Category: Transport

MIL-OSI: OceanFirst Financial Corp. Announces First Quarter Financial Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

RED BANK, N.J., April 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — OceanFirst Financial Corp. (NASDAQ:OCFC) (the “Company”), the holding company for OceanFirst Bank N.A. (the “Bank”), announced net income available to common stockholders of $20.5 million, or $0.35 per diluted share, for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, a decrease from $27.7 million, or $0.47 per diluted share, for the corresponding prior year period, and a decrease from $20.9 million, or $0.36 per diluted share, for the linked quarter. Selected performance metrics are as follows (refer to “Selected Quarterly Financial Data” for additional information):

	For the Three Months Ended,
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,
Performance Ratios (Annualized):	2025		2024		2024
Return on average assets	0.62	%	0.61	%	0.82	%
Return on average stockholders’ equity	4.85		4.88		6.65
Return on average tangible stockholders’ equity ^(a)	7.05		7.12		9.61
Return on average tangible common equity ^(a)	7.40		7.47		10.09
Efficiency ratio	65.67		67.86		59.56
Net interest margin	2.90		2.69		2.81

_{^(a) Return on average tangible stockholders’ equity and return on average tangible common equity (“ROTCE”) are non-GAAP (“generally accepted accounting principles”) financial measures. Refer to “Explanation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures,” “Selected Quarterly Financial Data” and “Non-GAAP Reconciliation” tables for reconciliation and additional information regarding non-GAAP financial measures.}

Core earnings¹ for the quarter ended March 31, 2025 were $20.3 million, or $0.35 per diluted share, a decrease from $25.6 million, or $0.44 per diluted share, for the corresponding prior year period, and a decrease from $22.1 million, or $0.38 per diluted share, for the linked quarter.

Core earnings PTPP¹ for the quarter ended March 31, 2025 was $32.4 million, or $0.56 per diluted share, as compared to $36.2 million, or $0.62 per diluted share, for the corresponding prior year period, and $29.6 million, or $0.51 per diluted share, for the linked quarter. Selected performance metrics are as follows:

	For the Three Months Ended,
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
Core Ratios¹(Annualized):		2025			2024			2024
Return on average assets		0.62	%		0.65	%		0.76	%
Return on average tangible stockholders’ equity		7.00			7.51			8.91
Return on average tangible common equity		7.34			7.89			9.36
Efficiency ratio		65.81			67.74			61.05
Core diluted earnings per share	$	0.35		$	0.38		$	0.44
Core PTPP diluted earnings per share		0.56			0.51			0.62

Key developments for the recent quarter are described below:

Margin Expansion: Net interest margin increased 21 basis points to 2.90%, from 2.69%, and net interest income increased by $3.3 million to $86.7 million driven by a decrease in total cost of deposits to 2.06% from 2.32% in the linked quarter.
Commercial Loans: Commercial and industrial loans increased $95.1 million, or 6.1% as compared to the linked quarter. Additionally, the total commercial loan pipeline increased 90% to $375.6 million from $197.5 million in the linked quarter.
Provision for Credit Losses: Provision for credit losses was $5.3 million reflecting a net loan reserve build of $5.2 million, primarily driven by elevated uncertainty around macroeconomic conditions. This resulted in an increase of five basis points in the allowance for loan credit losses to total loans to 0.78%. Criticized and classified loans decreased by 5% to $149.3 million compared to the linked quarter, providing strong evidence of stable credit performance for the Company’s loan portfolio.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Christopher D. Maher, commented on the Company’s results, “We are pleased to present our current quarter results, which reflect a meaningful expansion of net interest income and net interest margin, continued strong asset quality metrics, and further capital accretion, including share repurchases.” Mr. Maher added, “Additionally, we understand the increased market uncertainty and volatility, but we have confidence that the Company is well-positioned. Finally, we are pleased that the first quarter talent recruiting season has resulted in a robust addition of commercial banking talent. Reflecting the strength of the commercial banking platform we have built, 36 highly experienced commercial bankers have joined OceanFirst this year.”

The Company’s Board of Directors declared its 113th consecutive quarterly cash dividend on common stock. The quarterly cash dividend on common stock of $0.20 per share will be paid on May 16, 2025 to common stockholders of record on May 5, 2025. The Company’s Board of Directors also previously declared a quarterly cash dividend on preferred stock of $0.4375 per depositary share, representing 1/40th interest in the Series A Preferred Stock. This dividend will be paid on May 15, 2025 to preferred stockholders of record on April 30, 2025. The Company has notified the preferred stockholders that it intends to redeem the Series A Preferred Stock in full on May 15, 2025.

_{¹ Core earnings and core earnings before income taxes and provision for credit losses (“PTPP” or “Pre-Tax-Pre-Provision”), and ratios derived therefrom, are non-GAAP financial measures. For the periods presented, core earnings exclude merger related expenses, net (gain) loss on equity investments, net gain on sale of trust business, the opening provision for credit losses in connection with the acquisition of Spring Garden Capital Group, LLC (“Spring Garden”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) special assessment, and the income tax effect of these items, (collectively referred to as “non-core” operations). PTPP excludes the aforementioned pre-tax “non-core” items along with income tax expense (benefit) and provision for credit losses (exclusive of the Spring Garden opening provision). Refer to “Explanation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures,” “Selected Quarterly Financial Data” and the “Non-GAAP Reconciliation” tables for additional information regarding non-GAAP financial measures.}

Results of Operations

The current quarter was impacted by a decrease in average interest earning assets and liabilities, benefited from funding cost repricing efforts, and included a sale of non-performing residential and consumer loans of $5.1 million, which had related charge-offs of $720,000. Additionally, the current quarter included non-recurring benefits of $842,000 in other income and $1.3 million in normal incentive related adjustments.

Net Interest Income and Margin

Three months ended March 31, 2025 vs. March 31, 2024

Net interest income increased to $86.7 million, from $86.2 million, primarily reflecting the net impact of the decreasing interest rate environment. Net interest margin increased to 2.90%, from 2.81%, which included the impact of purchase accounting accretion and prepayment fees of 0.03% and 0.04%, respectively. Net interest margin increased primarily due to the decrease in cost of funds outpacing the decrease in yield on average interest-earning assets.

Average interest-earning assets decreased by $238.4 million primarily due to a decrease in commercial loans and securities. The average yield for interest-earning assets decreased to 5.13%, from 5.26%.

The cost of average interest-bearing liabilities decreased to 2.78%, from 3.03%, primarily due to lower cost of deposits and, to a lesser extent, Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances. The total cost of deposits decreased 25 basis points to 2.06%, from 2.31%. Average interest-bearing liabilities decreased by $226.1 million, primarily due to decreases in savings, time deposits and other borrowings, largely offset by an increase in FHLB advances.

Three months ended March 31, 2025 vs. December 31, 2024

Net interest income increased by $3.3 million and net interest margin increased to 2.90%, from 2.69%, primarily reflecting the impact of deposit repricing. Net interest income included the impact of purchase accounting accretion and prepayment fees of 0.03% in the current quarter and none in the prior quarter.

Average interest-earning assets decreased by $219.5 million, primarily due to decreases in securities and interest-earning cash deposits. The yield on average interest-earning assets decreased to 5.13%, from 5.15%.

Average interest-bearing liabilities decreased by $211.3 million, primarily due to decreases in deposits and other borrowings, partly offset by an increase in FHLB advances. The total cost of average interest-bearing liabilities decreased to 2.78%, from 3.04%, primarily due to lower cost of deposits. The total cost of deposits decreased to 2.06%, from 2.32%.

Provision for Credit Losses

Provision for credit losses for the quarter ended March 31, 2025 was $5.3 million, as compared to $591,000 for the corresponding prior year period and $3.5 million for the linked quarter. The linked quarter included a $1.4 million initial provision for credit losses related to the acquisition of Spring Garden. The current quarter provision was primarily driven by elevated uncertainty around macroeconomic conditions.

Net loan charge-offs were $636,000 for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, as compared to net loan charge-offs of $349,000 for the corresponding prior year period and net loan recoveries of $158,000 in the linked quarter. The current quarter includes charge-offs of $720,000 related to the sale of $5.1 million non-performing residential and consumer loans. Refer to “Results of Operations” section for further discussion.

Non-interest Income

Three months ended March 31, 2025 vs. March 31, 2024

Other income decreased to $11.3 million, as compared to $12.3 million. Other income was favorably impacted by non-core operations of $205,000 related to net gains on equity investments in the current quarter. The prior year other income was favorably impacted by non-core operations of $3.1 million related to net gains on equity investments and a gain on sale of a portion of the Company’s trust business.

Excluding non-core operations, other income increased by $1.8 million. The primary drivers were increases related to net gain on sale of loans of $501,000, commercial loan swap income of $482,000, and an increase in non-recurring other income of $842,000 as noted above.

Three months ended March 31, 2025 vs. December 31, 2024

Excluding non-core operations, other income decreased by $1.2 million from $12.2 million in the linked quarter. The primary drivers were decreases in fees and service charges of $1.5 million, primarily due to lower title fee income as a result of seasonality, and income from bank owned life insurance of $686,000, related to non-recurring death benefits of $768,000 in the linked quarter. This was partly offset by increases in commercial loan swap income of $534,000 and non-recurring other income of $842,000 noted above.

Non-interest Expense

Three months ended March 31, 2025 vs. March 31, 2024

Operating expenses increased to $64.3 million, as compared to $58.7 million. Operating expenses in the prior year were adversely impacted by non-core operations of $418,000 from an FDIC special assessment.

Excluding non-core operations, operating expenses increased by $6.0 million. The primary driver was an increase in compensation and benefits of $4.0 million, mostly due to acquisitions at the end of the prior year and annual merit increases. Additional drivers were increases in other operating expenses of $1.0 million, due to additional loan servicing expense, and increases in data processing expense of $691,000, partly due to acquisitions at the end of the prior year.

Three months ended March 31, 2025 vs. December 31, 2024

Operating expenses in the linked quarter were $64.8 million and were adversely impacted by non-core items of $110,000 from merger-related expenses. Excluding non-core operations, operating expenses decreased by $445,000. This included a decrease in normal incentive related adjustments of $1.3 million, offset by annual merit increases during the year. Additionally, there were decreases in other operating expense of $840,000, mostly related to lower title costs and marketing of $507,000. This was partly offset by an increase in federal deposit insurance and regulatory assessments of $466,000.

Income Tax Expense

The provision for income taxes was $6.8 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, as compared to $10.6 million for the same prior year period and $5.1 million for the linked quarter. The effective tax rate was 24.1% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, as compared to 27.1% for the same prior year period and 18.7% for the linked quarter. The prior year’s effective tax rate was negatively impacted by 3.0% due to a one-time write-off of a deferred tax asset of $1.2 million. The linked quarter’s effective tax rate was positively impacted by utilization of higher tax credits.

Financial Condition

March 31, 2025 vs. December 31, 2024

Total assets decreased by $112.0 million to $13.31 billion, from $13.42 billion, primarily due to decreases in total debt securities. Debt securities available-for-sale decreased by $81.3 million to $746.2 million, from $827.5 million, primarily due to principal reductions, maturities and calls. Debt securities held-to-maturity decreased by $40.4 million to $1.01 billion, from $1.05 billion, primarily due to principal repayments. Loans held-for-sale decreased by $11.5 million to $9.7 million from $21.2 million. Total loans increased by $7.2 million to $10.13 billion, from $10.12 billion, while the loan pipeline increased by $197.8 million to $504.4 million, from $306.7 million. Other assets decreased by $14.9 million to $170.8 million, from $185.7 million, primarily due to a decrease in market values associated with customer interest rate swap programs.

Total liabilities decreased by $118.3 million to $11.60 billion, from $11.72 billion primarily related to a funding mix-shift. Deposits increased by $110.7 million to $10.18 billion, from $10.07 billion, primarily due to increases in non-interest bearing, savings and time deposits. Time deposits increased to $2.12 billion, from $2.08 billion, representing 20.8% and 20.7% of total deposits, respectively. Time deposits included an increase in brokered time deposits of $295.8 million, offset by a decrease in retail time deposits of $251.1 million. The loan-to-deposit ratio was 99.5%, as compared to 100.5%. FHLB advances decreased by $181.6 million to $891.0 million, from $1.07 billion partly driven by a shift to slightly favorably priced brokered deposits.

Other liabilities decreased by $58.0 million to $240.4 million, from $298.4 million, primarily due to a decrease in the market values of derivatives associated with customer interest rate swaps and related collateral received from counterparties.

Capital levels remain strong and in excess of “well-capitalized” regulatory levels at March 31, 2025, including the Company’s estimated common equity tier one capital ratio which remained at 11.2%.

Total stockholders’ equity increased to $1.71 billion, as compared to $1.70 billion, primarily reflecting net income, partially offset by capital returns comprising of dividends and share repurchases. During the quarter ended March 31, 2025, the Company repurchased 398,395 shares totaling $6.9 million representing a weighted average cost of $17.20. The Company had 1,228,863 shares available for repurchase under the authorized repurchase program. Additionally, accumulated other comprehensive loss decreased by $2.6 million primarily due to increases in fair market value of available-for-sale debt securities, net of tax.

The Company’s tangible common equity² increased by $7.3 million to $1.12 billion. The Company’s stockholders’ equity to assets ratio was 12.84% at March 31, 2025, and tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio increased by 14 basis points during the quarter to 8.76%, primarily due to the drivers described above.

Book value per common share increased to $29.27, as compared to $29.08. Tangible book value per common share² increased to $19.16, as compared to $18.98.

_{² Tangible book value per common share and tangible common equity to tangible assets are non-GAAP financial measures and exclude the impact of intangible assets, goodwill, and preferred equity from both stockholders’ equity and total assets. Refer to “Explanation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” and the “Non-GAAP Reconciliation” tables for additional information regarding non-GAAP financial measures.}

Asset Quality

March 31, 2025 vs. December 31, 2024

The Company’s non-performing loans increased to $37.0 million, from $35.5 million, and represented 0.37% and 0.35% of total loans, respectively. The allowance for loan credit losses as a percentage of total non-performing loans was 213.14%, as compared to 207.19%. The level of 30 to 89 days delinquent loans increased to $46.2 million, from $36.6 million, primarily related to commercial loans. Criticized and classified assets, including other real estate owned, decreased to $151.2 million, from $159.9 million. The Company’s allowance for loan credit losses was 0.78% of total loans, as compared to 0.73%. Refer to “Provision for Credit Losses” section for further discussion.

The Company’s asset quality, excluding purchased with credit deterioration (“PCD”) loans, was as follows. Non-performing loans increased to $29.2 million, from $27.6 million. The allowance for loan credit losses as a percentage of total non-performing loans was 269.43%, as compared to 266.73%. The level of 30 to 89 days delinquent loans, excluding non-performing loans, increased to $35.8 million, from $33.6 million.

Explanation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Reported amounts are presented in accordance with GAAP. The Company’s management believes that the supplemental non-GAAP information, which consists of reported net income excluding non-core operations and in some instances excluding income taxes and provision for credit losses, and reporting equity and asset amounts excluding intangible assets, goodwill or preferred stock, all of which can vary from period to period, provides a better comparison of period-to-period operating performance. Additionally, the Company believes this information is utilized by regulators and market analysts to evaluate a company’s financial condition and, therefore, such information is useful to investors. These disclosures should not be viewed as a substitute for financial results in accordance with GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures, which may be presented by other companies. Refer to the Non-GAAP Reconciliation table at the end of this document for details on the earnings impact of these items.

Annual Meeting

The Company previously announced that its Annual Meeting of Stockholders will be held on Monday, May 19, 2025 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The record date for stockholders to vote at the Annual Meeting is Tuesday, March 25, 2025. Voting before the meeting is encouraged, even for stockholders planning to participate in the virtual webcast. Votes may be submitted by telephone or online according to the instructions on the proxy card or by mail. A link to the live webcast is available by visiting oceanfirst.com – Investor Relations. Access will begin at 7:45 a.m. Eastern Time to allow time for stockholders to log-in with the control number provided on the proxy card prior to the 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time scheduled start. Eligible stockholders may also vote during the live meeting online at www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/OCFC2025 by entering the 16-digit control number included on the proxy card or notice. As a reminder, participants of the meeting are not required to vote. Additional information regarding virtual access to the meeting will be distributed prior to the meeting.

Conference Call

As previously announced, the Company will host an earnings conference call on Friday, April 25, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The direct dial number for the call is (833) 470-1428, using the access code 934356. For those unable to participate in the conference call, a replay will be available. To access the replay, dial (855) 762-8306, from one hour after the end of the call until May 2, 2025. The conference call, as well as the replay, are also available (listen-only) by internet webcast at www.oceanfirst.com in the Investor Relations section.

OceanFirst Financial Corp.’s subsidiary, OceanFirst Bank N.A., founded in 1902, is a $13.3 billion regional bank providing financial services throughout New Jersey and in the major metropolitan areas between Massachusetts and Virginia. OceanFirst Bank delivers commercial and residential financing, treasury management, trust and asset management, and deposit services and is one of the largest and oldest community-based financial institutions headquartered in New Jersey. To learn more about OceanFirst, go to www.oceanfirst.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

In addition to historical information, this news release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which are based on certain assumptions and describe future plans, strategies and expectations of the Company. These forward-looking statements are generally identified by use of the words “believe”, “expect”, “intend”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “project”, “will”, “should”, “may”, “view”, “opportunity”, “potential”, or similar expressions or expressions of confidence. The Company’s ability to predict results or the actual effect of future plans or strategies is inherently uncertain. Factors which could have a material adverse effect on the operations of the Company and its subsidiaries include, but are not limited to: changes in interest rates, inflation, general economic conditions, including potential recessionary conditions, levels of unemployment in the Company’s lending area, real estate market values in the Company’s lending area, potential goodwill impairment, natural disasters, potential increases to flood insurance premiums, the current or anticipated impact of military conflict, terrorism or other geopolitical events, the imposition of tariffs or other domestic or international governmental policies, the level of prepayments on loans and mortgage-backed securities, legislative/regulatory changes, monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. Government, including policies of the U.S. Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the quality or composition of the loan or investment portfolios, demand for loan products, deposit flows, the availability of low-cost funding, changes in liquidity, including the size and composition of the Company’s deposit portfolio, and the percentage of uninsured deposits in the portfolio, changes in capital management and balance sheet strategies and the ability to successfully implement such strategies, competition, demand for financial services in the Company’s market area, changes in consumer spending, borrowing and saving habits, changes in accounting principles, a failure in or breach of the Company’s operational or security systems or infrastructure, including cyberattacks, the failure to maintain current technologies, failure to retain or attract employees, the impact of pandemics on our operations and financial results and those of our customers and the Bank’s ability to successfully integrate acquired operations. These risks and uncertainties are further discussed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, under Item 1A – Risk Factors and elsewhere, and subsequent securities filings and should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. The Company does not undertake, and specifically disclaims any obligation, to publicly release the result of any revisions which may be made to any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements or to reflect the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events.


OceanFirst Financial Corp.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
(dollars in thousands)

	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,
		2025		2024		2024
	(Unaudited)				(Unaudited)
Assets
Cash and due from banks	$	163,721	$	123,615	$	130,422
Debt securities available-for-sale, at estimated fair value		746,168		827,500		744,944
Debt securities held-to-maturity, net of allowance for securities credit losses of $898 at March 31, 2025, $967 at December 31, 2024, and $1,058 at March 31, 2024 (estimated fair value of $926,075 at March 31, 2025, $952,917 at December 31, 2024, and $1,029,965 at March 31, 2024)		1,005,476		1,045,875		1,128,666
Equity investments		87,365		84,104		103,201
Restricted equity investments, at cost		102,172		108,634		85,689
Loans receivable, net of allowance for loan credit losses of $78,798 at March 31, 2025, $73,607 at December 31, 2024, and $67,173 at March 31, 2024		10,058,072		10,055,429		10,068,209
Loans held-for-sale		9,698		21,211		4,702
Interest and dividends receivable		44,843		45,914		52,502
Other real estate owned		1,917		1,811		—
Premises and equipment, net		114,588		115,256		119,211
Bank owned life insurance		269,398		270,208		266,615
Assets held for sale		—		—		28
Goodwill		523,308		523,308		506,146
Intangibles		11,740		12,680		8,669
Other assets		170,812		185,702		199,974
Total assets	$	13,309,278	$	13,421,247	$	13,418,978
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Deposits	$	10,177,023	$	10,066,342	$	10,236,851
Federal Home Loan Bank advances		891,021		1,072,611		658,436
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase with customers		65,132		60,567		66,798
Other borrowings		197,808		197,546		425,722
Advances by borrowers for taxes and insurance		28,789		23,031		28,187
Other liabilities		240,388		298,393		337,147
Total liabilities		11,600,161		11,718,490		11,753,141
Stockholders’ equity:
OceanFirst Financial Corp. stockholders’ equity		1,708,322		1,701,650		1,665,112
Non-controlling interest		795		1,107		725
Total stockholders’ equity		1,709,117		1,702,757		1,665,837
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	13,309,278	$	13,421,247	$	13,418,978

OceanFirst Financial Corp.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(in thousands, except per share amounts)

	For the Three Months Ended,
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
		2025			2024			2024
	\|———————- (Unaudited) ———————-\|
Interest income:
Loans	$	133,019		$	135,438		$	137,121
Debt securities		17,270			19,400			19,861
Equity investments and other		3,414			4,782			4,620
Total interest income		153,703			159,620			161,602
Interest expense:
Deposits		51,046			59,889			59,855
Borrowed funds		16,005			16,402			15,523
Total interest expense		67,051			76,291			75,378
Net interest income		86,652			83,329			86,224
Provision for credit losses		5,340			3,467			591
Net interest income after provision for credit losses		81,312			79,862			85,633
Other income:
Bankcard services revenue		1,463			1,595			1,416
Trust and asset management revenue		406			416			526
Fees and service charges		4,712			6,207			4,473
Net gain on sales of loans		858			1,076			357
Net gain (loss) on equity investments		205			(5	)		1,923
Net loss from other real estate operations		(16	)		(20	)		—
Income from bank owned life insurance		1,852			2,538			1,862
Commercial loan swap income		620			86			138
Other		1,153			339			1,591
Total other income		11,253			12,232			12,286
Operating expenses:
Compensation and employee benefits		36,740			36,602			32,759
Occupancy		5,497			5,280			5,199
Equipment		921			1,026			1,130
Marketing		1,108			1,615			990
Federal deposit insurance and regulatory assessments		2,983			2,517			3,135
Data processing		6,647			6,366			5,956
Check card processing		1,170			1,134			1,050
Professional fees		2,425			2,620			2,732
Amortization of intangibles		940			876			844
Merger related expenses		—			110			—
Other operating expense		5,863			6,703			4,877
Total operating expenses		64,294			64,849			58,672
Income before provision for income taxes		28,271			27,245			39,247
Provision for income taxes		6,808			5,083			10,637
Net income		21,463			22,162			28,610
Net (loss) income attributable to non-controlling interest		(46	)		253			(57	)
Net income attributable to OceanFirst Financial Corp.		21,509			21,909			28,667
Dividends on preferred shares		1,004			1,004			1,004
Net income available to common stockholders	$	20,505		$	20,905		$	27,663
Basic earnings per share	$	0.35		$	0.36		$	0.47
Diluted earnings per share	$	0.35		$	0.36		$	0.47
Average basic shares outstanding		58,102			58,026			58,789
Average diluted shares outstanding		58,111			58,055			58,791

OceanFirst Financial Corp.
SELECTEDLOANAND DEPOSIT DATA
(dollars in thousands)

LOANS RECEIVABLE			At
			March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,			March 31,
				2025			2024			2024			2024			2024
Commercial:
Commercial real estate – investor			$	5,200,137		$	5,287,683		$	5,273,159		$	5,324,994		$	5,322,755
Commercial and industrial:
Commercial and industrial – real estate ⁽¹⁾				896,647			902,219			841,930			857,710			914,582
Commercial and industrial – non-real estate ⁽¹⁾				748,575			647,945			660,879			616,400			677,176
Total commercial and industrial				1,645,222			1,550,164			1,502,809			1,474,110			1,591,758
Total commercial				6,845,359			6,837,847			6,775,968			6,799,104			6,914,513
Consumer:
Residential real estate				3,053,318			3,049,763			3,003,213			2,977,698			2,965,276
Home equity loans and lines and other consumer (“other consumer”)				226,633			230,462			242,975			242,526			245,859
Total consumer				3,279,951			3,280,225			3,246,188			3,220,224			3,211,135
Total loans				10,125,310			10,118,072			10,022,156			10,019,328			10,125,648
Deferred origination costs (fees), net				11,560			10,964			10,508			10,628			9,734
Allowance for loan credit losses				(78,798	)		(73,607	)		(69,066	)		(68,839	)		(67,173	)
Loans receivable, net			$	10,058,072		$	10,055,429		$	9,963,598		$	9,961,117		$	10,068,209
Mortgage loans serviced for others			$	222,963		$	191,279		$	142,394		$	104,136		$	89,555
	At March 31, 2025 Average Yield
Loan pipeline ⁽²⁾:
Commercial	7.37	%	$	375,622		$	197,491		$	199,818		$	166,206		$	66,167
Residential real estate	6.41			116,121			97,385			137,978			80,330			57,340
Other consumer	8.51			12,681			11,783			13,788			12,586			13,030
Total	7.18	%	$	504,424		$	306,659		$	351,584		$	259,122		$	136,537

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,					December 31,		September 30,		June 30,		March 31,
	2025						2024		2024		2024		2024
	Average Yield
Loan originations:
Commercial ⁽³⁾	7.61	%	$	233,968		$	268,613	$	245,886	$	56,053	$	123,010
Residential real estate	6.53			167,162			235,370		169,273		121,388		78,270
Other consumer	8.49			15,825			11,204		15,760		16,970		11,405
Total	7.21	%	$	416,955		$	515,187	$	430,919	$	194,411	$	212,685
Loans sold			$	104,991	⁽⁴⁾	$	127,508	$	65,296	$	45,045	$	29,965

_⁽¹⁾	_{During the quarter ended March 31, 2025, the Company retrospectively reclassified loans which were previously referred to as ‘commercial real estate – owner occupied’ and ‘commercial and industrial’ to ‘commercial and industrial – real estate’ and ‘commercial and industrial – non-real estate’, respectively. Collectively, these loans are referred to as ‘commercial and industrial’.}
_⁽²⁾	_{Loan pipeline includes loans approved but not funded.}
_⁽³⁾	_{Excludes commercial loan pool purchases of $24.3 million and $76.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively.}
_⁽⁴⁾	_{Excludes sale of non-performing residential and consumer loans of $5.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025.}

DEPOSITS	At
	March 31,		December 31,		September 30,		June 30,		March 31,
		2025		2024		2024		2024		2024
Type of Account
Non-interest-bearing	$	1,660,738	$	1,617,182	$	1,638,447	$	1,632,521	$	1,639,828
Interest-bearing checking		4,006,653		4,000,553		3,896,348		3,667,837		3,865,699
Money market		1,337,570		1,301,197		1,288,555		1,210,312		1,150,979
Savings		1,052,504		1,066,438		1,071,946		1,115,688		1,260,309
Time deposits ⁽¹⁾		2,119,558		2,080,972		2,220,871		2,367,659		2,320,036
Total deposits	$	10,177,023	$	10,066,342	$	10,116,167	$	9,994,017	$	10,236,851

_⁽¹⁾	_{Includes brokered time deposits of $370.5 million, $74.7 million, $201.0 million, $401.6 million, and $543.4 million at March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, September 30, 2024, June 30, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively.}

OceanFirst Financial Corp.
ASSET QUALITY
(dollars in thousands)

	March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,			March 31,
ASSET QUALITY⁽¹⁾		2025			2024			2024			2024			2024
Non-performing loans:
Commercial real estate – investor	$	23,595		$	17,000		$	12,478		$	19,761		$	21,507
Commercial and industrial:
Commercial and industrial – real estate		4,690			4,787			4,368			4,081			3,355
Commercial and industrial – non-real estate		22			32			122			434			567
Total commercial and industrial		4,712			4,819			4,490			4,515			3,922
Residential real estate		5,709			10,644			9,108			7,213			7,181
Other consumer		2,954			3,064			2,063			1,933			2,401
Total non-performing loans⁽¹⁾	$	36,970		$	35,527		$	28,139		$	33,422		$	35,011
Other real estate owned		1,917			1,811			—			—			—
Total non-performing assets	$	38,887		$	37,338		$	28,139		$	33,422		$	35,011
Delinquent loans 30 to 89 days	$	46,246		$	36,550		$	15,458		$	9,655		$	17,534
Modifications to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty⁽²⁾
Non-performing (included in total non-performing loans above)	$	8,307		$	3,232		$	3,043		$	3,210		$	3,467
Performing		27,592			27,631			20,652			20,529			8,579
Total modifications to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty⁽²⁾	$	35,899		$	30,863		$	23,695		$	23,739		$	12,046
Allowance for loan credit losses	$	78,798		$	73,607		$	69,066		$	68,839		$	67,173
Allowance for loan credit losses as a percent of total loans receivable⁽³⁾		0.78	%		0.73	%		0.69	%		0.69	%		0.66	%
Allowance for loan credit losses as a percent of total non-performing loans⁽³⁾		213.14			207.19			245.45			205.97			191.86
Non-performing loans as a percent of total loans receivable		0.37			0.35			0.28			0.33			0.35
Non-performing assets as a percent of total assets		0.29			0.28			0.21			0.25			0.26
Supplemental PCD and non-performing loans
PCD loans, net of allowance for loan credit losses	$	21,737		$	22,006		$	15,323		$	16,058		$	16,700
Non-performing PCD loans		7,724			7,931			2,887			2,841			3,525
Delinquent PCD and non-performing loans 30 to 89 days		10,489			2,997			1,279			1,188			2,088
PCD modifications to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty⁽²⁾		22			23			24			26			25
Asset quality, excluding PCD loans⁽⁴⁾
Non-performing loans⁽¹⁾		29,246			27,596			25,252			30,581			31,486
Non-performing assets		31,163			29,407			25,252			30,581			31,486
Delinquent loans 30 to 89 days (excludes non-performing loans)		35,757			33,553			14,179			8,467			15,446
Modifications to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty⁽²⁾		35,877			30,840			23,671			23,713			12,021
Allowance for loan credit losses as a percent of total non-performing loans⁽³⁾		269.43	%		266.73	%		273.51	%		225.10	%		213.34	%
Non-performing loans as a percent of total loans receivable		0.29			0.27			0.25			0.31			0.31
Non-performing assets as a percent of total assets		0.23			0.22			0.19			0.23			0.23

_⁽¹⁾	_{The quarter ended March 31, 2025 included the sale of non-performing residential and consumer loans of $5.1 million and the quarter ended September 30, 2024 included the resolution of a single commercial relationship exposure of $7.2 million.}
_⁽²⁾	_{Balances have been revised to represent only modifications to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty, in accordance with ASU 2022-02 adopted on January 1, 2023.}
_⁽³⁾	_{Loans acquired from acquisitions were recorded at fair value. The net unamortized credit and PCD marks on these loans, not reflected in the allowance for loan credit losses, was $5.6 million, $6.0 million, $5.7 million, $6.1 million and $7.0 million at March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, September 30, 2024, June 30, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively.}
_⁽⁴⁾	_{All balances and ratios exclude PCD loans.}

NET LOAN (CHARGE-OFFS) RECOVERIES	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,				December 31,			September 30,			June 30,				March 31,
		2025				2024			2024			2024				2024
Net loan (charge-offs) recoveries:
Loan charge-offs	$	(798	)		$	(55	)	$	(124	)	$	(1,600	)		$	(441	)
Recoveries on loans		162				213			212			148				92
Net loan (charge-offs) recoveries	$	(636	)		$	158		$	88		$	(1,452	)		$	(349	)
Net loan (charge-offs) recoveries to average total loans (annualized)		0.03	%			NM	*		NM	*		0.06	%			0.01	%
Net loan (charge-offs) recoveries detail:
Commercial	$	25			$	92		$	129		$	(1,576	)	⁽¹⁾	$	(35	)
Residential real estate		(720	)	⁽²⁾		(17	)		(6	)		87				66
Other consumer		59				83			(35	)		37				(380	)
Net loan (charge-offs) recoveries	$	(636	)		$	158		$	88		$	(1,452	)		$	(349	)

_⁽¹⁾	_{The three months ended June 30, 2024 included a charge-off related to a single commercial real estate relationship of $1.6 million.}
_⁽²⁾	_{The three months ended March 31, 2025 included charge-offs of $720,000 related to the sale of non-performing residential loans.}
_^*	_{Not meaningful as amounts are net loan recoveries.}

OceanFirst Financial Corp.
ANALYSIS OF NET INTEREST INCOME

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31, 2025							December 31, 2024							March 31, 2024
(dollars in thousands)	Average Balance			Interest		Average Yield/ Cost ⁽¹⁾		Average Balance			Interest		Average Yield/ Cost ⁽¹⁾		Average Balance			Interest		Average Yield/ Cost ⁽¹⁾
Assets:
Interest-earning assets:
Interest-earning deposits and short-term investments	$	95,439		$	983	4.18	%	$	195,830		$	2,415	4.91	%	$	163,192		$	2,226	5.49	%
Securities ⁽²⁾		2,003,206			19,701	3.99			2,116,911			21,767	4.09			2,098,421			22,255	4.27
Loans receivable, net ⁽³⁾
Commercial		6,781,005			98,260	5.88			6,794,158			101,003	5.91			6,925,048			104,421	6.06
Residential real estate		3,065,679			31,270	4.08			3,049,092			30,455	4.00			2,974,468			28,596	3.85
Other consumer		228,553			3,489	6.19			236,161			3,980	6.70			248,396			4,104	6.65
Allowance for loan credit losses, net of deferred loan costs and fees		(61,854	)		—	—			(60,669	)		—	—			(59,141	)		—	—
Loans receivable, net		10,013,383			133,019	5.37			10,018,742			135,438	5.38			10,088,771			137,121	5.46
Total interest-earning assets		12,112,028			153,703	5.13			12,331,483			159,620	5.15			12,350,384			161,602	5.26
Non-interest-earning assets		1,199,865							1,213,569							1,206,336
Total assets	$	13,311,893						$	13,545,052						$	13,556,720
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity:
Interest-bearing liabilities:
Interest-bearing checking	$	4,135,952			21,433	2.10	%	$	4,050,428			22,750	2.23	%	$	3,925,965			20,795	2.13	%
Money market		1,322,003			9,353	2.87			1,325,119			10,841	3.25			1,092,003			9,172	3.38
Savings		1,058,015			1,785	0.68			1,070,816			2,138	0.79			1,355,718			4,462	1.32
Time deposits		1,916,109			18,475	3.91			2,212,750			24,160	4.34			2,414,063			25,426	4.24
Total		8,432,079			51,046	2.46			8,659,113			59,889	2.75			8,787,749			59,855	2.74
FHLB Advances		996,293			11,359	4.62			854,748			10,030	4.67			644,818			7,771	4.85
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase		64,314			428	2.70			76,856			513	2.66			68,500			411	2.41
Other borrowings		283,150			4,218	6.04			396,412			5,859	5.88			500,901			7,341	5.89
Total borrowings		1,343,757			16,005	4.83			1,328,016			16,402	4.91			1,214,219			15,523	5.14
Total interest-bearing liabilities		9,775,836			67,051	2.78			9,987,129			76,291	3.04			10,001,968			75,378	3.03
Non-interest-bearing deposits		1,597,972							1,627,376							1,634,583
Non-interest-bearing liabilities		222,951							227,221							247,129
Total liabilities		11,596,759							11,841,726							11,883,680
Stockholders’ equity		1,715,134							1,703,326							1,673,040
Total liabilities and equity	$	13,311,893						$	13,545,052						$	13,556,720
Net interest income				$	86,652						$	83,329						$	86,224
Net interest rate spread ⁽⁴⁾						2.35	%						2.11	%						2.23	%
Net interest margin ⁽⁵⁾						2.90	%						2.69	%						2.81	%
Total cost of deposits (including non-interest-bearing deposits)						2.06	%						2.32	%						2.31	%

_⁽¹⁾	_{Average yields and costs are annualized.}
_⁽²⁾	_{Amounts represent debt and equity securities, including FHLB and Federal Reserve Bank stock, and are recorded at average amortized cost, net of allowance for securities credit losses.}
_⁽³⁾	_{Amount is net of deferred loan costs and fees, undisbursed loan funds, discounts and premiums and allowance for loan credit losses, and includes loans held for sale and non-performing loans.}
_⁽⁴⁾	_{Net interest rate spread represents the difference between the yield on interest-earning assets and the cost of interest-bearing liabilities.}
_⁽⁵⁾	_{Net interest margin represents net interest income divided by average interest-earning assets.}

OceanFirst Financial Corp.
SELECTED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA
(in thousands, except per share amounts)

	March 31,		December 31,		September 30,		June 30,		March 31,
		2025		2024		2024		2024		2024
Selected Financial Condition Data:
Total assets	$	13,309,278	$	13,421,247	$	13,488,483	$	13,321,755	$	13,418,978
Debt securities available-for-sale, at estimated fair value		746,168		827,500		911,753		721,484		744,944
Debt securities held-to-maturity, net of allowance for securities credit losses		1,005,476		1,045,875		1,075,131		1,105,843		1,128,666
Equity investments		87,365		84,104		95,688		104,132		103,201
Restricted equity investments, at cost		102,172		108,634		98,545		92,679		85,689
Loans receivable, net of allowance for loan credit losses		10,058,072		10,055,429		9,963,598		9,961,117		10,068,209
Deposits		10,177,023		10,066,342		10,116,167		9,994,017		10,236,851
Federal Home Loan Bank advances		891,021		1,072,611		891,860		789,337		658,436
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase and other borrowings		262,940		258,113		501,090		504,490		492,520
Total stockholders’ equity		1,709,117		1,702,757		1,694,508		1,676,669		1,665,837

	For the Three Months Ended,
	March 31,			December 31,			September 30,		June 30,		March 31,
		2025			2024			2024		2024		2024
Selected Operating Data:
Interest income	$	153,703		$	159,620		$	161,525	$	159,426	$	161,602
Interest expense		67,051			76,291			79,306		77,163		75,378
Net interest income		86,652			83,329			82,219		82,263		86,224
Provision for credit losses (excluding Spring Garden)		5,340			2,041			517		3,114		591
Spring Garden opening provision for credit losses		—			1,426			—		—		—
Net interest income after provision for credit losses		81,312			79,862			81,702		79,149		85,633
Other income (excluding equity investments and sale of trust)		11,048			12,237			11,826		10,098		9,201
Net gain (loss) on equity investments		205			(5	)		1,420		887		1,923
Net gain on sale of trust business		—			—			1,438		—		1,162
Operating expenses (excluding FDIC special assessment and merger related expenses)		64,294			64,739			62,067		58,620		58,254
FDIC special assessment		—			—			—		—		418
Merger related expenses		—			110			1,669		—		—
Income before provision for income taxes		28,271			27,245			32,650		31,514		39,247
Provision for income taxes		6,808			5,083			7,464		7,082		10,637
Net income		21,463			22,162			25,186		24,432		28,610
Net (loss) income attributable to non-controlling interest		(46	)		253			70		59		(57	)
Net income attributable to OceanFirst Financial Corp.	$	21,509		$	21,909		$	25,116	$	24,373	$	28,667
Net income available to common stockholders	$	20,505		$	20,905		$	24,112	$	23,369	$	27,663
Diluted earnings per share	$	0.35		$	0.36		$	0.42	$	0.40	$	0.47
Net accretion/amortization of purchase accounting adjustments included in net interest income	$	219		$	20		$	741	$	1,086	$	921

	At or For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,		December 31,		September 30,		June 30,		March 31,
	2025		2024		2024		2024		2024
Selected Financial Ratios and Other Data ^{(1) (2)}:
Performance Ratios (Annualized):
Return on average assets ⁽³⁾	0.62	%	0.61	%	0.71	%	0.70	%	0.82	%
Return on average tangible assets ^{(3) (4)}	0.65		0.64		0.74		0.73		0.85
Return on average stockholders’ equity ⁽³⁾	4.85		4.88		5.68		5.61		6.65
Return on average tangible stockholders’ equity ^{(3) (4)}	7.05		7.12		8.16		8.10		9.61
Return on average tangible common equity ^{(3) (4)}	7.40		7.47		8.57		8.51		10.09
Stockholders’ equity to total assets	12.84		12.69		12.56		12.59		12.41
Tangible stockholders’ equity to tangible assets ⁽⁴⁾	9.19		9.06		9.10		9.08		8.92
Tangible common equity to tangible assets ⁽⁴⁾	8.76		8.62		8.68		8.64		8.49
Net interest rate spread	2.35		2.11		2.06		2.11		2.23
Net interest margin	2.90		2.69		2.67		2.71		2.81
Operating expenses to average assets	1.96		1.90		1.89		1.75		1.74
Efficiency ratio ⁽⁵⁾	65.67		67.86		65.77		62.86		59.56
Loan-to-deposit ratio	99.50		100.50		99.10		100.30		98.90

	At or For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,			March 31,
		2025			2024			2024			2024			2024
Trust and Asset Management:
Wealth assets under administration and management (“AUA/M”)	$	149,106		$	147,956		$	152,797		$	150,519		$	236,891
Nest Egg AUA/M		453,803			431,434			430,413			403,647			407,478
Total AUA/M		602,909			579,390			583,210			554,166			644,369
Per Share Data:
Cash dividends per common share	$	0.20		$	0.20		$	0.20		$	0.20		$	0.20
Book value per common share at end of period		29.27			29.08			29.02			28.67			28.32
Tangible book value per common share at end of period ⁽⁴⁾		19.16			18.98			19.28			18.93			18.63
Common shares outstanding at end of period		58,383,525			58,554,871			58,397,094			58,481,418			58,812,498
Preferred shares outstanding at end of period		57,370			57,370			57,370			57,370			57,370
Number of full-service customer facilities:		39			39			39			39			39
Quarterly Average Balances
Total securities	$	2,003,206		$	2,116,911		$	2,063,633		$	2,058,711		$	2,098,421
Loans receivable, net		10,013,383			10,018,742			9,958,794			10,012,491			10,088,771
Total interest-earning assets		12,112,028			12,331,483			12,232,672			12,203,776			12,350,384
Total goodwill and intangibles		535,657			534,942			513,731			514,535			515,356
Total assets		13,311,893			13,545,052			13,438,696			13,441,218			13,556,720
Time deposits		1,916,109			2,212,750			2,339,370			2,337,458			2,414,063
Total deposits (including non-interest-bearing deposits)		10,030,051			10,286,489			10,175,856			10,173,315			10,422,332
Total borrowings		1,343,757			1,328,016			1,333,245			1,325,372			1,214,219
Total interest-bearing liabilities		9,775,836			9,987,129			9,874,358			9,872,522			10,001,968
Non-interest bearing deposits		1,597,972			1,627,376			1,634,743			1,626,165			1,634,583
Stockholders’ equity		1,715,134			1,703,326			1,689,035			1,674,453			1,673,040
Tangible stockholders’ equity ⁽⁴⁾		1,179,477			1,168,384			1,175,304			1,159,918			1,157,684

Quarterly Yields and Costs
Total securities		3.99	%		4.09	%		4.23	%		4.22	%		4.27	%
Loans receivable, net		5.37			5.38			5.46			5.46			5.46
Total interest-earning assets		5.13			5.15			5.26			5.25			5.26
Time deposits		3.91			4.34			4.58			4.46			4.24
Total cost of deposits (including non-interest-bearing deposits)		2.06			2.32			2.44			2.37			2.31
Total borrowed funds		4.83			4.91			5.07			5.19			5.14
Total interest-bearing liabilities		2.78			3.04			3.20			3.14			3.03
Net interest spread		2.35			2.11			2.06			2.11			2.23
Net interest margin		2.90			2.69			2.67			2.71			2.81

_⁽¹⁾	_{With the exception of end of quarter ratios, all ratios are based on average daily balances.}
_⁽²⁾	_{Performance ratios for each period are presented on a GAAP basis and include non-core operations. Refer to “Non-GAAP Reconciliation.”}
_⁽³⁾	_{Ratios for each period are based on net income available to common stockholders.}
_⁽⁴⁾	_{Tangible stockholders’ equity and tangible assets exclude goodwill and other intangibles. Tangible common equity (also referred to as “tangible book value”) excludes goodwill, intangibles and preferred equity. Refer to “Non-GAAP Reconciliation.”}
_⁽⁵⁾	_{Efficiency ratio represents the ratio of operating expenses to the aggregate of other income and net interest income.}

OceanFirst Financial Corp.
OTHER ITEMS
(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

NON-GAAP RECONCILIATION

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,			March 31,
		2025			2024			2024			2024			2024
Core Earnings:
Net income available to common stockholders (GAAP)	$	20,505		$	20,905		$	24,112		$	23,369		$	27,663
(Less) add non-recurring and non-core items:
Spring Garden opening provision for credit losses		—			1,426			—			—			—
Net (gain) loss on equity investments		(205	)		5			(1,420	)		(887	)		(1,923	)
Net gain on sale of trust business		—			—			(1,438	)		—			(1,162	)
FDIC special assessment		—			—			—			—			418
Merger related expenses		—			110			1,669			—			—
Income tax expense (benefit) on items		49			(388	)		270			188			642
Core earnings (Non-GAAP)	$	20,349		$	22,058		$	23,193		$	22,670		$	25,638
Income tax expense	$	6,808		$	5,083		$	7,464		$	7,082		$	10,637
Provision for credit losses		5,340			3,467			517			3,114			591
Less: non-core provision for credit losses		—			1,426			—			—			—
Less: income tax expense (benefit) on non-core items		49			(388	)		270			188			642
Core earnings PTPP (Non-GAAP)	$	32,448		$	29,570		$	30,904		$	32,678		$	36,224
Core earnings diluted earnings per share	$	0.35		$	0.38		$	0.39		$	0.39		$	0.44
Core earnings PTPP diluted earnings per share	$	0.56		$	0.51		$	0.53		$	0.56		$	0.62

Core Ratios (Annualized):
Return on average assets		0.62	%		0.65	%		0.69	%		0.68	%		0.76	%
Return on average tangible stockholders’ equity		7.00			7.51			7.85			7.86			8.91
Return on average tangible common equity		7.34			7.89			8.24			8.26			9.36
Efficiency ratio		65.81			67.74			66.00			63.47			61.05

	March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,			March 31,
		2025			2024			2024			2024			2024
Tangible Equity:
Total stockholders’ equity	$	1,709,117		$	1,702,757		$	1,694,508		$	1,676,669		$	1,665,837
Less:
Goodwill		523,308			523,308			506,146			506,146			506,146
Intangibles		11,740			12,680			7,056			7,859			8,669
Tangible stockholders’ equity		1,174,069			1,166,769			1,181,306			1,162,664			1,151,022
Less:
Preferred stock		55,527			55,527			55,527			55,527			55,527
Tangible common equity	$	1,118,542		$	1,111,242		$	1,125,779		$	1,107,137		$	1,095,495

Tangible Assets:
Total assets	$	13,309,278		$	13,421,247		$	13,488,483		$	13,321,755		$	13,418,978
Less:
Goodwill		523,308			523,308			506,146			506,146			506,146
Intangibles		11,740			12,680			7,056			7,859			8,669
Tangible assets	$	12,774,230		$	12,885,259		$	12,975,281		$	12,807,750		$	12,904,163

Tangible stockholders’ equity to tangible assets		9.19	%		9.06	%		9.10	%		9.08	%		8.92	%
Tangible common equity to tangible assets		8.76	%		8.62	%		8.68	%		8.64	%		8.49	%

Company Contact:

Patrick S. Barrett
Chief Financial Officer
OceanFirst Financial Corp.
Tel: (732) 240-4500, ext. 27507
Email: pbarrett@oceanfirst.com

The MIL Network –

April 25, 2025

MIL-OSI USA: Padilla Joins Federal and State Emergency Officials to Survey Pacific Palisades Fire Recovery Area; Highlights Bipartisan Legislation to Address Wildfire Risks

US Senate News:

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

Padilla Joins Federal and State Emergency Officials to Survey Pacific Palisades Fire Recovery Area; Highlights Bipartisan Legislation to Address Wildfire Risks

WATCH: Padilla discusses importance of bipartisan solutions like the Senate Fix Our Forests Act to combat wildfire crisisLOS ANGELES, CA — Just over 100 days after the Los Angeles fires first ignited, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot joined federal and state emergency officials for a tour today of the Pacific Palisades fire recovery area led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The tour consisted of a visit to businesses and residences impacted by the Pacific Palisades fire — with officials from FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CAL FIRE, and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) — followed by a press conference at a cleared debris site where Padilla discussed his new bipartisan legislation to address wildfire risks.
In the aftermath of the devastating Southern California fires, Padilla’s Fix Our Forests Act would help combat catastrophic wildfires, restore forest ecosystems, and make federal forest management more efficient and responsive. The comprehensive Senate bill reflects months of bipartisan Senate negotiations to find consensus on how to best improve forest management practices, accelerate processes to protect communities, advance watershed restoration, and strengthen partnerships between federal agencies, states, tribes, and private stakeholders. The Senate version of the bill would also bolster coordination efforts across agencies through a new Wildfire Intelligence Center, which would streamline the federal response and create a whole-of-government approach to combating wildfires.
A list of Senate Fix Our Forests Act provisions particularly impactful for California is available here. A one-pager on the bill is available here.
“As thousands of Los Angeles families look at a long road to recovery ahead, we need to do everything in our power not just to rebuild, but to prevent devastation from future wildfires,” said Senator Padilla. “That’s why with these LA communities in mind, I convened a bipartisan group of Western Senators to reassess how we prevent and respond to wildfires. Our Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act would increase the speed and scale of our wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts by expediting the removal of hazardous fuels, building ‘fuel breaks’ to stop mega wildfires, and creating a National Wildfire Intelligence Center to streamline federal response. We’re breaking through this harsh political climate with bipartisan solutions to both fight deadly wildfires and prevent even more greenhouse gas emissions — we can’t take this opportunity for granted.”
“The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act removes barriers and builds on California’s progress to accelerate more work on federal lands, faster,” said California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot. “As an all-lands, all-hands approach, it is one more tool in the arsenal against the threat of wildfires. As we enter peak fire season, reducing catastrophic wildfire risk requires everyone to do their part.”
“Across California, we are working year-round to reduce wildfire risk and enhance prevention efforts, and we are seeing results,” said Josh Nettles, CAL FIRE Assistant Region Chief. “Now by enhancing interagency coordination and promoting fire-resistant building methods and defensible space practices, the Fix Our Forests Act will help protect communities in the wildland-urban interface and elsewhere.”
The American West has long been prone to wildfires, but climate change, prolonged drought, and the buildup of dry fuels have increasingly intensified these fires and extended fire seasons. Wildfires today are more catastrophic — growing larger, spreading faster, and burning more land than ever before. Nationwide, total acres burned rose from 2.7 million in 2023 to nearly 9 million in 2024, a 231 percent increase.
California averages more than 7,500 wildfires a year. Not including the recent Los Angeles fires, six of the top 10 most destructive fires, three of the top five deadliest fires, and all of the state’s nine largest fires have burned since 2017. The status quo is simply unsustainable, and responding to the scale and magnitude of the crisis on the ground is essential to keeping California communities safe.
Additionally, wildfires release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate climate change. California’s 2020 fire season, the worst on record, emitted enough greenhouse gases to erase nearly two decades of progress on emissions reductions in California. Addressing this wildfire emergency is critical to ensuring that our climate progress is not undermined by the devastating impacts of these fires.
In the aftermath of the devastating Southern California fires, Senator Padilla has introduced more than 10 bills to help prevent and respond to future disasters. In February, Padilla introduced bipartisan legislation to create a national Wildfire Intelligence Center to streamline federal response and create a whole-of-government approach to combat wildfires. He also announced a package of three bipartisan bills to bolster fire resilience and proactive mitigation efforts, including the Fire-Safe Electrical Corridors Act, the Wildfire Emergency Act, and the Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act. In January, Padilla introduced another suite of bipartisan bills to strengthen wildfire recovery and resilience, including the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act, the Fire Suppression and Response Funding Assurance Act, and the Disaster Housing Reform for American Families Act. Additionally, earlier this month, he introduced the FEMA Independence Act, bipartisan legislation to restore the FEMA as an independent, cabinet-level agency and improve efficiency in federal emergency response efforts.
Senator Padilla also visited Altadena last month, joining Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), FEMA, local leaders, and representatives from the Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and USACE for a tour and briefing on cleanup and recovery efforts in the aftermath of the Eaton Fire.
Video of today’s press conference is available here, and can be downloaded here.
Additional photos from today’s tour are available here.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Construction Underway on Saratoga County Roundabout

Source: US State of New York

overnor Kathy Hochul today announced that construction is underway on a $3.4 million project that will enhance motorist safety and improve traffic flow along an important travel route in Saratoga County and a key gateway to the historic City of Saratoga Springs. The project is reconfiguring the traditional four-way, signalized intersection of New York State Route 29, Rowland Street and Petrified Sea Gardens Road in the Town of Milton into a modern, single-lane roundabout that will reduce congestion and points of potential vehicle conflict. The intersection is less than three miles away from Saratoga Springs’ bustling downtown district.

“New Yorkers need the best and safest roads so they can travel to work, visit their families and shop for leisure,” Governor Hochul said. “While we are transforming the infrastructure of our state and connecting our roads to ensure safer and more efficient travel, the construction of this new roundabout on State Route 29 in Saratoga County would not be possible without our roadside workers, who risk their lives every day delivering for our state and keep us moving.”

New York State Department of Transportation Commissioner Marie Therese Dominguez said, “Thanks to Governor Hochul’s leadership, New York State continues to lead the way in reimagining our infrastructure to better connect communities and get people where they need to go safely and efficiently. The transformation of this intersection along State Route 29 into a roundabout will reduce vehicle congestion along a vital travel corridor in Saratoga County and make it easier to reach one of the sparkling jewels of upstate New York, the City of Saratoga Springs.”

State Route 29 — also known as Washington Street — is a major east-west artery that connects the Town of Milton with Saratoga Springs and its many popular attractions, including the Saratoga Race Course and the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. Rowland Street is also a key north-south local connector that provides access to local residential communities as well as the Saratoga County Airport.

The new roundabout will improve overall traffic conditions by reducing idling time and allowing vehicles to navigate the intersection more efficiently.

Roundabouts are engineered to maximize safety and minimize congestion. Compared to some traditional intersections, traffic flows more freely through roundabouts, cutting congestion and commute times. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because they typically occur at slower speeds. Roundabouts also eliminate the need for electric-powered traffic signals. Watch a video about how to safely navigate a roundabout.

To minimize disruptions, the New York State Department of Transportation will maintain traffic in each direction on State Route 29 throughout construction. The project is expected to be in its final stages in early June and is not expected to impact travel to the Belmont Stakes Racing Festival, which runs from June 4 through June 8. Construction is expected to be substantially complete by late June, well before the start of the regular race season at the Saratoga Race Course.

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer said, “The intersection of Rowland Street and Petrified Sea Gardens Road is part of one of Saratoga’s most vital routes. Thanks to $1 million in federal funding from my Bipartisan Infrastructure & Jobs Law, we are paving the way for a safer roundabout that will improve traffic flow. These improvements will make it easier for residents and visitors to reach the historic Saratoga Springs and travel throughout the Capital Region more easily and safely. I’m grateful that Governor Hochul is putting these federal dollars to good use to improve safety along this key gateway.”

Saratoga County Administrator Steve Bulger said, “Saratoga County is pleased to see new infrastructure investments as our County continues to grow. We believe this new roundabout will improve traffic flow at a key intersection that will benefit our constituents moving forward.”

Town of Milton Supervisor Scott Ostrander said, “Our town is one of the fastest growing towns in the County. Unfortunately, it’s growing faster than everyone has expected. I think the roundabout is a positive for our town because it will clear up the congested traffic in our town with the roundabout creating a steady flow of traffic which will hopefully take care of the congestion problem with the population continuously growing.”

About the Department of Transportation
It is the mission of the New York State Department of Transportation to provide a safe, reliable, equitable, and resilient transportation system that connects communities, enhances quality of life, protects the environment, and supports the economic well-being of New York State.

Lives are on the line; slow down and move over for highway workers!

Follow New York State DOT on Twitter: @NYSDOT and @NYSDOT_NYC. Find us on Facebook at facebook.com/NYSDOT.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: IAEA Director General Grossi Discusses Global Non-proliferation, Nuclear Safety Issues with Senior US Officials in Washington DC

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

IAEA Director General Grossi met with World Bank President Ayaj Banga during his three-day visit to Washington DC. (Photo: D. Candano/IAEA)

“To achieve sustainable development and prosperity, the world needs an abundance of clean, reliable and sustainable energy,” Director General Grossi said.

With World Bank President Banga, Director General Grossi shared the IAEA’s perspective on nuclear energy and said the IAEA stands ready, upon request, to provide technical support to MDBs, particularly on nuclear infrastructure development including nuclear safety, security and safeguards.

The World Bank and other MDBs currently do not contribute financing to nuclear power new build projects, although some MDBs have provided lending for upgrades to existing nuclear power reactors or their decommissioning.

Director General Grossi said that financing nuclear power would better align MDBs with the “new global consensus” forged at COP28 in Dubai, where the world called for accelerating the deployment of nuclear power along with other zero emission energy technologies to achieve deep and rapid decarbonization.

In addition, the Director General spoke at two high-profile think-tank events organised by the Council on Foreign Relations and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace respectively, answering questions on Iran’s nuclear programme, North Korea’s nuclear activities, the renewed worldwide momentum for nuclear energy and other current issues.

MIL Security OSI –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repression and retaliation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting the press

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pressuring universities and students

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

Harvard isn’t the only university feeling pressure.

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

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

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

Democracy and free speech

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

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

The record doesn’t support this claim.

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

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

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Graham Applauds Trump Administration Funding I-95 Bridge Project

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) joined federal and state officials in celebrating news from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) that the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) would receive the Trump Administration’s first federal grant agreement under the Bridge Investment Program (BIP) to fund the replacement of I-95 bridges over Lake Marion.

Last year, Senator Graham joined Governor McMaster and other South Carolina federal and state officials to celebrate the initial grant announcement. Graham led the South Carolina delegation in securing funding for this project.

“I am very grateful to Secretary Duffy and his team for starting to push the grant funds out the door – at the direction of President Trump – to make the I-95 bridges replacement project over Lake Marion a reality,” said Senator Graham. “This is one of the most important projects in our state. It’s been a collaborative effort and will tremendously improve quality of life and commerce in the region.”

“President Trump tasked my Department with a clear objective: rebuild America’s aging infrastructure,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy. “The previous administration left the nation with an unprecedented backlog of unfulfilled grant agreements and empty promises. Within 100 days of inauguration, we’re already delivering results.”

“Thank you to Secretary Duffy for delivering this critical grant money to fund the bridge on I-95,” said U.S. Senator Tim Scott. “This common-sense investment in infrastructure is a win for every South Carolinian who commutes to work, operates a business, moves our goods, and transports their family. President Trump and Secretary Duffy are proving once again that they know how to get things done and will deliver on their promise to focus on our infrastructure without saddling Americans with unnecessary debt or wasteful political agendas.”

“South Carolina appreciates the quick action by Secretary Duffy and the Trump administration to advance this critical grant project,” said South Carolina Secretary of Transportation Justin Powell. “The Lake Marion Bridge project will help ensure a bright future for the people of our state and the nation. SCDOT is prepared to move forward immediately to put these dollars to work by building big, transformative infrastructure that benefits American families.”

More information from DOT is available HERE.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Kaine, Colleagues Demand Trump Rescind Threat to Transfer Incarcerated U.S. Citizens to El Salvador Prison

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine

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

In the letter, the senators also demanded that Trump follow U.S. law, adhere to all applicable court orders, and immediately facilitate the return to the U.S. of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Trump Administration illegally deported Abrego Garcia—a father in Maryland who was legally living in the U.S.—to El Salvador in direct contravention of a court order specifically prohibiting such removal.

“Your unprecedented actions threaten the constitutional protections of all Americans and violate the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded,” wrote the senators.

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

“Our laws also do not allow you to send individuals from U.S. soil to El Salvador without due process. Further, the Executive Branch must comply with longstanding domestic and international law that prohibits the United States from transferring any person from our jurisdiction or effective control to a place where the person would face certain serious human rights violations,” wrote the senators.

“You must also end your unlawful attempts to deport noncitizens without due process under the Alien Enemies Act, as the Supreme Court ordered this weekend,” the senators concluded. “You must immediately facilitate the return to the United States of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, follow all court orders, and withdraw your dangerous and offensive claims that you may transfer U.S. citizens to a foreign prison. The Constitution demands it.”

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

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

Dear President Trump:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI United Nations: Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Holds Informal Meeting with States Parties to the Convention

Source: United Nations – Geneva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion with States Parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements and Responses by Committee Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing Remarks

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

___________

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

CERD25.003E

MIL OSI United Nations News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Commend Ukraine’s Presence Despite the Prevailing Circumstances, Raise Questions on the Treatment of Ukraine’s Indigenous Peoples and the Roma Population

Source: United Nations – Geneva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report

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

Presentation of Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions by Committee Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses by the Delegation

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

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

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

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

Questions by Committee Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses by the Delegation

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

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

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

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

Questions by Committee Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses by the Delegation

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

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

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

Questions by Committee Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses by the Delegation

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

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

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

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

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

Questions by Committee Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses by the Delegation

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

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

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

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

Questions by Committee Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses by the Delegation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions by Committee Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses by the Delegation

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

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

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

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

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

Questions by Committee Experts

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

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

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

Responses by the Delegation

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

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

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

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

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

Closing Remarks

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

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

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

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

___________

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

CERD25.002E

MIL OSI United Nations News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Fatal crash – Berry Springs

Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

A 44-year-old man has died in a single vehicle crash in Darwin’s rural area.

At 4:33pm the Joint Emergency Services Communications Centre received a report of a single vehicle crash on Hopewell Road, Berry Springs.

It was reported that a vehicle had hit a power pole and the only

occupant, the driver, was trapped inside.

Power lines were also reportedly damaged and fuel was leaking from the vehicle.

Humpty Doo and Palmerston General duties Police attended the scene with St John Ambulance and NT Fire and Emergency Services members.

Power and Water staff also attended and isolated electricity in the area.

Upon arrival at the scene St John Ambulance members confirmed the driver was deceased.

A crime scene was declared and Hopewell Road between Kentish and Old Bynoe roads is expected to remain closed until late tonight.

Anyone who may have witnessed the crash or who has dashcam footage is urged to reach out to NT Police on 131 444 and quote reference number P25112590.

MIL OSI News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Reps. Frankel, Meeks, Reproductive Freedom Caucus Leaders Demand Reinstatement of Global Family Planning Programs in Letter to Secretary Rubio

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lois Frankel (FL-21)

Washington, DC – Today, Representatives Lois Frankel (FL-22), Ranking Member of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee; Gregory Meeks (NY-05), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Diana DeGette (CO-01) and Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Co-Chairs of the Reproductive Freedom Caucus (RFC); and Grace Meng (NY-06), Chair of the RFC International Women’s Rights Task Force sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemning the Trump Administration’s actions to terminate all international family planning programs.

The Trump Administration’s decision to terminate all international family planning programs represents a reckless and dangerous assault on reproductive health care access worldwide. These programs have long been a cornerstone of U.S. global health efforts—providing life-saving care, supporting maternal and child health, and empowering individuals with the tools to make informed reproductive choices. For decades, U.S.-funded international family planning initiatives have helped expand access to contraceptives, HIV prevention, safe childbirth, and reproductive health services across dozens of countries.

“We write to express alarm at the reckless reported cancellation of international family planning and reproductive health programs, which in Fiscal Year 2024 alone were estimated to save the lives of 34,000 women and girls, prevent 5.2 million unsafe abortions, and serve 47.6 million women and couples around the world with modern contraceptive care… The consequences of halting these programs are not hypothetical,” the Members said. “What is the Administration’s assessment of how many women and girls will be impacted by the cancellation of family planning and reproductive health programs?”

The Members also expressed their outrage that the decision to eliminate these programs jeopardizes the health and futures of millions in low- and middle-income countries, while undermining global public health progress and U.S. diplomatic credibility.

“For more than six decades, the United States has led the world in supporting voluntary international family planning and reproductive health programs… These efforts are proven to reduce unintended pregnancies, prevent maternal and child deaths, promote women’s empowerment and the ability to safely and freely grow their families, and lift families out of poverty,” the Members continued. “They also advance U.S. national interests and make our nation safer, stronger, and more prosperous by contributing to global health, stability, and economic growth.”

For full text of the letter, click here.

###

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Three Members of an International Money Laundering Organization Charged with Laundering Millions of Dollars in Drug Proceeds

Source: US State of Vermont

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Payroll Services Company Owner Sentenced to Prison

Source: US State of Vermont

Defendant Defrauded the United States of More than $20M in Taxes While Amassing a Large Collection of Luxury Goods Including 27 Ferraris

A Florida man was sentenced today to 50 months in prison for not paying taxes withheld from his employees’ wages and filing a false tax return.

The following is according to court documents and statements made in court: Matthew Brown, of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, owned and operated multiple businesses in and around Martin County, Florida. One of these businesses was a payroll services company known as Elite Payroll. Elite Payroll provided payroll services to small businesses in and around St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. Elite Payroll was hired by its clients to collect and pay over the Social Security, Medicare, and federal income taxes withheld from clients’ employees’ wages and to pay over those funds to the IRS each quarter. The timely payment of these taxes is critical to the functioning of the U.S. government, including because they are the primary source of funding for Social Security and Medicare. The federal income taxes that are withheld from employees’ wages also account for a significant portion of all federal income taxes collected each year.

Between 2014 and 2022, Brown did not pay over $20,000,000 in taxes withheld from the wages of employees of clients of Elite Payroll and from other businesses he controlled and instead enriched himself. To effectuate his scheme, Brown charged his clients the full amount of their tax liabilities but then filed false employment tax returns with the IRS that substantially underreported their liabilities, and pocketing the difference. For example, for one quarter in 2021, a client owed approximately $219,000 in taxes. Elite Payroll collected that amount from the client but filed a false tax return with the IRS claiming that the client only owed approximately $32,000, which Elite paid. Brown then kept the remaining approximately $190,000.

Instead of paying over the funds, Brown purchased commercial and residential real estate, including his multimillion-dollar home, a Valhalla 55 Sport Yacht, a Falcon 50 Aircraft, and a large collection of cars including Porsches, Rolls Royces, and 27 Ferraris.

In addition to his prison sentence, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon for the Southern District of Florida ordered Brown to serve two years of supervised release and to pay $22,401,585 in restitution, and a $200,000 fine to the United States.

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Hayden O’Bryne of the Southern District of Florida made the announcement.

IRS Criminal Investigation investigated the case.

Trial Attorney Andrew Ascencio of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Porter for the Southern District of Florida prosecuted the case.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Payroll Services Company Owner Sentenced to Prison

Source: United States Attorneys General

Defendant Defrauded the United States of More than $20M in Taxes While Amassing a Large Collection of Luxury Goods Including 27 Ferraris

A Florida man was sentenced today to 50 months in prison for not paying taxes withheld from his employees’ wages and filing a false tax return.

The following is according to court documents and statements made in court: Matthew Brown, of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, owned and operated multiple businesses in and around Martin County, Florida. One of these businesses was a payroll services company known as Elite Payroll. Elite Payroll provided payroll services to small businesses in and around St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. Elite Payroll was hired by its clients to collect and pay over the Social Security, Medicare, and federal income taxes withheld from clients’ employees’ wages and to pay over those funds to the IRS each quarter. The timely payment of these taxes is critical to the functioning of the U.S. government, including because they are the primary source of funding for Social Security and Medicare. The federal income taxes that are withheld from employees’ wages also account for a significant portion of all federal income taxes collected each year.

Between 2014 and 2022, Brown did not pay over $20,000,000 in taxes withheld from the wages of employees of clients of Elite Payroll and from other businesses he controlled and instead enriched himself. To effectuate his scheme, Brown charged his clients the full amount of their tax liabilities but then filed false employment tax returns with the IRS that substantially underreported their liabilities, and pocketing the difference. For example, for one quarter in 2021, a client owed approximately $219,000 in taxes. Elite Payroll collected that amount from the client but filed a false tax return with the IRS claiming that the client only owed approximately $32,000, which Elite paid. Brown then kept the remaining approximately $190,000.

Instead of paying over the funds, Brown purchased commercial and residential real estate, including his multimillion-dollar home, a Valhalla 55 Sport Yacht, a Falcon 50 Aircraft, and a large collection of cars including Porsches, Rolls Royces, and 27 Ferraris.

In addition to his prison sentence, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon for the Southern District of Florida ordered Brown to serve two years of supervised release and to pay $22,401,585 in restitution, and a $200,000 fine to the United States.

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Hayden O’Bryne of the Southern District of Florida made the announcement.

IRS Criminal Investigation investigated the case.

Trial Attorney Andrew Ascencio of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Porter for the Southern District of Florida prosecuted the case.

MIL Security OSI –

April 25, 2025

MIL-OSI: Business First Bancshares, Inc., Announces Financial Results for Q1 2025

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

BATON ROUGE, La., April 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Business First Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: BFST) (Business First), parent company of b1BANK, today announced its unaudited results for the quarter ended March 31, 2025. Business First reported net income available to common shareholders of $19.2 million or $0.65 per diluted common share, increases of $4.1 million and $0.14, respectively, compared to the linked quarter ended Dec. 31, 2024. On a non-GAAP basis, core net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, which excludes certain income and expenses, was $19.3 million or $0.65 per diluted common share, a decrease of $0.2 million and $0.01, from the linked quarter.

“We are excited to start the year off with solid earnings,” said Jude Melville, chairman, president and CEO of Business First Bancshares. “We increased our capital, our reserves, and our per share tangible book value at healthy rates, while demonstrating diversity of our revenue streams and growth of margins in our core spread business. We are also proud of our less tangible development, continuing to integrate our latest acquisition and implementing a number of technological initiatives including preparation for our core conversion in the second quarter, investments that will enable us to provide high quality and more efficient service for our client base into the future.”

On Thursday, April 24, 2025, Business First’s board of directors declared a quarterly preferred dividend in the amount of $18.75 per share, which is the full quarterly dividend of 1.875% based on the per annum rate of 7.50%. Additionally, the board of directors declared a quarterly common dividend based upon financial performance for the first quarter in the amount of $0.14 per share of common stock. The preferred and common dividends will be paid on May 31, 2025, or as soon thereafter as practicable, to the shareholders of record as of May 15, 2025.

Quarterly Highlights

Solid Core Performance. Return to common shareholders on average assets, on an annualized basis, was 1.00% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, or 1.01% on a non-GAAP basis, compared to 0.78% or 1.00% on a non-GAAP basis for the linked quarter.

Net Interest Margin (NIM) Expansion. Net interest income totaled $66.0 million and net interest margin and net interest spread were 3.68% and 2.91%, respectively, compared to $65.7 million, 3.61% and 2.77% for the linked quarter. Non-GAAP net interest margin and net interest spread (excluding loan discount accretion of $0.8 million) were 3.64% and 2.86% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, compared to 3.56% and 2.72% (excluding loan discount accretion of $1.0 million) for the linked quarter. The increases of 8 basis points (bps) and 14 bps were driven by a reduction in Business First’s overall cost of funding.

Noninterest Income Investments. Various noninterest income channels produced solid aggregate returns. Loan sales, mostly attributable to Small Business Administration (SBA) loans, produced income of $1.3 million, an increase of $1.0 million when compared to the linked quarter, along with continued consistent performance in the swap business with revenue of $739,000. Appreciation and income from our equity investments also produced income of $751,000 for the quarter.

Capital Growth. Common equity to total assets increased from 9.26% to 9.69% compared to the linked quarter. Tangible common equity to tangible assets increased from 7.63% to 8.06%, 5.64% or 22.89% annualized, compared to the linked quarter. The increase was largely driven by quarterly earnings, which accounted for approximately 69.9%, or 32 bps. On a non-GAAP basis, tangible book value per common share increased from $19.92 at Dec. 31, 2024, to $20.84 at March 31, 2025, 4.62% or 18.73% annualized.

Statement of Financial Condition

Loans

Loans held for investment were flat compared to the linked quarter with a decrease of $480,000 or .01%, .03% annualized. Real estate construction loans decreased $36.8 million from the linked quarter, compared to an increase of $49.8 million from the linked quarter in real estate residential loans, largely due to the conversion of multi- family construction to permanent financing. Based on unpaid principal balances, Texas- based loans represented approximately 41% of the overall loan portfolio as of March 31, 2025, no change from the linked quarter.

Credit Quality

Credit quality metrics regressed with isolated credit migration occurring during the quarter. The ratio of nonperforming loans compared to loans held for investment increased 27 bps to 0.69% at March 31, 2025, while the ratio of nonperforming assets compared to total assets increased 16 bps to 0.55% compared to the linked quarter.

The increase in loans past due 90 days and accruing is attributable to a single $4.6 million relationship. The increase in nonaccrual loans is largely attributable to two relationships with outstanding balances of $8.4 million for which Business First reserved a total of $2.3 million during the quarter.

Securities

The securities portfolio increased $27.0 million, or 3.02%, from the linked quarter, impacted by $12.9 million in positive fair value adjustments and the remainder of the increase was primarily attributed to purchases of mortgage-backed securities. The securities portfolio, based on estimated fair value, represented 11.83% of total assets as of March 31, 2025.

Deposits

Deposits decreased $53.1 million or 0.82%, 3.31% annualized, for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, compared to the linked quarter. Noninterest bearing deposits decreased $48.7 million, with the decline driven primarily by customer withdrawals as opposed to full account closures. New account openings continued in the quarter led by our Houston, Dallas, and Southwest Louisiana regions. Business First generated approximately $379.9 million from new deposit accounts during the quarter.

Borrowings

Borrowings decreased $49.2 million or 10.17%, from the linked quarter due primarily to a reduction in short-term Federal Home Loan Bank advances and a $7.0 million redemption of subordinated debt by Business First.

Shareholders’ Equity

Shareholders’ equity increased $26.8 million during the quarter ended March 31, 2025. Accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) increased $10.1 million or 16.12%, during the quarter due to positive after-tax fair value adjustments in the securities portfolio. Book value per common share increased to $25.51 at March 31, 2025, compared to $24.62 at Dec. 31, 2024 due to strong earnings and positive fair value adjustments attributable to the securities portfolio. On a non-GAAP basis, tangible book value per common share increased from $19.92 at Dec. 31, 2024, to $20.84 at March 31, 2025, 4.62% or 18.73% annualized.

Results of Operations

Net Interest Income

For the quarter ended March 31, 2025, net interest income totaled $66.0 million, compared to $65.7 million from the linked quarter. Loan and interest-earning asset yields of 6.99% and 6.35%, decreased 6 and 3 bps, respectively, compared to 7.05% and 6.38% from the linked quarter. However, net interest margin and net interest spread were 3.68% and 2.91% compared to 3.61% and 2.77% for the linked quarter. The overall cost of funds, which included noninterest-bearing deposits, declined 11 bps from 2.93% from the linked quarter to 2.82% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, through continued management of deposit costs.

Non-GAAP net interest income (excluding loan discount accretion of $0.8 million) totaled $65.2 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, compared to $64.7 million (excluding loan discount accretion of $1.0 million) for the linked quarter. Non-GAAP net interest margin and net interest spread (excluding loan discount accretion of $0.8 million) were 3.64% and 2.86%, respectively, for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, compared to 3.56% and 2.72% (excluding loan discount accretion of $1.0 million) for the linked quarter. Excluding loan discount accretion, loan yields decreased 4 bps to 6.94% from 6.98%, and interest earnings asset yields decreased 3 bps to 6.30% from 6.33%, compared to the linked quarter.

Provision for Credit Losses

During the quarter ended March 31, 2025, Business First recorded a provision for credit losses of $2.8 million, compared to $6.7 million from the linked quarter. The linked quarter’s reserve was primarily associated with the Oakwood acquisition on October 1, 2024. The current quarter’s reserve was largely associated with $2.3 million in additional individual reserves for two commercial lending relationships, resulting in a 30.7% coverage ratio of their remaining book balances as of March 31, 2025.

Other Income

For the quarter ended March 31, 2025, other income increased $1.4 million or 11.55%, compared to the linked quarter. The net increase was largely attributable to a $1.0 million increase in gain on sales of loans, attributable to SBA sales, a $630,000 gain on extinguishment of debt related to an early redemption of $7.0 million in subordinated debt, and a $565,000 increase in pass-through income on equity investments, offset by a $549,000 reduction in swap fee income.

Other Expenses

For the quarter ended March 31, 2025, other expenses increased by $1.0 million or 2.03%, compared to the linked quarter. The increase was largely attributable to a $1.4 million increase in salaries and benefits, of which $430,000 were associated with acquisition-related expenses attributable to retention, severance, and stay payments, and the remainder largely associated with merit increases and annual reset in FICA taxes and bonus accruals.

Return on Assets and Common Equity

Return to common shareholders on average assets and common equity, each on an annualized basis, were 1.00% and 10.48% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, compared to 0.78% and 8.23%, respectively, for the linked quarter. Non-GAAP return to common shareholders on average assets and common equity, each on an annualized basis, were 1.01% and 10.53% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, compared to 1.00% and 10.58%, for the linked quarter.

Conference Call and Webcast

Executive management will host a conference call and webcast to discuss results on Thursday, April 24, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. Central Time. Interested parties may attend the call by dialing toll-free 1-800-715-9871 (North America only), conference ID 8825623, or asking for the Business First Bancshares conference call. The live webcast can be found at https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/ziae6qsd. On the day of the presentation, the corresponding slide presentation will be available to view on the b1BANK website at https://www.b1bank.com/shareholder-info.

About Business First Bancshares, Inc.

Business First Bancshares, Inc., (Nasdaq: BFST) through its banking subsidiary b1BANK, has $7.8 billion in assets, $7.1 billion in assets under management through b1BANK’s affiliate Smith Shellnut Wilson, LLC (SSW) (excludes $0.9 billion of b1BANK assets managed by SSW) and operates Banking Centers and Loan Production Offices in markets across Louisiana and Texas providing commercial and personal banking products and services. b1BANK is a 2024 Mastercard “Innovation Award” winner and multiyear winner of American Banker Magazine’s “Best Banks to Work For.” Visit b1BANK.com for more information.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

This press release includes certain non-GAAP financial measures (e.g., referenced as “core” or “tangible”) intended to supplement, not substitute for, comparable GAAP measures. “Core” measures typically adjust income available to common shareholders for certain significant activities or transactions that, in management’s opinion, can distort period-to-period comparisons of Business First’s performance. Transactions that are typically excluded from non-GAAP “core” measures include realized and unrealized gains/losses on former bank premises and equipment, investment sales, acquisition- related expenses (including, but not limited to, legal costs, system conversion costs, severance and retention payments, etc.). “Tangible” measures adjust common equity by subtracting goodwill, core deposit intangibles, and customer intangibles, net of accumulated amortization. Management believes presentations of these non-GAAP financial measures provide useful supplemental information that is essential to a proper understanding of the operating results of Business First’s core business. These non- GAAP disclosures are not necessarily comparable to non-GAAP measures that may be presented by other companies. Reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures to GAAP financial measures are provided at the end of the tables below.

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements contained in this release may not be based on historical facts and are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking statements may be identified by their reference to a future period or periods or by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “may,” “might,” “will,” “would,” “could,” or “intend.” We caution you not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements contained in this news release, in that actual results could differ materially from those indicated in such forward-looking statements as a result of a variety of factors, including those factors specified in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and other public filings. We undertake no obligation to update these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that occur after the date of this news release.

Additional Information

For additional information about Business First, you may obtain Business First’s reports that are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) free of charge by using the SEC’s EDGAR service on the SEC’s website at www.SEC.gov or by contacting the SEC for further information at 1-800-SEC-0330. Alternatively, these documents can be obtained free of charge from Business First by directing a request to: Business First Bancshares, Inc., 500 Laurel Street, Suite 101, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801, Attention: Corporate Secretary.

No Offer or Solicitation

This release does not constitute or form part of any offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to purchase, any securities of Business First. There will be no sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of such jurisdiction.

Business First Bancshares, Inc.
Selected Financial Information
(Unaudited)
	Three Months Ended
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
(Dollars in thousands)		2025			2024			2024

Balance Sheet Ratios

Loans (HFI) to Deposits		92.61	%		91.86	%		91.32	%
Shareholders’ Equity to Assets Ratio		10.61	%		10.18	%		9.69	%

Loans Receivable Held for Investment (HFI)

Commercial	$	1,862,176		$	1,868,675		$	1,426,957
Real Estate:
Commercial		2,472,121			2,483,223			2,215,889
Construction		633,698			670,502			662,013
Residential		934,357			884,533			717,007
Total Real Estate		4,040,176			4,038,258			3,594,909
Consumer and Other		78,567			74,466			66,973
Total Loans (Held for Investment)	$	5,980,919		$	5,981,399		$	5,088,839

Allowance for Loan Losses

Balance, Beginning of Period	$	54,840		$	42,154		$	40,414
Oakwood – PCD ALLL		–			8,410			–
Charge-offs – Quarterly		(1,648	)		(2,290	)		(533	)
Recoveries – Quarterly		671			654			141
Provision for Loan Losses – Quarterly		3,000			5,912			1,143
Balance, End of Period	$	56,863		$	54,840		$	41,165

Allowance for Loan Losses to Total Loans (HFI)		0.95	%		0.92	%		0.81	%
Allowance for Credit Losses to Total Loans (HFI) (1)		1.01	%		0.98	%		0.88	%
Net Charge-offs (Recoveries) to Average Quarterly Total Loans		0.02	%		0.03	%		0.01	%

Remaining Loan Purchase Discount	$	11,322		$	12,121		$	11,411

Nonperforming Assets

Nonperforming Loans:
Nonaccrual Loans	$	35,915		$	24,147		$	20,778
Loans Past Due 90 Days or More		5,635			860			855
Total Nonperforming Loans		41,550			25,007			21,633
Other Nonperforming Assets:
Other Real Estate Owned		1,282			5,529			1,339
Other Nonperforming Assets		–			–			–
Total Other Nonperforming Assets		1,282			5,529			1,339
Total Nonperforming Assets	$	42,832		$	30,536		$	22,972

Nonperforming Loans to Total Loans (HFI)		0.69	%		0.42	%		0.43	%
Nonperforming Assets to Total Assets		0.55	%		0.39	%		0.34	%

(1) Allowance for Credit Losses includes the Allowance for Loan Loss and Reserve for Unfunded Commitments.

Business First Bancshares, Inc.
Selected Financial Information
(Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)		2025			2024			2024

Per Share Data

Basic Earnings per Common Share	$	0.65		$	0.52		$	0.49
Diluted Earnings per Common Share		0.65			0.51			0.48
Dividends per Common Share		0.14			0.14			0.14
Book Value per Common Share		25.51			24.62			22.64


Average Common Shares Outstanding		29,329,668			29,311,111			25,127,187
Average Diluted Common Shares Outstanding		29,545,921			29,520,781			25,429,194
End of Period Common Shares Outstanding		29,572,297			29,552,358			25,485,383


Annualized Performance Ratios

Return to Common Shareholders on Average Assets (1)		1.00	%		0.78	%		0.74	%
Return to Common Shareholders on Average Common Equity (1)		10.48	%		8.23	%		8.51	%
Net Interest Margin (1)		3.68	%		3.61	%		3.32	%
Net Interest Spread (1)		2.91	%		2.77	%		2.36	%
Efficiency Ratio (2)		63.85	%		63.91	%		69.80	%

Total Quarterly/Year-to-Date Average Assets	$	7,750,982		$	7,721,338		$	6,667,527
Total Quarterly/Year-to-Date Average Common Equity		742,930			731,820			577,643

Other Expenses

Salaries and Employee Benefits	$	29,497		$	28,101		$	25,416
Occupancy and Bank Premises		3,401			3,166			2,514
Depreciation and Amortization		2,152			2,278			1,676
Data Processing		3,236			3,856			2,579
FDIC Assessment Fees		1,184			1,009			828
Legal and Other Professional Fees		1,013			975			866
Advertising and Promotions		1,291			1,710			1,145
Utilities and Communications		733			775			674
Ad Valorem Shares Tax		1,125			1,357			900
Directors’ Fees		279			290			282
Other Real Estate Owned Expenses and Write-Downs		23			182			37
Merger and Conversion-Related Expenses		250			168			340
Other		6,394			5,703			5,265
Total Other Expenses	$	50,578		$	49,570		$	42,522

Other Income

Service Charges on Deposit Accounts	$	2,860		$	2,878		$	2,439
Gain (Loss) on Sales of Securities		(1	)		21			(1	)
Debit Card and ATM Fee Income		1,858			2,069			1,776
Bank-Owned Life Insurance Income		808			990			579
Gain on Sales of Loans		1,256			252			139
Mortgage Origination Income		110			36			69
Fees and Brokerage Commission		2,148			2,063			1,937
Gain (Loss) on Sales of Other Real Estate Owned		(268	)		40			63
Loss on Disposal of Other Assets		155			–			–
Gain on Extinguishment of Debt		630			–			–
Swap Fee Income		739			1,288			229
Pass-Through Income (Loss) from Other Investments		751			186			294
Other		2,180			2,034			1,862
Total Other Income	$	13,226		$	11,857		$	9,386


(1) Average outstanding balances are determined utilizing daily averages and average yield/rate is calculated utilizing an actual day count convention.
(2) Noninterest expense (excluding provision for loan losses) divided by noninterest income plus net interest income less gain/loss on sales of securities.

Business First Bancshares, Inc.
Consolidated Balance Sheets
(Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
(Dollars in thousands)		2025			2024			2024

Assets

Cash and Due From Banks	$	312,887		$	319,098		$	185,906
Federal Funds Sold		117,422			197,669			211,292
Securities Purchased under Agreements to Resell		50,589			50,835			–
Securities Available for Sale, at Fair Values		920,573			893,549			872,903
Mortgage Loans Held for Sale		–			717			77
Loans and Lease Receivable		5,980,919			5,981,399			5,088,839
Allowance for Loan Losses		(56,863	)		(54,840	)		(41,165	)
Net Loans and Lease Receivable		5,924,056			5,926,559			5,047,674
Premises and Equipment, Net		81,582			81,953			68,716
Accrued Interest Receivable		33,741			35,872			29,326
Other Equity Securities		40,947			41,100			34,940
Other Real Estate Owned		1,282			5,529			1,339
Cash Value of Life Insurance		117,950			117,645			100,056
Deferred Taxes, Net		25,289			29,591			26,800
Goodwill		121,691			121,572			91,527
Core Deposit and Customer Intangibles		16,538			17,252			11,372
Other Assets		20,181			18,149			13,630

Total Assets	$	7,784,728		$	7,857,090		$	6,695,558

Liabilities

Deposits
Noninterest-Bearing	$	1,308,312		$	1,357,045		$	1,295,050
Interest-Bearing		5,149,869			5,154,286			4,277,700
Total Deposits		6,458,181			6,511,331			5,572,750

Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase		19,046			22,621			17,207
Federal Home Loan Bank Borrowings		317,352			355,875			308,206
Subordinated Debt		92,702			99,760			99,933
Subordinated Debt – Trust Preferred Securities		5,000			5,000			5,000
Accrued Interest Payable		5,356			5,969			3,930
Other Liabilities		60,779			57,068			39,498

Total Liabilities		6,958,416			7,057,624			6,046,524

Shareholders’ Equity

Preferred Stock		71,930			71,930			71,930
Common Stock		29,572			29,552			25,485
Additional Paid-In Capital		501,609			500,024			398,511
Retained Earnings		276,045			260,958			224,742
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss		(52,844	)		(62,998	)		(71,634	)

Total Shareholders’ Equity		826,312			799,466			649,034

Total Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity	$	7,784,728		$	7,857,090		$	6,695,558

Business First Bancshares, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Income
(Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31,			December 31,		March 31,
(Dollars in thousands)		2025			2024		2024

Interest Income:
Interest and Fees on Loans	$	102,992		$	104,697	$	85,947
Interest and Dividends on Securities		7,265			7,310		5,599
Interest on Federal Funds Sold and Due From Banks		3,436			4,135		4,465
Total Interest Income		113,693			116,142		96,011

Interest Expense:
Interest on Deposits		42,439			44,862		38,029
Interest on Borrowings		5,271			5,551		6,451
Total Interest Expense		47,710			50,413		44,480

Net Interest Income		65,983			65,729		51,531

Provision for Credit Losses		2,812			6,712		1,186

Net Interest Income After Provision for Credit Losses		63,171			59,017		50,345

Other Income:
Service Charges on Deposit Accounts		2,860			2,878		2,439
(Loss) Gain on Sales of Securities		(1	)		21		(1	)
Gain on Sales of Loans		1,256			252		139
Other Income		9,111			8,706		6,809
Total Other Income		13,226			11,857		9,386

Other Expenses:
Salaries and Employee Benefits		29,497			28,101		25,416
Occupancy and Equipment Expense		7,356			7,087		5,357
Merger and Conversion-Related Expense		250			168		340
Other Expenses		13,475			14,214		11,409
Total Other Expenses		50,578			49,570		42,522

Income Before Income Taxes		25,819			21,304		17,209

Provision for Income Taxes		5,276			4,816		3,639

Net Income		20,543			16,488		13,570

Preferred Stock Dividends		1,350			1,350		1,350

Net Income Available to Common Shareholders	$	19,193		$	15,138	$	12,220

Business First Bancshares, Inc.
Consolidated Net Interest Margin
(Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31, 2025								December 31, 2024								March 31, 2024
(Dollars in thousands)	Average Outstanding Balance			Interest Earned/ Interest Paid		Average Yield/ Rate			Average Outstanding Balance			Interest Earned/ Interest Paid		Average Yield/ Rate			Average Outstanding Balance			Interest Earned/ Interest Paid		Average Yield/ Rate

Assets

Interest-Earning Assets:
Total Loans	$	5,972,120		$	102,992		6.99	%	$	5,911,183		$	104,697		7.05	%	$	5,026,937		$	85,947		6.88	%
Securities		924,693			6,614		2.90	%		936,314			6,707		2.85	%		888,933			5,599		2.53	%
Securities Purchased under Agreements to Resell		50,836			651		5.19	%		44,252			603		5.42	%		–			–		0.00	%
Interest-Bearing Deposit in Other Banks		315,750			3,436		4.41	%		346,035			4,135		4.75	%		330,260			4,465		5.44	%
Total Interest-Earning Assets		7,263,399			113,693		6.35	%		7,237,784			116,142		6.38	%		6,246,130			96,011		6.18	%
Allowance for Loan Losses		(54,711	)			.				(52,130	)							(40,526	)
Noninterest-Earning Assets		542,294								535,684								461,923
Total Assets	$	7,750,982		$	113,693				$	7,721,338		$	116,142				$	6,667,527		$	96,011


Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity

Interest-Bearing Liabilities:
Interest-Bearing Deposits	$	5,141,498		$	42,439		3.35	%	$	5,053,759		$	44,862		3.53	%	$	4,072,600		$	38,029		3.76	%
Subordinated Debt		97,251			1,262		5.26	%		99,797			1,331		5.31	%		99,972			1,356		5.46	%
Subordinated Debt – Trust Preferred Securities		5,000			99		8.03	%		5,000			107		8.51	%		5,000			113		9.09	%
Bank Term Funding Program		–			–		0.00	%		–			–		0.00	%		260,440			2,788		4.31	%
Advances from Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB)		362,092			3,796		4.25	%		373,236			3,975		4.24	%		223,501			2,094		3.77	%
Other Borrowings		18,321			114		2.52	%		21,569			138		2.55	%		16,116			100		2.50	%
Total Interest-Bearing Liabilities		5,624,162			47,710		3.44	%		5,553,361			50,413		3.61	%		4,677,629			44,480		3.82	%

Noninterest-Bearing Liabilities:
Noninterest-Bearing Deposits		1,244,793							$	1,292,623							$	1,282,815
Other Liabilities		67,167								71,604								57,510
Total Noninterest-Bearing Liabilities		1,311,960								1,364,227								1,340,325
Shareholders’ Equity:
Common Shareholders’ Equity		742,930								731,820								577,643
Preferred Equity		71,930								71,930								71,930
Total Shareholders’ Equity		814,860								803,750								649,573
Total Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity	$	7,750,982							$	7,721,338							$	6,667,527

Net Interest Spread							2.91	%							2.77	%							2.36	%
Net Interest Income				$	65,983							$	65,729							$	51,531
Net Interest Margin							3.68	%							3.61	%							3.32	%
Overall Cost of Funds							2.82	%							2.93	%							3.00	%

NOTE: Average outstanding balances are determined utilizing daily averages and average yield/rate is calculated utilizing an Actual/365/366 day count convention.

Business First Bancshares, Inc.
Non-GAAP Measures
(Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)		2025			2024			2024

Interest Income:
Interest income	$	113,693		$	116,142		$	96,011
Core interest income		113,693			116,142			96,011
Interest Expense:
Interest expense		47,710			50,413			44,480
Core interest expense		47,710			50,413			44,480
Provision for Credit Losses: (b)
Provision for credit losses		2,812			6,712			1,186
CECL Oakwood impact (3)		–			(4,824	)		–
Core provision expense		2,812			1,888			1,186

Other Income:
Other income		13,226			11,857			9,386
Gain on former bank premises and equipment		(155	)		–			(50	)
Loss (gain) on sale of securities		1			(21	)		1
Gain on extinguishment of debt		(630	)		–			–
Core other income		12,442			11,836			9,337

Other Expense:
Other expense		50,578			49,570			42,522
Acquisition-related expenses (2)		(679	)		(168	)		(715	)
Core conversion expenses		(216	)		(463	)		–
Core other expense		49,683			48,939			41,807

Pre-Tax Income: (a)
Pre-tax income		25,819			21,304			17,209
CECL Oakwood impact (3)		–			4,824			–
Gain on former bank premises and equipment		(155	)		–			(50	)
Loss (gain) on sale of securities		1			(21	)		1
Gain on extinguishment of debt		(630	)		–			–
Acquisition-related expenses (2)		679			168			715
Core conversion expenses		216			463			–
Core pre-tax income		25,930			26,738			17,875

Provision for Income Taxes: (1)
Provision for income taxes		5,276			4,816			3,639
Tax on CECL Oakwood impact (3)		–			1,019			–
Tax on gain on former bank premises and equipment		(33	)		–			(11	)
Tax on loss (gain) on sale of securities		0			(4	)		–
Tax on gain on extinguishment of debt		(133	)		–			–
Tax on acquisition-related expenses (2)		143			6			89
Tax on core conversion expenses		46			97			–
Core provision for income taxes		5,299			5,934			3,717

Preferred Dividends:
Preferred dividends		1,350			1,350			1,350
Core preferred dividends		1,350			1,350			1,350

Net Income Available to Common Shareholders:
Net income available to common shareholders		19,193			15,138			12,220
CECL Oakwood impact (3), net of tax		–			3,805			–
Gain on former bank premises and equipment, net of tax		(122	)		–			(39	)
Loss (gain) on sale of securities, net of tax		1			(17	)		1
Gain on extinguishment of debt, net of tax		(497	)		–			–
Acquisition-related expenses (2), net of tax		536			162			626
Core conversion expenses, net of tax		170			366			–
Core net income available to common shareholders	$	19,281		$	19,454		$	12,808

Pre-tax, pre-provision earnings available to common shareholders (a+b)	$	28,631		$	28,016		$	18,395
CECL Oakwood impact (3)		–			4,824			–
Gain on former bank premises and equipment		(155	)		–			(50	)
Loss (gain) on sale of securities		1			(21	)		1
Gain on extinguishment of debt		(630	)		–			–
Acquisition-related expenses (2)		679			168			715
Core conversion expenses		216			463			–
Core pre-tax, pre-provision earnings	$	28,742		$	33,450		$	19,061

Average Diluted Common Shares Outstanding		29,545,921			29,520,781			25,429,194

Diluted Earnings Per Common Share:
Diluted earnings per common share	$	0.65		$	0.51		$	0.48
CECL Oakwood impact (3), net of tax		–			0.13			–
Gain on former bank premises and equipment, net of tax		–			–			(0.00	)
Loss (gain) on sale of securities, net of tax		0.00			(0.00	)		–
Gain on extinguishment of debt, net of tax		(0.02	)		–			–
Acquisition-related expenses (2), net of tax		0.02			0.01			0.02
Core conversion expenses, net of tax		–			0.01			–
Core diluted earnings per common share	$	0.65		$	0.66		$	0.50

Pre-tax, pre-provision profit diluted earnings per common share	$	0.97		$	0.95		$	0.72
CECL Oakwood impact (3)		–			0.16			–
Gain on former bank premises and equipment		(0.01	)		–			(0.00	)
Loss (gain) on sale of securities		0.00			(0.00	)		–
Gain on extinguishment of debt		(0.02	)		–			–
Acquisition-related expenses (2)		0.02			0.01			0.03
Core conversion expenses		0.01			0.02			–
Core pre-tax, pre-provision diluted earnings per common share	$	0.97		$	1.14		$	0.75

(1) Tax rates, exclusive of certain nondeductible merger-related expenses and goodwill, utilized were 21.129% for 2025 and 2024. These rates approximated the marginal tax rates.
(2) Includes merger and conversion-related expenses and salary and employee benefits.
(3) CECL non-purchased credit deteriorated (PCD) provision/unfunded commitment expense attributable to Oakwood.

Business First Bancshares, Inc.
Non-GAAP Measures
(Unaudited)


	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)		2025			2024			2023

Total Shareholders’ (Common) Equity:
Total shareholders’ equity	$	826,312		$	799,466		$	649,034
Preferred stock		(71,930	)		(71,930	)		(71,930	)
Total common shareholders’ equity		754,382			727,536			577,104
Goodwill		(121,691	)		(121,572	)		(91,527	)
Core deposit and customer intangible		(16,538	)		(17,252	)		(11,372	)
Total tangible common equity	$	616,153		$	588,712		$	474,205


Total Assets:
Total assets	$	7,784,728		$	7,857,090		$	6,695,558
Goodwill		(121,691	)		(121,572	)		(91,527	)
Core deposit and customer intangible		(16,538	)		(17,252	)		(11,372	)
Total tangible assets	$	7,646,499		$	7,718,266		$	6,592,659

Common shares outstanding		29,572,297			29,552,358			25,485,383

Book value per common share	$	25.51		$	24.62		$	22.64
Tangible book value per common share	$	20.84		$	19.92		$	18.61
Common equity to total assets		9.69	%		9.26	%		8.62	%
Tangible common equity to tangible assets		8.06	%		7.63	%		7.19	%

Business First Bancshares, Inc.
Non-GAAP Measures
(Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)		2025			2024			2024


Total Quarterly Average Assets	$	7,750,982		$	7,721,338		$	6,667,527
Total Quarterly Average Common Equity	$	742,930		$	731,820		$	577,643

Net Income Available to Common Shareholders:
Net income available to common shareholders	$	19,193		$	15,138		$	12,220
CECL Oakwood impact (3), net of tax		–			3,805			–
Gain on former bank premises and equipment, net of tax		(122	)		–			(39	)
Loss (gain) on sale of securities, net of tax		1			(17	)		1
Gain on extinguishment of debt, net of tax		(497	)		–			–
Acquisition-related expenses, net of tax		536			162			626
Core conversion expenses, net of tax		170			366			–
Core net income available to common shareholders	$	19,281		$	19,455		$	12,808

Return to common shareholders on average assets (annualized) (2)		1.00	%		0.78	%		0.74	%
Core return on average assets (annualized) (2)		1.01	%		1.00	%		0.77	%
Return to common shareholders on average common equity (annualized) (2)		10.48	%		8.23	%		8.51	%
Core return on average common equity (annualized) (2)		10.53	%		10.58	%		8.92	%

Interest Income:
Interest income	$	113,693		$	116,142		$	96,011
Core interest income		113,693			116,142			96,011
Interest Expense:
Interest expense		47,710			50,413			44,480
Core interest expense		47,710			50,413			44,480
Other Income:
Other income		13,226			11,857			9,386
Gain on former bank premises and equipment		(155	)		–			(50	)
Loss (gain) on sale of securities		1			(21	)		1
Gain on extinguishment of debt		(630	)		–			–
Core other income		12,442			11,836			9,337
Other Expense:
Other expense		50,578			49,570			42,522
Acquisition-related expenses		(679	)		(168	)		(715	)
Core conversion expenses		(216	)		(463	)		–
Core other expense	$	49,683		$	48,939		$	41,807

Efficiency Ratio:
Other expense (a)	$	50,578		$	49,570		$	42,522
Core other expense (c)	$	49,683		$	48,939		$	41,807
Net interest and other income (1) (b)	$	79,210		$	77,565		$	60,918
Core net interest and other income (1) (d)	$	78,425		$	77,565		$	60,868
Efficiency ratio (a/b)		63.85	%		63.91	%		69.80	%
Core efficiency ratio (c/d)		63.35	%		63.09	%		68.68	%

Total Average Interest-Earnings Assets	$	7,263,399		$	7,237,784		$	6,246,130

Net Interest Income:
Net interest income	$	65,983		$	65,729		$	51,531
Loan discount accretion		(793	)		(997	)		(785	)
Net interest income excluding loan discount accretion	$	65,190		$	64,732		$	50,746

Net interest margin (2)		3.68	%		3.61	%		3.32	%
Net interest margin excluding loan discount accretion (2)		3.64	%		3.56	%		3.27	%
Net interest spread (2)		2.91	%		2.77	%		2.36	%
Net interest spread excluding loan discount accretion (2)		2.86	%		2.72	%		2.31	%

(1) Excludes gains/losses on sales of securities.
(2) Calculated utilizing an actual day count convention.
(3) CECL non-PCD provision/unfunded commitment expense attributable to Oakwood.

The MIL Network –

April 25, 2025

MIL-OSI: RYVYL Enters Negotiations to Restructure Pre-funded Asset Sale to Debt and/or Equity

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

– Enters into a standstill agreement until May 6, 2025 in respect of pre-funded SPA –

SAN DIEGO, CA, April 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — RYVYL Inc. (NASDAQ: RVYL) (“RYVYL” or the “Company”), a leading innovator of payment transaction solutions leveraging electronic payment technology for the diverse international markets, has entered into an agreement to negotiate and potentially restructure the terms of its pre-funded asset sale of its RYVYL EU subsidiary although there is no certainty a deal will be reached. In conjunction with ongoing negotiations, the buyer has agreed a standstill period in respect of the pre-funded asset sale from April 23, 2025, to May 6, 2025. The Company has the right to extend such standstill period for an additional 21 days to May 27, 2025, in consideration of its payment of $750,000 on or before May 6, 2025.

On January 24, 2025, the Company entered into an agreement with a funding source for $15 million that was structured as a pre-funded asset sale with a 90-day closing period, which could have been terminated prior to April 23, 2025, upon RYVYL’s payment of $16.5 million. The shares of RYVYL EU subsidiary will continue to be held in escrow while the standstill period is ongoing.

About RYVYL

RYVYL Inc. (NASDAQ: RVYL) was born from a passion for empowering a new way to conduct business-to-business, consumer-to-business, and peer-to-peer payment transactions around the globe. By leveraging electronic payment technology for diverse international markets, RYVYL is a leading innovator of payment transaction solutions reinventing the future of financial transactions. Since its founding as GreenBox POS in 2017 in San Diego, RYVYL has developed applications enabling an end-to-end suite of turnkey financial products with enhanced security and data privacy, world-class identity theft protection, and rapid speed to settlement. As a result, the platform can log immense volumes of immutable transactional records at the speed of the internet for first-tier partners, merchants, and consumers around the globe. www.ryvyl.com

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This press release includes information that constitutes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking statements are based on the Company’s current beliefs, assumptions and expectations regarding future events, which in turn are based on information currently available to the Company. Such forward-looking statements include statements that are characterized by future or conditional words such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate” and “continue” or similar words. You should read statements that contain these words carefully because they discuss future expectations and plans, which contain projections of future results of operations or financial condition or state other forward-looking information.

By their nature, forward-looking statements address matters that are subject to risks and uncertainties. A variety of factors could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those expressed in or contemplated by the forward-looking statements. Risk factors affecting the Company are discussed in detail in the Company’s filings with the SEC. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except to the extent required by applicable laws.

IR Contact:
David Barnard, Alliance Advisors Investor Relations, 415-433-3777, ryvylinvestor@allianceadvisors.com

The MIL Network –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI: Definitive Healthcare Announces Timing of Its First Quarter 2025 Financial Results Conference Call and Webcast

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

FRAMINGHAM, Mass., April 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Definitive Healthcare Corp. (“Definitive Healthcare”) (Nasdaq: DH), an industry leader in healthcare commercial intelligence, today announced that it will report financial results for its first quarter ended March 31, 2025, on Thursday, May 8, 2025 after market close. The company will host a conference call and webcast at 5:00 PM (ET) / 2:00 PM (PT) to discuss the company’s financial results.

A live audio webcast of the event will be available on the Definitive Healthcare’s Investor Relations website at https://ir.definitivehc.com/.

A live dial-in will be available at 877-358-7298 (domestic) or +1-848-488-9244 (international). Shortly after the conclusion of the call, a replay of this conference call will be available through June 7, 2025 at 800-645-7964 or 757-849-6722. The replay passcode is 1765#.

About Definitive Healthcare
At Definitive Healthcare, our mission is to transform data, analytics, and expertise into healthcare commercial intelligence. We help clients uncover the right markets, opportunities, and people, so they can shape tomorrow’s healthcare industry. Our SaaS products and solutions create new paths to commercial success in the healthcare market, so companies can identify where to go next. Learn more at definitivehc.com.

Media Contact:
Bethany Swackhamer
bswackhamer@definitivehc.com

Investor Relations Contact:
Brian Denyeau
ICR for Definitive Healthcare
brian.denyeau@icrinc.com

Source: Definitive Healthcare Corp.

The MIL Network –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI: ARKO to Report First Quarter 2025 Financial Results on May 8, 2025

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

RICHMOND, Va., April 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ARKO Corp. (Nasdaq: ARKO) (the “Company”), a Fortune 500 company and one of the largest convenience store operators in the United States, today announced that the Company will host a conference call on Thursday, May 8, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time to discuss its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2025.

ARKO Corp.’s management team will host the conference call, followed by a question-and-answer period. The Company will provide its financial results in a press release prior to the call.

Date: Thursday, May 8, 2025
Time: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Toll-free dial-in number: (888) 396-8049
International dial-in number: (416) 764-8646
Webcast: ARKO’s Q1 2025 Earnings Call

A telephonic replay will be available approximately three hours after the call concludes through Saturday, June 7, 2025.

Toll-free replay number: (877) 660-6853
International replay number: (201) 612-7415
Replay ID: 13752796

A link to the live webcast and replay will also be available at https://www.arkocorp.com/news-events/ir-calendar. We encourage all participants to register at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:00 p.m. ET start time. If you have any difficulty registering or connecting with the conference call, please contact Elevate IR at (720) 330-2829.

About ARKO Corp.

ARKO Corp. (Nasdaq: ARKO) is a Fortune 500 company that owns 100% of GPM Investments, LLC and is one of the largest operators of convenience stores and wholesalers of fuel in the United States. Based in Richmond, VA, our highly recognizable Family of Community Brands offers delicious, prepared foods, beer, snacks, candy, hot and cold beverages, and multiple popular quick serve restaurant brands. We operate in four reportable segments: retail, which includes convenience stores selling merchandise and fuel products to retail customers; wholesale, which supplies fuel to independent dealers and consignment agents; fleet fueling, which includes the operation of proprietary and third-party cardlock locations and issuance of proprietary fuel cards that provide customers access to a nationwide network of fueling sites; and GPM Petroleum, which sells and supplies fuel to our retail and wholesale sites and charges a fixed fee, primarily to our fleet fueling sites. To learn more about GPM stores, visit: www.gpminvestments.com. To learn more about ARKO, visit: www.arkocorp.com.

Company Contact
Jordan Mann
ARKO Corp.
investors@gpminvestments.com

Investor Contact
Sean Mansouri, CFA
Elevate IR
(720) 330-2829
ARKO@elevate-ir.com

The MIL Network –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: NASA Orbiter Spots Curiosity Rover Making Tracks to Next Science Stop

Source: NASA

The image marks what may be the first time one of the agency’s Mars orbiters has captured the rover driving.
NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover has never been camera shy, having been seen in selfies and images taken from space. But on Feb. 28 — the 4,466th Martian day, or sol, of the mission — Curiosity was captured in what is believed to be the first orbital image of the rover mid-drive across the Red Planet.
Taken by the HiRISE (High-Resolution Imaging Science Experiment) camera aboard NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, the image shows Curiosity as a dark speck at the front of a long trail of rover tracks. Likely to last for months before being erased by wind, the tracks span about 1,050 feet (320 meters). They represent roughly 11 drives starting on Feb. 2 as Curiosity trucked along at a top speed of 0.1 mph (0.16 kph) from Gediz Vallis channel on the journey to its next science stop: a region with potential boxwork formations, possibly made by groundwater billions of years ago.
How quickly the rover reaches the area depends on a number of factors, including how its software navigates the surface and how challenging the terrain is to climb. Engineers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, which leads Curiosity’s mission, work with scientists to plan each day’s trek.
“By comparing the time HiRISE took the image to the rover’s commands for the day, we can see it was nearly done with a 69-foot drive,” said Doug Ellison, Curiosity’s planning team chief at JPL.
Designed to ensure the best spatial resolution, HiRISE takes an image with the majority of the scene in black and white and a strip of color down the middle. While the camera has captured Curiosity in color before, this time the rover happened to fall within the black-and-white part of the image.
In the new image, Curiosity’s tracks lead to the base of a steep slope. The rover has since ascended that slope since then, and it is expected to reach its new science location within a month or so.
More About Curiosity and MRO
NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover was built at JPL, which is managed for the agency by Caltech in Pasadena, California. JPL manages both the Curiosity and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter missions on behalf of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington as part of the agency’s Mars Exploration Program portfolio. The University of Arizona, in Tucson, operates HiRISE, which was built by BAE Systems in Boulder, Colorado.
For more about the missions, visit:
science.nasa.gov/mission/msl-curiosity
science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-reconnaissance-orbiter
News Media Contacts
Andrew GoodJet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.818-393-2433andrew.c.good@jpl.nasa.gov
Karen Fox / Molly WasserNASA Headquarters, Washington202-358-1600karen.c.fox@nasa.gov / molly.l.wasser@nasa.gov
2025-059

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Risk of False Positive Results with Certain Capillary Blood Collection Tubes Used with Magellan Diagnostics LeadCare Testing Systems – FDA Safety Communication

Source: US Food and Drug Administration

Date Issued: April 24, 2025
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting health care providers and laboratory staff of reports that falsely elevated (false positive) results have occurred when using ASP Global’s RAM Scientific SAFE-T-FILL Micro Capillary Blood Collection tubes with the LeadCare Testing Systems. These tests may overestimate blood lead levels and give inaccurate results when processing capillary blood samples collected in these ASP Global’s RAM Scientific SAFE-T-FILL tubes. The root cause of these false results is not yet known. The FDA is recommending that ASP Global RAM Scientific SAFE-T-FILL tubes not be used with the LeadCare Testing Systems while this issue is being investigated. False test results may delay an accurate diagnosis and may lead to improper patient management and unnecessary follow-up tests (with additional risks), increased stress for patients and families, and disruptions in care. Timely and accurate detection of elevated lead levels is essential to prevent the harmful effects of lead poisoning and ensure patients receive the right care without delay.
The FDA is issuing this communication along with the following recommendations to mitigate the potential risk of inaccurate test results to assure that patients receive accurate information regarding potential lead exposure.
Recommendations for Health Care Providers and Facilities, Laboratory Staff, and Patients and Caregivers

Avoid using ASP Global’s RAM Scientific SAFE-T-FILL Micro Capillary Blood Collection tubes with the LeadCare Testing Systems.
The capillary collection devices that are provided with the LeadCare Test Systems as well as other third-party capillary blood collection tubes, as described in the instructions for use of LeadCare Testing Systems, can still be used.
If no alternate capillary blood collection devices are available other than the ASP Global’s RAM Scientific SAFE-T-FILL Micro Capillary Blood Collection tubes, interpret results with caution and consider retesting with a different method or specimen type.
Follow CDC’s recommendations for confirmatory venous blood testing based on blood lead levels observed in capillary blood lead tests (https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/testing/index.html).

Device Description
The LeadCare, LeadCare II, LeadCare Plus, and LeadCare Ultra Blood Lead Tests are used to detect lead in a blood sample, which may be obtained from finger or heel prick (capillary). The current reports of inaccurate results are only with capillary samples collected in ASP Global RAM Scientific SAFE-T-FILL tubes. The LeadCare Testing Systems are used in clinical laboratories, doctor’s offices, clinics, and hospitals throughout the U.S. The LeadCare Test Kit includes capillary collection devices for use with the test system, and there have not been reports of falsely elevated results with the provided collection devices at this time. Sometimes third-party capillary blood collection tubes, sold separately, are also used for these tests. At this time, falsely elevated results have only been reported when ASP Global RAM Scientific SAFE-T-FILL Micro Capillary Blood Collection devices are used with the LeadCare Test Systems.
FDA Actions
The FDA is investigating the root cause of this issue with the manufacturers of the tests and collection tubes and will provide updates as critical information becomes available.
Reporting Problems with Your Device
Health professionals and patients are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of ASP Global’s RAM Scientific SAFE-T-FILL Micro Capillary Blood Collection tubes, Magellan Diagnostics LeadCare Testing Systems, or other devices to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program:

By promptly reporting adverse events, you can help the FDA identify and better understand the risks associated with medical devices. The FDA regularly monitors the post-authorization use of tests, including reports of problems with test performance or results.
Questions?
If you have questions, contact CDRH’s Division of Industry and Consumer Education (DICE).

Content current as of:
04/24/2025

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Replacing Missing or Damaged Documents

Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

Headline: Replacing Missing or Damaged Documents

Replacing Missing or Damaged Documents

FRANKFORT, Ky

– If you lost important documents in the recent floods, you are not alone

We know this is a difficult time and dealing with lost or damaged documents can feel overwhelming

But there is help available

You can learn more and get assistance retrieving these important documents by visiting your local FEMA Disaster Recovery Center

Staff there can help guide you through the process and connect you with additional resources

Find a center near you: FEMA Disaster Recovery Center LocatorReplacing things like IDs, insurance papers, and birth certificates is important

Below is a simple guide to getting your documents back quickly

It is also a good idea to double check your current inventory of these important documents, in case you need to access them quickly in an emergency

Insurance Policy InformationCall your insurance company or agent and ask for a copy of your policy, including the Declaration Page

Birth, Marriage, & Death CertificatesOrder certified copies online, by mail, or in person through the Kentucky Office of Vital Statistics

Visit the Kentucky Office of Vital Statistics or call (502) 564-4212

Driver’s License & ID CardsIf your license or ID was lost or damaged, visit a Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) Driver Licensing Regional Office

Check for locations and details at drive

ky

gov

Social Security CardApply for a replacement at www

ssa

gov

Visit your local Social Security office

Call 1-800-772-1213 for assistance

Medicare CardsRequest a new card at MyMedicare

gov

Call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227)

Tax Returns & Military RecordsIRS Tax Returns – Request copies of past tax returns at irs

gov

Military Service Records – Request replacements at www

archives

gov/veterans/military-service-records
martyce

allenjr
Thu, 04/24/2025 – 14:03

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Travel Advisory Reminder: Extended Weekend Lane Closures Begin May 1 on Route 1 at Route 138 in North Kingstown

Source: US State of Rhode Island

Traffic delays expected

The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) is reminding motorists that in one week, starting Thursday night, May 1, at 9 p.m. it will begin the first of two consecutive extended weekend lane closures on Route 1 at the Route 138 interchange in North Kingstown. RIDOT is using accelerated bridge construction methods to rapidly replace this structurally deficient bridge.

During these weekends, lanes and ramps will be temporarily shifted and closed, and detours will be implemented. Route 1 will be reduced to one lane in each direction. Motorists should expect delays and provide additional time for travel. RIDOT strongly recommends the use of alternate routes if possible. Access to local businesses along the Route 1 corridor will be maintained at all times.

RIDOT has constructed new bridge decks next to the existing bridge and will slide them into place over the weekends. The southbound bridge will be done first, with demolition of the old bridge and installation of the new one taking place from 9 p.m. on Thursday, May 1 through 5 a.m. on Monday, May 5. The northbound bridge will be replaced during the same hours beginning Thursday night, May 8 and finishing prior to the morning commute on Monday, May 12.

The planned closures and suggested detours for both weekends are as follows:

Lanes/Ramps to be Closed:

� Route 1 � one lane in each direction closed at the bridge

� Ramp from Route 1 South to Route 138 East

� Ramp from Route 138 West to Route 1 South

� Ramps that allow traffic to reverse direction from Route 1 North to Route 1 South, and Route 1 South to Route 1 North

Lanes/Ramps to Remain Open:

� Ramp from Route 1 North to Route 138 East

� Ramp from Route 138 West to Route 1 North

Suggested Detours:

� Route 1 South from East Greenwich to Route 138 East toward Jamestown/Newport: Remain on Route 1 South and reverse direction to Route 1 North using the turnaround approximately 1 mile south of the Tower (intersection with Moorsefield Road and Bridgetown Road). Follow Route 1 North to the ramp to Route 138 East. Note: Trucks will be directed to detour at Bridgetown Road to Boston Neck Road (Route 1A) to Route 138.

� Route 1 South to Route 1 North: Use same detour as Route 1 South to Route 138.

� Route 138 West from Jamestown to Route 1 South toward South Kingstown/Narragansett: Use the ramp for Route 1 North. Merge onto Route 4, then turn right onto West Allenton Road. Turn right onto Route 1 South.

� Route 1 North to Route 1 South: Use same detour as Route 138 West to Route 1 South.

In addition to the detours listed above, motorists coming from the University of Rhode Island Kington campus area heading toward North Kingstown should use Route 2 North to reach Route 4. Anyone heading driving north from the Narragansett area should use Route 1A. Drivers in the Providence area or points north may wish to use I-195 toward Newport County.

By using these extended weekend closures, motorists avoided up to two years of lane closures on Route 1. RIDOT scheduled the bridge replacement weekends to occur prior to Memorial Day and the start of Rhode Island’s busy summer tourism season.

The bridge replacements are part of a larger $35.8 million project that included repaving two long sections of Route 1. The first segment was done last year, from Shermantown Road in North Kingstown to the Stedman Government Center in South Kingstown. The second segment will be done after the bridge installation, from Shermantown Road to the Route 4 interchange.

All construction projects are subject to changes in schedule and scope depending on needs, circumstances, findings, and weather.

The Tower Hill Road Improvements project is made possible by RhodeWorks and the Bipartisan Infrastructure and Improvement Act. RIDOT is committed to bringing Rhode Island’s infrastructure into a state of good repair while respecting the environment and striving to improve it. Learn more at www.ridot.net/RhodeWorks.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: DLNR News Release-Kaua’i Sanctuary is Hugely Popular with Native and Transpacific Waterbirds, April 23, 2025

Source: US State of Hawaii

DLNR News Release-Kaua’i Sanctuary is Hugely Popular with Native and Transpacific Waterbirds, April 23, 2025

Posted on Apr 24, 2025 in Latest Department News, Newsroom

STATE OF HAWAIʻI

KA MOKU ʻĀINA O HAWAIʻI

DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

KA ‘OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI ‘ĀINA

JOSH GREEN, M.D.
GOVERNOR

DAWN CHANG
CHAIRPERSON

KAUA‘I SANCTUARY IS HUGELY POPULAR WITH NATIVE AND TRANSPACIFIC WATER BIRDS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 23, 2025

KAWAIʻELE BIRD SANCTUARY, Kaua‘i – West Kaua‘i’s Mānā Plain is attracting larger numbers of native waterbirds and migratory shore birds than DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) biologist Jason Vercelli has ever seen in his 18 years of work in the wetlands.

Four native birds, all endangered, are the Hawaiian coot, the Hawaiian gallinule or moorhen, the Hawaiian stilt, and the Koloa duck — and they’re sharing the 100 acres of wetlands with migratory shorebirds. Vercelli has nearly as many stories about his long service as there are birds, ranging from tales about birds’ cultural significance to how to manage wetlands for optimal conditions.

“The Mānā Plain used to be a huge wetland, largest one in the state. In the early 1900s it was drained for agricultural purposes and that’s the primary reason the four endangered water birds are of concern. They lost their habitat. So, in the 1990s the state decided to restore some of that lost habitat. It started with Kawaiʻele, which is the older sanctuary. Another 50 acres of newer wetlands adjoins it, and another 50 acres is set to become part of the larger sanctuary soon,” Vercelli explained. All 150 acres will be managed as the Mānā Plain wetland restoration project

The sanctuary has created intense interest from nature lovers, photographers and bird watchers, especially this time of year when parents and their offspring fill the air with flight.

Vercelli said, “People come out here to see birds they don’t usually see. I have a lot of school kids come out and help with work and enjoy the place. We have volunteer days where people can come out and enjoy the area and get a little dirty at times. It’s just a really peaceful place, especially in the morning. It’s really nice place to be at sunset.”

Perhaps the most fascinating stories Vercelli shares are about the visiting birds. “We’re seeing a lot of migratory birds now. Pretty soon they’re going to start staging where they come together as groups, get as fat as they can, and then head back to the mainland,” he said.

The small birds fly for four days, non-stop, as they can’t land in the ocean. Vercelli remarked, “I think they’re more relaxed flying to the continent as it’s a bigger target. I’m not sure, on their return, how they find this little rock out here in the middle of the Pacific.”

In addition to creating a paradise for birds and bird lovers, the Mānā Plain wetlands provide important ecological services. It helps clean and clarify water before it deposits sediment out on the reef. It acts as a natural filter and furthers the concept of care for the ‘aina, mauka to makai. It provides a service in clarifying water, because the water we draw out of this canal has a lot of sediment in the water. So, the wetland acts as a natural filter, which benefits us. It cleans up the water before it goes out to the reef.

Much of Vercelli’s work these days involves management of the wetland by improving bird habitat, controlling predators, and conducting water manipulation to keep the basins full of water and at optimal levels for various seasons, like the feeding season. At other times he needs to drop the water level to create more breeding and nesting habitat.

Vercelli sums up nearly two decades of work saying, “I can have a bad day and then come out here and see something, a new bird, or see chicks, and just seeing this and getting feedback from the people and just knowing that I was helpful in developing this is definitely a pride factor.”

He wants to continue to see the bird sanctuary grow and thrive. DOFAW has a grant to establish a visitor’s center, which Vercelli says would be a really nice addition.

# # #

RESOURCES

(All images/video Courtesy: DLNR)

HD video – Hugely Popular: Kaua‘i Sanctuary for Waterbirds and Shorebirds (web feature):

HD video – Mānā Plain wetland restoration project media clips (April 11, 2025):

(Shot sheet/transcriptions attached)

Photographs – Mānā Plain wetland restoration project media clips (April 11, 2025):

Media Contact:

Dan Dennison

Communications Director

Hawai‘i Dept. of Land and Natural Resources

808-587-0396

MIL OSI USA News –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Simplifying REACH – E-000689/2025(ASW)
Source: European Parliament
The Commission is committed to apply the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox[1]. The reinforced small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and competitiveness checks will be applied systematically to all envisaged legislation with foreseeable effects on companies, particularly on small businesses[2].

The proposal for a revision of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH)[3], planned for the fourth quarter of 2025, will respect the Better Regulation requirements.

The Commission has been working on the revision of REACH already under the previous mandate. This has allowed the Commission to carry out extensive consultations with stakeholders and a robust analysis of the expected impacts through the procurement of specific studies and the support of the Joint Research Centre and the European Chemicals Agency.

In the context of the Chemicals Industry Package and the objective of simplifying rules for the chemicals industry without compromising on safety and environmental protection, the Commission is currently updating the impact assessment accompanying the legislative proposal.

The updated impact assessment will focus on simplification and the analysis of impacts on SMEs and competitiveness. Moreover, the Commission will further consult and involve all relevant stakeholders to gather their views and recommendations.

For instance, a strategic dialogue on 25 March 2025 and dedicated discussions in an expert group meeting on 3 April 2025 have been organised to gather additional stakeholders’ perspectives.

[1] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en

[2] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on simplification and implementation. COM(2025) 47 final.

[3] OJ L 396, 30.12.2006.
Last updated: 24 April 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Potential threats to the Tagliamento River’s ecosystem – E-000543/2025(ASW)
Source: European Parliament
1. The Commission does not undertake impact assessments of plans and projects on the environment, as Member States are primarily responsible to ensure implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law. According to information provided by the Italian authorities, the construction of a weir-bridge in Pinzano for the creation of a detention basin is a measure aimed at mitigating flood risk in Italy’s Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP). Following technical assessments and studies carried out by competent authorities and discussions with stakeholders , a set of interventions was identified to achieve the mitigation effect proposed by this measure[1]. The possible environmental impacts resulting from the measure are reported in the first FRMP, which underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)[2]. The measure is also included in the current FRMP. Having been the subject of an SEA already, the assessment of actual impacts requires a more defined project design of the interventions, to be evaluated through an Environmental Impact Assessment[3] and the appropriate assessment required under Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive[4]. It must also be assessed whether these interventions would have an adverse effect on the status of the body of water concerned, and, if so, whether they would be covered by a derogation under Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive[5].

2. Based on the information above, the Commission has no evidence that the measure infringes EU law. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue monitoring the situation and may decide to take appropriate action.

[1] The set of interventions includes: i) a weir with an in-line detention basin in the river reach crossed by the Dignano bridge; ii) a weir with an off-line detention basin, close to the Madrisio bridge, and iii) adjustments to enhance and/or retrofit levees, overflow channels, and the drainage network. The residual risk would be managed through the two non-structural measures: i) the Citizen Observatory (Osservatorio dei Cittadini) and ii) the update of Civil Protection Plans.

[2] Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30-37.

[3] Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 026 28.1.2012, p. 1.

[4] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206 22.7.1992, p. 7.

[5] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
Last updated: 24 April 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Impact of the first Omnibus package on the European Green Deal – E-000720/2025(ASW)
Source: European Parliament
On 26 February 2025, the Commission adopted Omnibus proposals to simplify the regulatory framework and boost competitiveness[1].

Those proposals cover sustainability reporting, sustainability due diligence, the taxonomy, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)[2], and the Invest EU programme[3]. The Commission remains deeply committed to building a greener and fairer society and economy.

The proposed measures aim to ensure that the transition to a decarbonised economy is achieved in the simplest, most cost-effective and least burdensome way for EU businesses.

This package will reduce complexity of EU requirements for all businesses, focus the regulatory framework on the largest companies which are likely to have a bigger impact on the climate and the environment, while still enabling companies to access sustainable finance for their clean transition.

The proposed measures exempt companies up to 1 000 employees from mandatory sustainability reporting and protects them from excessive sustainability information requests that they receive from larger companies or from financial institutions (trickle-down effect).

As regards the CBAM, the proposal introduces a de minimis exemption for goods below a threshold of 50 tonnes. This measure affects importers who import small quantities of CBAM goods, representing very small quantities of embedded emissions entering the EU from third countries.

At least 99% of emissions will remain in the CBAM scope, while around 90% of the importers, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises will be exempted.

[1] https://commission.europa.eu/publications/omnibus-i_en and https://commission.europa.eu/publications/omnibus-ii_en

[2] Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, OJ L 130, 16.5.2023, p. 52.

[3] https://investeu.europa.eu/investeu-programme_en
Last updated: 24 April 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Truck drivers on strike in Venlo, the Netherlands – E-001422/2025
Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-001422/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Marit Maij (S&D), Gabriele Bischoff (S&D), Marc Angel (S&D), Johan Danielsson (S&D), Estelle Ceulemans (S&D), Marianne Vind (S&D)

In Venlo, truck drivers from Central Asia are on strike. Their employers, often based in Lithuania where the truck drivers barely work, exploit them, deny them transparent information, fail to comply with pay legislation and make them work under poor conditions; their trucks are not even heated. These employers instruct the truck drivers to manipulate their tachographs and to knowingly lie to police officers – for example, to lie that they have slept outside of their vehicle over the weekend and have been staying with family – to avoid problems of compliance with EU legislation. If the drivers demand their pay documentation and salary, the transport companies’ reaction is to threaten them and even to send men to use violence against them.

1.Is the Commission aware of the situation of the truck drivers in Venlo, and does the Commission intend to help find a solution to the situation that these drivers are in?

2.How is the Commission planning to ensure that compliance with existing legislation, such as Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and (EU) 2020/1054 on road transport and drivers’ working conditions, and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 on recording equipment in road transport, is better enforced?

3.What is the Commission’s view of the role of these transport companies’ clients, and are they also responsible for remedying such situations?

Submitted: 8.4.2025
Last updated: 24 April 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Baltimore Man Pleads Guilty in Federal Court to Fentanyl and Cocaine Charges

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

The defendant, a felon, also possessed a firearm in connection with the drug offense.

Baltimore, Maryland – Freddie Anthony Curry, 54, of Baltimore, Maryland, pled guilty in federal court to possession with the intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl and 500 grams or more of cocaine.

Kelly O. Hayes, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, announced the plea with Special Agent in Charge William DelBagno, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – Baltimore Field Office; Special Agent in Charge Ibrar A. Mian, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) – Washington Division; and Postal Inspector in Charge Damon Wood, U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) – Washington Division.

In May 2024, the FBI and DEA began investigating Curry in connection with suspected fentanyl and cocaine trafficking in the Baltimore area. During their investigation, they verified Curry’s vehicle and residence. Authorities then executed federal search warrants on Curry’s residence and vehicle. During the search, investigators recovered approximately 980 grams of fentanyl, 1,040 grams of cocaine, digital scales, drug-packaging materials, and a Glock 19 9-millimeter handgun. Curry is prohibited from possessing a firearm due to prior felony convictions.

The parties have agreed that if the Court accepts the plea agreement, Curry will be sentenced to 120 months in federal prison. Sentencing is set for Monday, June 30, 2025, at 2 p.m.

This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.

This case is part of a Strike Force Initiative, which provides for the establishment of permanent multi-agency task force teams that work side-by-side in the same location. This co-located model enables agents from different agencies to collaborate on intelligence-driven, multi-jurisdictional operations to disrupt and dismantle the most significant drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations. The specific mission of the Baltimore Strike Force is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle violent drug trafficking, money laundering, and transnational criminal organizations to reduce drug-related and/or gang violence in the Baltimore metropolitan and surrounding areas. The Baltimore Strike Force is comprised of agents and officers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Marshals Service, the United States Secret Service, United States Postal Inspection Service, the Maryland State Police, the Baltimore Police Department, the Baltimore Sheriff’s Office, the Baltimore County Police Department, the Maryland Transportation Authority, and the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. The prosecution is being led by the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland.

U.S. Attorney Hayes commended the FBI, DEA, and USPIS for their work in the investigation. Ms. Hayes also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Simpkins who is prosecuting the case.

For more information about the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office, its priorities, and resources available to report fraud, visit www.justice.gov/usao-md and https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/community-outreach.

# # #

MIL Security OSI –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Seattle man who carjacked a BMW near Lumen Field pleads guilty in federal court

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

Seattle – A 32-year-old Seattle man pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Seattle to carjacking and using a firearm during a crime of violence, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Teal Luthy Miller. Louis Montel De’Andre Dowers was arrested June 9, 2024, hours after he carjacked a BMW outside the Seattle Team Shop on Occidental Avenue South in the Pioneer Square neighborhood. Dowers faces a mandatory minimum five years in prison and up to life in prison when sentenced by U.S. District Judge John H. Chun on August 4, 2025.

According to the plea agreement, a man was waiting for his wife, sitting in the driver’s seat of his car outside a business on Occidental Avenue South. Dowers approached the car from behind, pulled out a distinctive firearm, pointed it at the victim, and ordered him out of the car saying “It’s mine now. Get out.” The victim was able to get his dog out of the car before Dowers drove off. The victim’s wife came out of the store and was nearly hit by the car as it raced away.

Police were able to track the car to Auburn, Washington – near a middle school. Working with a description of the alleged carjacker, a King County Sheriff’s deputy located Dowers walking nearby. When searched, Dowers possessed a semi-automatic firearm that had been privately manufactured – a so-called ‘ghost gun.’ The firearm was fully loaded with a round in the chamber. In his plea agreement Dowers admits he used the gun in the carjacking

Carjacking is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Using a firearm during a crime of violence, as described in the plea agreement, is punishable by a mandatory minimum five years in prison and up to life in prison. Under the terms of the plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend no more than seven years in prison. The defense can recommend no less than five years and a day in prison. Judge Chun is not bound by the recommendations and can impose any sentence allowed by law after considering the sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors.

The case was investigated by the federal carjacking task force made up of the Seattle Police Department, the Kent Police Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) and the FBI. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Todd Greenberg who leads the Western District of Washington Carjacking Task Force.

MIL Security OSI –

April 25, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Ashland Man Charged with Transportation of Child Pornography

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

BOSTON – An Ashland man has been arrested and charged with transportation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Brent Vreeland, 36, was arrested and charged yesterday with one count of transportation of child pornography. Following an initial appearance in federal court in Boston, Vreeland was ordered detained pending a hearing scheduled for this afternoon.

According to the charging documents, Vreeland was flagged for secondary screening at Boston’s Logan Airport upon arrival from Reykjavik, Iceland in October 2024. It is alleged that during a review of Vreeland’s cell phone, images and videos depicting CSAM were found in his Telegram Messenger app. A subsequent forensic examination of the device allegedly revealed approximately 30 media files depicting CSAM in direct messages with other unknown Telegram users. It is further alleged that Vreeland received and distributed three such videos in October 2021, depicting the abuse of minor victims between the ages of four and 10 years old. In one exchange, Vreeland allegedly asked another user to trade CSAM files for “the youngest [they] hve [sic].”

The charge of transportation of child pornography provides for a sentence of at least five years and up to 20 years in prison, at least five years and up to a lifetime of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.

United States Attorney Leah B. Foley and Michael J. Krol, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in New England made the announcement today. Valuable assistance was provided by Customs and Border Patrol, Boston Division. Assistant U.S. Attorney Allegra Flamm of the Major Crimes Unit is prosecuting the case.

The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

MIL Security OSI –

April 25, 2025

Category: Transport

Repression and retaliation

Targeting the press

Pressuring universities and students

Democracy and free speech

DLNR News Release-Kaua’i Sanctuary is Hugely Popular with Native and Transpacific Waterbirds, April 23, 2025