

    As we watched the training, a colleague based in Europe (who was instrumental in connecting some of the members of our group) texted after learning we were in Kenya, saying:

    It’s terrifying. Document it. No one gets it. The field has been eviscerated.

    So, what did this evisceration look like?

    Staff directly affected by the order were either not permitted to talk about what was happening on the record or didn’t feel safe doing so. We spoke to at least five people who told us directly they couldn’t “speak out” and were nervous about us taking any photographs.

    An Activate Action event on International Condoms Day in February 2023.
    Rogers Omollo, CC BY

    We saw how scores of people were served their notice to cease projects, backdated and effective immediately – a stop work order, followed by (for reasons with cloudy legal foundations) official terminations to contracts. Their economic and professional futures left hanging in the balance.

    As we navigated workshops and meetings, Omollo (now unexpectedly advantaged through Activate Action not being USAID-funded) continued to receive multiple texts, calls and emails from people seeking work.

    A researcher we know working on a USAID supported HIV and maternity care project described doing frantic overtime in the face of uncertainty. She needed to put in hours of extra (unpaid) work to communicate with research participants as it would not be ethical to abruptly disappear on people currently engaged in an active research programme.

    She had no way to manage expectations with those she spoke to and no way of knowing if they were saying a final “thank you and goodbye” to the people she had been working with for months. Despite the descriptions of USAID project funds being “paused”, she was quickly served a full termination of employment notice.

    In east Africa, where this sudden and mass unemployment of vital technical and administrative staff is happening, more than half of young people aged 15-35 are unemployed. The rate is even higher among young women in rural areas (up to 66%.)

    A greater horror unfolds when you consider who these unemployed workers are usually paid to help because they serve communities with some of the highest needs related to HIV, teenage pregnancy and gender-based violence.

    The youth health facility we visited, for example, was locked up when we arrived. We sat in stunned silence in an empty three-roomed building with a youth HIV counsellor. We were shown photographs that showed how it was once a vibrant and busy place.

    Locked up youth health facility.
    Rachael Eastham, CC BY

    Here, the free services and information on HIV, contraception and mental health was being delivered by skilled and non-judgmental youth specialists. But it was closed down from January 20, 2025 and its future remains uncertain. A free condom dispenser outside lay empty, all supplies given out on closure day in a last ditch attempt to help young people remain safe over the coming weeks.

    In Homa Bay, huge achievements have been made in addressing teenage pregnancy and adolescent HIV infection in recent years. There has been a remarkable decline in prevalence rates, new infections, and HIV-related deaths, aided by robust treatment programmes that contribute to better health. People have been living with HIV at undetectable levels, therefore unable to transmit infection. But this “safe” status requires ongoing treatment with antiretroviral medication.

    What now in the absence of USAID?

    But at the time of our visit, the delivery of antiretroviral therapy was becoming more restricted and would require collection by the user every three weeks, rather than the usual three months, therefore lasting the user a shorter time. To service providers we spoke to, this increase in the frequency of collection of medication was known to be a significant barrier for people having to travel long distances more frequently without transport to get their supply replenished.

    Omollo explained to us that Homa Bay is also a medication hub, of sorts. People come here from other communities where, due to stigma, the risks of being identified as someone who is HIV positive in their own communities are much higher.

    Successes notwithstanding, Homa Bay county’s teenage pregnancy rate is over 20% and HIV prevalence is some of the highest in Kenya (15.2% overall in Homa Bay, higher than the national average of 3.7%), with 75% of new HIV infections across the country affecting young people aged under 34. There are almost as many people living with HIV in Homa Bay county as there are in the whole of the UK and many are children. In other words, the demand for accessible and sustained services is high and the impact of their absence is huge.

    Every conversation we had yielded new information about the reality. Gender-based violence projects were also suspended, in part because of the Trump administration’s intentions to end “gender ideology”. A service provider joked despondently during a presentation how: “I got sacked for saying gender.”

    In Kenya, femicide (the murder of women or girls because of their gender) has been described as a “crisis” requiring urgent action. In Homa Bay specifically, the sexual and gender-based violence statistics are higher than national averages and have been on the rise, especially among young people.

    This follows alarming countrywide coverage about femicide across Kenya including high profile and horrifying cases such as that of the Ugandan athlete Rebecca Cheptegei.. Official figures are unclear but there are currently widespread protests and calls to action related to this injustice.

    Activate Action had recently won one USAID award focusing on men living with HIV and substance use problems (factors that are both implicated in gender-based violence). Since the USAID funding freeze this offer has instantly been dissolved with no expectation of reinstatement.

    Meanwhile, the fight against cervical cancer – the leading cause of cancer death in Kenya – has also been hit.
    Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination campaigns across the county have stalled, despite the fact the vaccines help prevent cervical cancer.

    At one point, a 23-year-old mother of three small children asked us directly if we found it troubling (as she did) that she will not be able to receive maternal healthcare and her contraception. The list of effects is grim and feels endless.

    Collateral damage

    When our group convened for a workshop at a community venue with sexual and reproductive health and rights staff from across the area, the chatter was similarly focused on the effects of the USAID funding freeze, but this time in the direct shadow of operations.

    Next door, four-wheel drive Jeeps had been recalled and locked behind USAID premises gates, gathering dust instead of being out in the field delivering HIV outreach services. They represented the stasis of operations more widely.

    Dr Peter Ibembe, from a party of service providers visiting from Uganda, was formerly a Programme Director for the non-governmental organisation Reproductive Health Uganda where he was in charge of service delivery. He spoke to us about the atmosphere:

    An eerie tone of quiet has descended on the place. Many have been suddenly rendered jobless; creating mental stress, depression, anxiety. But there has also been an indirect effect on the wider community through the entire value chain: landlords, banks and other credit institutions; food vendors; gas stations; transportation facilities and companies; hotels, restaurants and lodges; schools hospitals and the like.

    Everyone has been left in limbo. Kenya, despite gradual improvements, is a lower middle income country. Poverty identified by the World Bank as a key development challenge for the nation with, in 2022, over 20 million Kenyans identified as living below the poverty line. So these knock-on effects can be drastic.

    At an organisational level we also saw clearly how the boundaries of any one project running within any organisation cannot be neatly drawn, nor can projects be plucked from this matrix discretely in the way we might imagine when we hear how “USAID projects” have been suspended. This way of thinking profoundly undermines the reality of what these cuts mean because many projects are interdependent and interrelated. Omollo added:

    Whilst Activate Action was not directly funded by USAID, the overall reduction in health services affects the community they serve. The lack of support for HIV prevention, mental health and economic empowerment programmes placed additional strain on grassroots organisations like us … which have had to fill gaps with limited resources.

    Omollo taking a selfie with Activate Action on International Condoms Day in February 2023.
    Rogers Omollo, CC BY

    Services the world over, especially community based services, usually operate with multiple funding streams each providing different projects. Naturally the people, resources and activities overlap. To stress, this is not evidence of the “corruption” the Trump administration claims it wants to weed out, but it is the reality of how services reliant on external funding work.

    It is usual that a patchwork of project grants function together to keep the doors open and the lights on. In fact, the sharing of operational resource is what bolsters an organisation’s capacity to serve its communities most effectively.

    Considering “USAID projects” as single discretely bounded entities belie the messy complexity of how community and healthcare services work.

    For another example of this kind of inter-connection, look no further than “table banking”. Table banking has been described as a “microcredit movement by women and for women” – effectively a DIY bank. We saw table banking used at Activate Action’s Street Business School, an initiative that tackles HIV through training women and building economic sustainability so they do not become trapped in poverty which may force them into have transactional sex. From a seated circle under trees, we watched as the collective pay in and take out loans to support their businesses from a central informal “bank account”.

    Beneficiaries from this project continue to come together every Thursday, pooling finances and taking loans to sustain their business needs for the coming week (for example, buying stock for their market stalls). They told us how they are planning to collaborate on a catering business which will mean the older, sicker members of the group remain able to work and earn.

    Similarly, Omollo told us how “a bit like table banking”, among his friends and colleagues, they also pool finance on a weekly basis to tick off items on a collective shopping list. He said: “One week we buy for one person, the next week, the next person and so on, until we all have a microwave.”

    These demonstrations of microfinance arguably present, however idealistic, inspiration for a more financially sustainable future whereby its principles offer a “light of hope” at grassroots level, possibilities for nations in meeting sustainable development goals and, crucially in this context, freedom from dependency on external donors.

    Social dictators of health

    When we planned this exchange project, we wanted to work with Activate Action because of our shared interests.

    Its explicit focus on the “social determinants of health” (the non-medical factors that affect health) is a refreshing departure from so many health programmes that seek to intervene on a person’s behaviour without attending to how it may be shaped by the wider social system.

    For example, in the case of Homa Bay, Activate Action works to address root causes, such as poverty. Poverty means that transactional sex (which could be sex for food or period products) is common. Unsafe sex can be a hallmark of these sexual encounters, increasing HIV risk and transmission. Helping women build businesses, earn their own money to buy food and make their own period pads, reduces the need to trade sex for necessities.

    As we sat discussing the various ways the cancelling of USAID would have devastating effects on different programmes and so the lives of different people, we realised how myriad social determinants – such as income, unemployment and healthcare services – are overwhelmingly contingent on distant regimes. Regimes run by people who seem to demonstrate little regard for the lives of disadvantaged and minoritised people.

    No period of consultation, no management of expectations – a profound example of how bigger systems that govern our social lives can, in fact, dictate the outcomes of our health.

    Antiretroviral drugs for HIV literally keep people alive and prevent transmission to others. Efforts to critique the USAID freeze by the inspector general of USAID, Paul Martin, saw him sacked. Again, no reason was given, and the White House did not have any comment.

    When we were trying to explore whether termination notices for staff in Kenya were even legal, one media report about a judicial effort to halt the USAID stop work order noted that Trump has a “high threshold for legal risk”. An insight into what type of threats we may need to consider when trying to understand risks to and protections for health in the future.

    Dr Ibembe, who provided closing remarks to our workshop, highlighted how “the effect of USAID cuts on the east African development landscape has been nothing short of seismic. It has created an environment of uncertainty, fear and stress. In some instances, up to 80% of health-related initiatives are donor supported. The funding and operational gap created is almost insurmountable.”

    This reliance on external financial support and limited domestic financing in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African countries is common. This makes a nation vulnerable. Kenya also experiences substantial “donor dependency” especially across the health system which makes it harder to absorb the shock of a donor pulling funds.

    In other words, this is a highly precarious system that is going through a shock which it will find incredibly difficult to withstand.

    The situation is a stark reminder of just how unfair the power dynamics are that dictate African health governance and sovereignty.

    Conversations about reducing the dependence of countries like Kenya on external donors have been going on for a long time. Throughout it has been acknowledged that any transition away from donor dependence needs to be carefully managed to avoid upsetting all the gains that have been made through initiatives like those funded by USAID. This has been completely impossible given the pace of change since January 2025 when the USAID stop work order came into play.

    African solutions to African problems

    The question now is not merely how African institutions will survive these disruptions but how they will leverage them as an impetus for change. Discussions about donor dependency arguably contribute to the framing of African states and institutions that are economically vulnerable and a “risk”. This in turn creates a negative bias that has recently been identified as costing African nations billions in lost or missed investment opportunities.

    While financial constraints are a reality, the dominance of stereotypes also means we may overlook the effective strategic responses and resilience demonstrated by African organisations over the years. The challenge is not simply to reduce donor reliance but to reposition African institutions as key architects of health solutions through approaches that emphasise ownership, sustainability and regional integration.

    Omollo talking to The Street Business School in January 2023.
    Rogers Omollo, CC BY

    The Afya na Haki (Ahaki) institute provides a clear example of this shift towards what they refer to as “Africentric” models of health governance. The aim is to build African solutions to African problems.

    This approach is anchored on four key pillars: amplifying positive African narratives; strengthening engagement with African regional institutions; supporting and fostering collaboration among African non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other organisations; and bringing together African experts and communities to create knowledge that reflects local realities and needs.

    Yet, restrictive policies that pre-date the USAID cuts such as the global gag rule which means NGOs are prohibited from receiving any US government funding if they provide, advocate for, or even refer to abortion services, have significantly disrupted this work, forcing institutions to rethink their operational strategies. An Ahaki staff member told us how their core focus on empowering Africans has been “thrown into disarray”.

    Research that puts African stories and priorities front and centre is crucial – not just for shaping policies but for shifting the focus from dependence on external aid to African-led solutions and self-determination.

    ‘Hope hasn’t disappeared’

    Within days of the USAID executive order on January 20, the USAID website was unreachable and our colleagues in Homa Bay sat reeling. By February 14, just after our visit, it was confirmed that a federal judge had successfully blocked the funding suspensions, although the relevance of this for people and projects like those we met in Homa Bay, whose contracts had already been terminated, was limited.

    This executive order is one of many that has triggered global shockwaves. But for every action there is a reaction and we have also witnessed international resistance, from protests of USAID and nonprofit workers in Washington, to 500 Kenyan community workers demanding their unpaid salaries.

    Musk’s company Tesla has been subject to widespread boycott and coordinated protest by “Tesla Takedown” in over 250 cities around the world. Canada has also made strides to reject American imports and strengthen its domestic markets, building greater independence from the USA, echoing desires of many African nations in relation to US donor dependence.

    Musk suggested that USAID needs “to die” due to widespread corruption – an assertion that remains unsubstantiated. However, the violence and damage of this sentiment is being realised. As the sites we visited remain eerie and empty, gathering dust, our immediate concern is for the people and communities that agencies once funded by USAID represent and serve.

    Omollo, and others like him, are now finding new ways to navigate these problems. The ripple effects of the USAID funding freeze have hit hard, programs have stalled, uncertainty has grown and communities are feeling the strain.

    “But in the cracks, we’ve found ways to adapt,” he said. “At Activate Action, we’ve leaned on local partnerships, stretched every resource, and kept showing up for young people. Hope hasn’t disappeared; it’s just become something we fight for daily.”


    For you: more from our Insights series:

    • Beatrix Potter’s famous tales are rooted in stories told by enslaved Africans – but she was very quiet about their origins

    • Engineering hope: how I made it my mission to help rebuild Ukraine’s critical infrastructure

    • Inside Porton Down: what I learned during three years at the UK’s most secretive chemical weapons laboratory

    • Ignored, blamed, and sometimes left to die – a leading expert in ME explains the origins of a modern medical scandal

    To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

    We would like to acknowledge the specific contribution of Rogers Omollo from Activate Action in developing this article.

    Christopher Baguma works with Afya na Haki as a Director of Programmes.

    – ref. ‘People who spent years saving lives are now struggling to survive’ – how we witnessed Trump’s USAID cuts devastate health programmes in Kenya – https://theconversation.com/people-who-spent-years-saving-lives-are-now-struggling-to-survive-how-we-witnessed-trumps-usaid-cuts-devastate-health-programmes-in-kenya-256250

    MIL OSI –

    July 19, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Cognitive warfare: why wars without bombs or bullets are a legal blind spot

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Gisselsson Nord, Professor, Division of Clinical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University

    Master1305/Shutterstock

    Imagine waking up to the news that a deadly new strain of flu has emerged in your city. Health officials are downplaying it, but social media is flooded with contradictory claims from “medical experts” debating its origin and severity.

    Hospitals are filled with patients showing flu-like symptoms, preventing other patients from accessing care and ultimately leading to deaths. It gradually emerges that a foreign adversary orchestrated this panic by planting false information – such as the strain having a very high death rate. Yet despite the casualties, no rules define this as an act of war.

    This is cognitive warfare, or cog war for short, where the cognitive domain is used on battlefields or in hostile attacks below the threshold of war.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    A classical example of cog war is a concept called “reflexive control” – an art refined by Russia over many decades. It involves shaping an adversary’s perceptions to your own benefit without them understanding that they have been manipulated.

    In the context of the Ukraine conflict, this has included narratives about historical claims to Ukrainian land and portraying the west as morally corrupt.

    Cog war serves to gain advantage over an adversary by targeting attitudes and behaviour at the individual, group or population level. It is designed to modify perceptions of reality, making “human cognition shaping” into a critical realm of warfare. It is therefore a weapon in a geopolitical battle that plays out by interactions across human minds rather than across physical realms.

    Because cog war can be waged without the physical damage regulated by the current laws of war, it exists in a legal vacuum. But that doesn’t mean it cannot ultimately incite violence based on false information or cause injury and death by secondary effects.

    Battle of minds, bodily damage

    The notion that war is essentially a mental contest, where cognitive manipulation is central, harks back to the strategist Sun Tzu (fifth century BC), author of The Art of War. Today, the online domain is the main arena for such operations.

    The digital revolution has allowed ever-more tailored content to play into biases mapped through our digital footprint, which is called “microtargeting”. Machine intelligence can even feed us targeted content without ever taking a picture or recording a video. All it takes is a well-designed AI prompt, supporting bad actors’ pre-defined narrative and goals, while covertly misleading the audience.

    Such disinformation campaigns increasingly reach into the physical domain of the human body. In the war in Ukraine, we see continued cog war narratives. These include allegations that the Ukrainian authorities were concealing or purposefully inciting cholera outbreaks. Allegations of US-supported bioweapons labs also formed part of false-flag justifications for Russia’s full-scale invasion.

    During COVID, false information led to deaths when people refused protective measures or used harmful remedies to treat it. Some narratives during the pandemic were driven as part of a geopolitical battle. While the US engaged in covert information operations, Russian and Chinese state-linked actors coordinated campaigns that used AI-generated social media personas and microtargeting to shape opinions at the level of communities and individuals.

    Fake image of Donald Trump being arrested.
    wikipedia

    The capability of microtargeting may evolve rapidly as methods for brain-machine coupling become more proficient at collecting data on cognition patterns. Ways of providing a better interface between machines and the human brain range from advanced electrodes that you can put on your scalp to virtual reality goggles with sensory stimulation for a more immersive experience.

    Darpa’s Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) program illustrates how these devices may become capable of reading from and writing to multiple points in the brain at once. However, these tools might also be hacked or fed poisoned data as a part of future information manipulation or psychological disruption strategies. Directly linking the brain to the digital world in this way will erode the line between the information domain and the human body in a way never done before.

    Legal gap

    Traditional laws of war assume physical force such as bombs and bullets as the primary concern, leaving cognitive warfare in a legal grey zone. Is psychological manipulation an “armed attack” that justifies self-defence under the UN charter? Currently, no clear answer exists. A state actor could potentially use health disinformation to create mass casualties in another country without formally starting a war.

    Similar gaps exist in situations where war, as we traditionally see it, is actually ongoing. Here, cog war can blur the line between permitted military deception (ruses of war) and prohibited perfidy.

    Imagine a humanitarian vaccination programme secretly collecting DNA, while covertly used by military forces to map clan-based insurgent networks. This exploitation of medical trust would constitute perfidy under humanitarian law – but only if we start recognising such manipulative tactics as part of warfare.

    Developing regulations

    So, what can be done to protect us in this new reality? First, we need to rethink what “threats” mean in modern conflict. The UN charter already outlaws “threats to use force” against other nations, but this makes us stuck in a mindset of physical threats.

    When a foreign power floods your media with false health alerts designed to create panic, isn’t that threatening your country just as effectively as a military blockade?

    While this issue was recognised as early as 2017, by the groups of experts who drafted the Tallinn Manual on cyberwarfare (Rule 70), our legal frameworks haven’t caught up.

    Second, we must acknowledge that psychological harm is real harm. When we think about war injuries, we picture physical wounds. But post-traumatic stress disorder has long been recognised as a legitimate war injury – so why not the mental health effects of targeted cognitive operations?

    Finally, traditional laws of war might not be enough – we should look to human rights frameworks for solutions. These already include protections for freedom of thought, freedom of opinion and prohibitions against war propaganda that could shield civilians from cognitive attacks. States have obligations to uphold these rights both within their territory and abroad.

    The use of increasingly sophisticated tactics and technologies to manipulate cognition and emotion poses one of the most insidious threats to human autonomy in our time. Only by adapting our legal frameworks to this challenge can we foster societal resilience and equip future generations to confront the crises and conflicts of tomorrow.

    David Gisselsson Nord receives funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Childhood Cancer Foundation. He has also received a travel grant from the US Department of Defence.

    Alberto Rinaldi has received funding from the The Raoul Wallenberg Visiting Chair in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and the Swedish Research Council.

    – ref. Cognitive warfare: why wars without bombs or bullets are a legal blind spot – https://theconversation.com/cognitive-warfare-why-wars-without-bombs-or-bullets-are-a-legal-blind-spot-260607

    MIL OSI –

    July 19, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 162
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress