NewzIntel.com

Category: United Kingdom

  • MIL-Evening Report: After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to win a majority of seats at next Monday’s election. Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump’s ratings in US national polls have dropped to a -5 net approval.

    The Canadian election will be held next Monday, with the large majority of polls closing at 11:30am AEST Tuesday. The 343 MPs are elected by first past the post, with 172 seats needed for a majority.

    The Liberals had looked doomed to a massive loss for a long time. In early January, the CBC Poll Tracker had given the Conservatives 44% of the vote, the Liberals 20%, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) 19%, the separatist left-wing Quebec Bloc (BQ) 9%, the Greens 4% and the far-right People’s 2%. With these vote shares, the Conservatives would have won a landslide with well over 200 seats.

    At the September 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 of the then 338 seats on 32.6% of votes, the Conservatives 119 seats on 33.7%, the BQ 32 seats on 7.6%, the NDP 25 seats on 17.8%, the Greens two seats on 2.3% and the People’s zero seats on 4.9%. he Liberals were short of the 170 seats needed for a majority.

    The Liberal vote was more efficiently distributed than the Conservative vote owing to the Conservatives winning safe rural seats by huge margins. The BQ benefited from vote concentration, with all its national vote coming in Quebec, where it won 32.1%.

    On January 6, Justin Trudeau, who had been Liberal leader and PM since winning the October 2015 election, announced he would resign these positions once a new Liberal leader was elected. Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, was overwhelmingly elected Liberal leader on March 9 and replaced Trudeau as PM on March 14.

    With the Liberals short of a parliamentary majority, parliament was prorogued for the Liberal leadership election and was due to resume on March 24. Carney is not yet an MP (he will contest Nepean at the election). Possibly owing to these factors, Carney called the election on March 23.

    In Tuesday’s update to the CBC Poll Tracker, the Liberals had 43.1% of the vote, the Conservatives 38.4%, the NDP 8.3%, the BQ 5.8% (25.4% in Quebec), the Greens 2.2% and the People’s 1.4%. The Liberals have surged from 24 points behind in early January to their current 4.7-point lead.

    Seat point estimates were 191 Liberals (over the 172 needed for a majority), 123 Conservatives, 23 BQ, five NDP and one Green. The tracker gives the Liberals an 80% chance to win a majority of seats and a 15% chance to win the most seats but not a majority.

    The Liberal lead over the Conservatives peaked on April 8, when they led by 7.1 points. There has been slight movement back to the Conservatives since, with the French and English leaders’ debates last Wednesday and Thursday possibly assisting the Conservatives.

    But the Liberals still lead by nearly five points in the polls five days before the election. With the Liberals’ vote more efficiently distributed, they are the clear favourites to win an election they looked certain to lose by a landslide margin in January.

    Carney’s replacement of Trudeau has benefited the Liberals, but I believe the most important reason for the Liberals’ poll surge is Trump. Trump’s tariffs against Canada and his talk of making Canada the 51st US state have greatly alienated Canadians and made it more difficult for the more pro-Trump Conservatives.

    In an early April YouGov Canadian poll, by 64–25, respondents said the US was unfriendly or an enemy rather than friendly or an ally (50–33 in February). By 84–11, they did not want Canada to become part of the US. If Canadians had been able to vote in the 2024 US presidential election, Kamala Harris would have defeated Donald Trump by 57–18 in this poll.

    Trump’s US ratings have fallen well below net zero

    In Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump currently has a net approval of -5.4, with 50.8% disapproving and 45.4% approving. At the start of his term, Trump’s net approval was +12, but went negative in mid-March. His ratings fell to their current level soon after Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2.

    Silver has presidential approval poll data for previous presidents since Harry Truman (president from 1945–53). Trump’s current net approval is worse than for any other president at this point in their tenure except for Trump’s first term (2017–2021).

    Silver also has a net favourability aggregate for Elon Musk that currently gives Musk a net favourable rating of -13.6 (53.0% unfavourable, 39.3% favourable). Musk’s ratings began to drop from about net zero before Trump’s second term commenced on January 20.

    G. Elliott Morris used to manage the US poll aggregate site FiveThirtyEight before it was axed. He wrote last Friday that Trump’s net approval on the economy (at -5.8) is worse than at any point in his first term. During his first term, Trump’s net approval on the economy was mostly positive, helping to support his overall ratings.

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

    – ref. After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election – https://theconversation.com/after-stunning-comeback-centre-left-liberals-likely-to-win-majority-of-seats-at-canadian-election-254926

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Share your stories about Quarry Hill’s history, character and heritage

    Source: New South Wales Ministerial News

    The City is inviting community members to share stories, photos and documents about Quarry Hill’s rich history and character.

    With community involvement, it will provide a broad historical overview of Quarry Hill known as a ‘thematic history’.

    The study will look at how Quarry Hill has changed since post-European contact in the region.

    The thematic history’s purpose is to identify and explain the main factors, processes, places and events that have shaped Quarry Hill.

    Manager Strategic Planning Anthony Petherbridge said the community can play an important role in the project.

    “This is stage 1 of the project, and the aim is to better understand Quarry Hill’s rich history, character and heritage,” Mr Petherbridge said.

    “Stories, photographs and documents will be invaluable to provide local knowledge and a broader historical perspective of Quarry Hill.

    “The City is also interested in exploring potential places of heritage significance within the area and information that can be shared to help fill in historical gaps or details.

    “By doing so, the public engagement will help guide the development of a future heritage study for Quarry Hill to protect and celebrate significant places for future generations.

    “A community session will be held on Tuesday May 6, 2025, from 3pm to 7.00pm at the Quarry Hill Golf Club, 47-85 Houston St, Quarry Hill. 

    “This is an opportunity to share your knowledge and talk to City staff involved in the project. Tell us your Quarry Hill stories from the past and bring along documents or photos that can contribute to this exciting project.

    “You are encouraged to book a time slot at the community session via the City’s Let’s Talk Greater Bendigo online engagement platform.

    “On Let’s Talk Greater Bendigo, you can also learn more about the project, upload documents and photos if you are unable to attend the community session.

    “A map is also available for you to pinpoint places that you think are important in Quarry Hill’s history.”

    If you wish to speak to someone about the project, ask to speak to Strategic Planning via email or phone:

    [email protected]

    1300 002 642

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Man from Roger River charged with multiple offences

    Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

    Man from Roger River charged with multiple offences

    Wednesday, 23 April 2025 – 10:40 am.

    A 26-year-old man from Roger River has been charged in relation to multiple offences allegedly committed in the North and North West in the last two weeks.
    The man was charged with:

    Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime x2
    Breach of bail x11
    Evade Police (Aggravated Circumstances) x2
    Drive whilst disqualified (Road Safety (Alcohol & Drugs) Act 1970) x6
    Reckless driving x2
    Exceed Speed Limit – (Speed Limit Sign) x3
    Use unregistered motor vehicle x1
    Using a motor vehicle with no premium cover x1
    Dishonestly alter or display a plate in a way calculated to deceive x2
    Possession of stolen firearms x1
    Possess firearm in contravention of firearms prohibition order x2
    Possess ammunition when not the holder of the appropriate firearm licence x2
    Fail to take all precautions to ensure the safekeeping of firearm and ammunition x2
    Possess a firearm when not the holder of a firearm licence of the appropriate category x2
    Possess controlled drug x4

    He was detained to appear before the Launceston Magistrates Court.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Golden praises President Trump’s fishing executive order, urges action on unfair Canadian trade and regulatory practices

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jared Golden (ME-02)

    WASHINGTON — Congressman Jared Golden (ME-02) today sent a letter to President Donald Trump highlighting the unfair trade practices and regulatory disparity Canada uses to benefit its lobster industry at the expense of American lobstermen. Golden’s letter follows yesterday’s executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to address regulatory mismanagement informed by scientific uncertainty — a task Golden requested of the administration in a letter just last week and praised last night.

    “Throughout my time in the Maine State Legislature and Congress, I have heard from Maine’s seafood harvesters, processors, and those involved in the ocean economy that they cannot make the necessary investments to grow due to overregulation, arbitrary and capricious management, inconsistent policies from various federal agencies, and unfair trade action from Canada,” Golden wrote in his letter today. “Without your intervention, projections indicate that many commercial fishing operations in New England will become economically unviable within the next 30 years. This would lead to the collapse of a historic food production industry, the loss of thousands of jobs, the devastation of coastal communities that have shaped American maritime heritage for centuries, and an increased reliance on foreign food.”

    Discussing the unequal regulatory burden between the U.S. and Canada, Golden explained that Canadian lobstermen are not required to follow the same conservation measures, like releasing lobsters over a maximum size, that American lobstermen must. He also cited extensive regulations on American fishing gear and environmental practices that are absent in Canada; this burden is especially visible in the Gray Zone — 277 square miles fished by both Mainers and Canadians that remains one of America’s only contested maritime borders.

    Golden equally criticized market manipulation by Canadian seafood processors and expansive subsidies from the Canadian government to undercut the cost of competing American labor. 

    What they’re saying

    “The New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA) commends Congressman Jared Golden for highlighting the significant disparities faced by American lobstermen compared to their Canadian counterparts in his recent letter to the President. NEFSA has made it a top priority to raise awareness of the longstanding territorial dispute in the Gray Zone and the resulting economic and environmental consequences. Unbalanced regulatory frameworks between the United States and Canada continue to place American fishermen at a disadvantage—both in terms of access to seafood stocks and financial sustainability. We are encouraged by Congressman Golden’s advocacy and remain committed to working collaboratively with him, the White House, and NOAA to address these challenges and secure a fair and equitable future for American fishing communities,” saidDustin Delano, former lobstermen and chief operating officer of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association.

    “The Maine Lobstering Union is thrilled President Trump is looking into imbalances in the US fisheries. Maine fishermen have been supporting Maine’s economy for generations. We continue to raise concerns that Canadian trade practices, unequal conservation, and regulations are hurting Maine families, and it is rewarding to see some of that noise is making its way to President Trump. We commend Representative Golden for working across the aisle. Representative Golden continues to deliver on his promise to put Mainers first. Families in Maine are struggling, and putting our state’s needs above all else is very refreshing,” said Virginia Olsen, lobstermen and director of the Maine Lobstering Union.

    “The Maine Lobstermen’s Association (MLA) is grateful to President Trump for his commitment to making U.S. fisheries great again by allowing us to do what we do best — go fishing! The MLA has been fighting government over-regulation for years and won a historic court case that challenged draconian whale rules taking a big step forward in ending this abuse of power. The President’s executive order recognizes the challenges our fishing families and communities face and we appreciate the commitment to reduce burdensome regulations and strengthen the competitiveness of American seafood. We especially appreciate the Administration’s commitment to protecting the Maine lobster industry which is vital to the economy of our state and our coastal economies,” saidPatrice McCarron, executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association.

    BACKGROUND

    Golden, who recently secured a seat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has fought fiercely on behalf of Maine’s fishing industry throughout his career as a lawmaker. In addition to his letter last week, he has pressed multiple administrations on the unequal regulations and unfair trade practices harming Maine lobstermen.

    Over the last year he has been the only representative from New England to join the effort to overturn a U.S.-only increase to the minimum catchable size of lobster, and helped pass a 6-year pause on new gear regulations in 2022.  His bipartisan Northern Fisheries Heritage Protection Act would also prohibit commercial offshore wind energy development in the critical, highly productive Maine fishing grounds of Lobster Management Area 1 — an issue he has been consistently outspoken on. 

    Golden’s letter can be found here and is included below in full:

    +++

    April 18, 2025

    The Honorable Donald J. Trump
    President of the United States
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Dear President Trump,

    In your executive order on “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness,” you directed the Secretary of Commerce to consider suspending, revising, or rescinding regulations that overly burden America’s commercial fishing industries and the United States Trade Representative to examine other nations’ trade practices. As part of those investigations, I write in support of swift and decisive action to address the unequal regulatory burden between Maine and Canadian lobstermen and the unfair trade practices used by Canada and its lobster industry at the expense of the American lobster industry. 

    Throughout my time in the Maine State Legislature and Congress, I have heard from Maine’s seafood harvesters, processors, and those involved in the ocean economy that they cannot make the necessary investments to grow due to overregulation, arbitrary and capricious management, inconsistent policies from various federal agencies, and unfair trade action from Canada. Action to address the unequal regulatory burden between American and Canadian lobstermen and end Canada’s unfair trade practices in the lobster industry is squarely in line with your fisheries executive order and your administration’s “America First Trade Policy.” Any ensuing changes should be made in consultation with those who know the industry best, the harvesters themselves. 

    The American lobster fishery extends from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. In 2022, commercial landings of American lobster totaled 119 million pounds, valued at $515 million, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. Maine has been at the forefront of American lobster landings for over three decades, and 93 percent of the coast-wide landings come from the Gulf of Maine lobster stock. 

    While I have written to your administration and previous administrations extensively about each issue, I want to highlight the following issues: 

    Unequal Regulatory Burden Between the U.S. and Canada:  

    Regulations are frustratingly inconsistent between the U.S. and Canada, significantly benefiting Canadian fishermen and actively harming U.S. fishermen. While the long-term viability of lobster stocks is essential for the economic success of American and Canadian harvesters, it is American fishermen and lobstermen who are required to adhere to the strictest conservation standards, whereas Canadian fishermen are not. Below is a list of the top issues causing an uneven regulatory playing field:  

    Maximum Size Limit: American lobstermen are required to follow a maximum size limit for harvesting lobster, and Canadian lobstermen do not.

    Whale Regulations: Since 2001, U.S. lobstermen have been required to comply with whale regulations, including new requirements for gear marking, breakaways, weak ropes, and inserts, as well as changes to trawl length due to the NOAA Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. This plan was developed and implemented in response to the Marine Mammal Protection Act despite limited evidence linking Maine fishermen to whale deaths.

    These requirements increased costs and safety risks for U.S. fishermen. Canadian lobstermen do not face these same restrictions. For instance, U.S. fishermen must use whale-safe gear, which incurs additional costs, to protect whales that frequently transit through Canadian and American waters. Meanwhile, Canadian fishermen continue to fish with floating rope, which costs nearly 50% less than traditional methods. 

    If pending federal rules regulating even more restrictive gear requirements are implemented, American fishermen will face an even more significant competitive disadvantage. They would be forced to use untested, less efficient, more expensive equipment, while Canada’s gear would be untouched. 

    Gray Zone: The 277 square miles of ocean between the U.S. and Canada – commonly referred to as the Gray Zone – have been claimed by both countries since the Revolutionary War. For centuries, the lobstermen and fishermen of Downeast Maine have relied on the Gray Zone to harvest lobster, scallop, and halibut, often competing with their Canadian counterparts who utilize these same fishing grounds. 

    The disparity between the United States and Canadian fishing regulations in the Gray Zone not only escalates tensions among fishermen but also poses a serious threat to the future of an industry that has supported Maine families for generations. These concerning trends would only worsen if our federal regulators approved a new minimum allowable catch size for lobster starting in July 2025, without comparable restrictions for Canadian lobstermen enforced by their government. 

    Maine’s seafood harvesters have been waiting too long for a resolution to the Gray Zone, with significant consequences for their safety, businesses, and the natural resources they depend on. 

    A 2023 Department of State Report written for Congress titled “Progress Toward an Agreement with Canadian Officials Addressing Territorial Disputes and Collecting Fisheries Management Measures in the Gulf of Maine” incorrectly states:

    “The status quo benefits the United States by keeping the Gray Zone aligned with the more favorable measures applicable to the broader U.S. lobster management area within which it sits. Current cooperation has proved effective in managing the area. Negotiations to resolve the dispute would require significant dedicated resources. In the absence of a resolution of the territorial dispute, an agreement to resolve differing fisheries management measures in the Gray Zone could impact U.S. claims to sovereignty by creating regulations that differ from those applicable to the broader Gulf of Maine jurisdiction in which the Gray Zone lies.”

    The truth is that, as management currently exists, there is no cooperation in managing this area. This report is misleading, and American fishermen fishing in the Gray Zone will tell you that the uneven regulatory burden in the area does not benefit American fishermen; it hurts them. 

    Environmental Regulations: Canada has considerably fewer environmental regulations compared to U.S. processors. For example, Canadian processors can directly discharge wastewater into the ocean and spread shells in fields. In the U.S., processors must pay thousands of dollars to local municipalities for wastewater user fees and waste disposal.

    Unfair Trade Practices Utilized by the Canadian Lobster Industry at the Expense of the American Lobster Industry: 

    Canadian Subsidies:The Canadian Government uses labor and business subsidies to boost their lobster industry at the expense of the American lobster industry.    

    Since 1984, the Canada Health Act (CHA) gives all Canadians publicly funded single-payer healthcare insurance. This program gives all Canadian residents reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services without paying out-of-pocket. To highlight the disparity, U.S. fishermen who buy a health insurance plan on HealthCare.gov would pay, on average, $456 per month more for insurance premiums, which is $5,472 per year more than Canadian fishermen.

    Canadian single-payer healthcare insurance also creates an impact on unemployment premiums. Under the Canadian system, workers’ compensation largely drives costs through lost earnings and wage-loss benefits. This causes U.S. fishermen to pay higher unemployment premiums. This distinction comes from their healthcare system, which incurs fewer administrative expenses and lower healthcare costs that affect an employer’s experience rating. 

    The Canadian lobster industry also has access to unlimited foreign labor and, as a result, low-wage workers. They provide salary subsidies covering up to 60% of the salary for immigrants or visible minority hires, up to a maximum equivalent to the current minimum wage of 40 hours per week. The Canadian government also makes major investments in training programs for the workforce and worker subsidy initiatives. For instance, their Summer Jobs wage subsidy offers financial support for summer employment and visas for foreign workers through the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP) allows Canadian processors to bring unlimited overseas workers during peak seasons to fill labor shortages.

    Canada also utilizes infrastructure, innovation, and business operation subsidies to boost their lobster industry at the expense of the American industry. Through the Atlantic Fisheries Fund (AFF) and Quebec Fisheries Fund (QFF), Canadian fisheries receive substantial subsidies to support their infrastructure, innovation, and businessoperations. The AFF and QFF are financed 70% by the federal government and 30% by the provincial governments. They are managed by the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), which aims to enhance opportunities and market value for sustainably sourced, high-quality fish and seafood products from Atlantic Canada. A recent announcement from the Canadian DFO indicated that it will invest over $400 million over seven years to support Canada’s fish and seafood sector. In the US, industry-based and driven science partnerships are limited and frequently funded by the industry.

    Market manipulation: Canadian processors are engaging in currency arbitrage and exploiting market conditions. For instance, in the U.S., we pay roughly $20 per hour at our processing plants. Canada pays the same $20 per hour. Canadian processors factor the hourly wage into the production of processed lobster. They produce the product in Canada and then sell it back to the U.S. The exchange rate does not favor U.S. processors because of the strength of the U.S. dollar, which makes imports to the U.S. cheaper and exports more expensive.

    Without your intervention, projections indicate that many commercial fishing operations in New England will become economically unviable within the next 30 years. This would lead to the collapse of a historic food production industry, the loss of thousands of jobs, the devastation of coastal communities that have shaped American maritime heritage for centuries, and an increased reliance on foreign food. Addressing the unequal regulatory burden and unfair Canadian fishing and trade practices aligns strongly with your executive order on restoring America’s seafood competitiveness and America First Trade Policy and would ensure that American workers and businesses can compete on a level playing field.

    The United States should take all necessary steps to ensure that our fishermen and processors do not face a competitive disadvantage or miss out on economic opportunities because of unequal regulatory burden and unfair fishing and trade practices by Canada. I urge you to investigate Canada’s unfair trade and fishing practices and work with the American lobster industry to intervene with solutions to level the playing field.

     

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Five people in custody in relation to burglary at Brighton supermarket

    Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

    Five people in custody in relation to burglary at Brighton supermarket

    Wednesday, 23 April 2025 – 10:01 am.

    Five people are in custody assisting police with their enquiries into a burglary at a supermarket in Brighton early this morning.
    About 2.30am, offenders forced entry into the supermarket on Brighton Road and stole a quantity of tobacco and cigarettes. Police have recovered the stolen items.
    Police would like to speak to anyone who saw a silver Nissan X-Trail in the area around the time this morning.
    Information can be provided to Bridgewater Police on 131 444 or anonymously through Crime Stoppers Tasmania at crimestopperstas.com.au or on 1800 333 000 – quote OR773066.

    MIL OSI News –

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

    US Senate News:

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senators Introduce Bipartisan New England Offshore Drilling Ban

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Maggie Hassan

    Washington, DC – On Earth Day, a bipartisan group of New England Senators is announcing the introduction of legislation to bar offshore drilling along the New England coast. The New England Coastal Protection Act is cosponsored by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Angus King (I-ME), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).  Congressman Seth Magaziner (D-RI) introduced companion legislation in the House. 

    “Offshore drilling would enrich the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the Ocean State’s coastal economy and the health of our Narragansett Bay,” said Whitehouse, who originally introduced the legislation during the first Trump administration.  “With President Trump scrambling to grant the looters and polluters swarming around his administration every item on their wish list, I’m committed to doing everything in my power to stop reckless oil and gas drilling off Rhode Island’s coast.”

    “President Trump’s blatant efforts to benefit Big Oil will devastate economies and environments up and down the New England coast, including Long Island Sound,” said Blumenthal.  “Our measure takes the bold action we need to prevent new offshore drilling and protect our waterways for future generations. Our coastline should be protected as a vital tourism, fishing, and environmental resource – not exposed to the dangers of oil spills or drilling pollution.”

    “The waters off Maine’s coast provide a healthy ecosystem for our fisheries and are an integral part of our tourism industry, supporting thousands of jobs and generating billions of dollars in revenue each year,” said Collins.  “Offshore drilling along the coast could impact Mainers of all walks of life for generations, which is why I join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to ban offshore drilling on the New England coastline.” 

    “Coastal drilling has led to some of the worst natural disasters in modern history, and we cannot afford to risk harm to New Hampshire’s coastal communities,” said Hassan.  “This bipartisan bill would ban offshore drilling in New Hampshire and throughout the region, and I’ll continue to speak out to make clear that our coast is off limits to offshore oil and natural gas extraction.”

    “Maine’s fisheries and coastal communities rely on healthy, clean waters to support their livelihoods. Offshore oil drilling would pose an immense threat to this delicate ecosystem and the people it supports,” said King.  “As we respond to global energy crises, we must work together to find practical, fiscally responsible clean energy solutions that can protect Maine communities and the Atlantic Ocean that do not rely on offshore drilling.  This bipartisan effort would be a positive step forward to ensure we continue to protect the Gulf of Maine and all the communities that rely on its bountiful, yet fragile, ecosystem.”

    “We must do everything in our power to protect New England’s coasts and waters from the dangers of offshore drilling,” said Markey.  “As the Bay State, we will not allow Massachusetts coasts to be destroyed by Donald Trump’s reckless mission to ‘drill baby drill.’ We refuse to stand by as the President and his Big Oil buddies destroy our environment, disrupt our waters, and make consumers pay for their pollution.  It’s time to say goodbye to the Oil-igarchy.”

    “Offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean poses tremendous risks for the Ocean State’s environment and economy.  This legislation is about protecting critical natural resources and the livelihoods of New Englanders in countless industries who rely on a clean, healthy Atlantic Ocean,” said Reed.

    “New Hampshire’s eighteen miles of coastline are home to families, small businesses that power our economy and cherished wildlife – all of which would be severely threatened by harmful offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean,” said Shaheen.  “As President Trump eyes opportunities to expand offshore drilling, which has led to disastrous oil spills that cause economic and environmental devastation, New England’s bipartisan delegation is introducing legislation to help safeguard of our communities, local economies and way of life.”

    “Rhode Islanders take pride in being the Ocean State, and in our clean waterways that support good jobs and quality of life,” said Magaziner.  “The New England Coastal Protection Act will help safeguard our environment by preventing new offshore drilling that would threaten the coastline that is so essential to our state.”

    According to NOAA Fisheries, ocean and coastal industries, including tourism, fishing, and recreation, generate more than $17.5 billion in New England annually.  Expanding drilling in the Atlantic would harm New England’s key industries, and significantly increase the chance of environmental disaster in the region.

    MIL OSI USA News –

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

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    April 22, 2025

    GFSR PRESS BRIEFING

    Speakers:

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

    Moderator: Meera Louis, Communications Officer, IMF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, the lady here in the front.

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION: Thank you. Rotus Oddiri with Arise News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION: Hi. Szu Chan from the Telegraph.

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

    Mr. ADRIAN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. WU: Maybe just quickly, to complement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The lady here in the front row.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Caio?

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Caio and Tobias. 

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

    QUESTION: Hi. Riley Callanan from GZERO Media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Meera Louis

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

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

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Firearms, ammunition and drugs seized

    Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

    Firearms, ammunition and drugs seized

    Wednesday, 23 April 2025 – 9:31 am.

    Police in southern Tasmania have seized 45 firearms in just four weeks as part of an ongoing operation.
    Detective Inspector Richard Penney said Operation GAT is a collaboration between the Southern Drugs and Firearms division, State Intelligence Services, Southeast Criminal Investigation Branch, Glenorchy Criminal Investigation Branch, and specialist areas.
    “Over the past four weeks, officers have been targeting firearm crime and have executed 16 search warrants,” he said.
    “That has resulted in the seizure of 45 firearms, eight silencers, and illicit drugs and 12 people are being proceeded against for firearm offences.”
    “We will continue to target those in our community who commit firearms crime, and we ask anyone with information about these illicit activities to contact police.”
    Information can be provided to police on 131 444, or Crime Stoppers Tasmania anonymously on 1800 333 000 or online at crimestopperstas.com

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: £10 million boost to employment support in Wales to Get Britain Working again

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    £10 million boost to employment support in Wales to Get Britain Working again

    People in Wales are set to benefit from a £10 million investment aimed at improving local work, health, and skills support as part of the UK Government’s initiative to tackle inactivity and Get Britain Working.

    • First Wales trailblazer launches to tackle economic inactivity, with new tailored support to be rolled out including one-to-one mentoring, counselling, wellbeing services, and condition management for health issues.
    • Comes as part of UK Government’s drive to Get Britain Working again to unlock growth and deliver Plan for Change.

    The first trailblazer programme in Wales, launched in Denbighshire by UK Minister for Employment Alison McGovern and Welsh Government Minister Jack Sargeant, will for the first time provide targeted interventions tailored to local needs, rather than the current “one size fits all” approach. 

    This includes help with CV writing and job searching, one-to-one mentoring, counselling services, wellbeing provision, and access to condition management services for those with health conditions.

    Trailblazer areas are specific places selected to trial out new and innovative approaches to employment support – these areas receive targeted funding and resources to roll out new strategies for reducing unemployment, tackling inactivity and improving job opportunities. 

    During their visit to Working Denbighshire yesterday, both Ministers witnessed the support available, including meeting Work Coaches who offer expert, tailored assistance.

    Wales is one of nine places receiving support through the UK Government’s £125 million economic inactivity trailblazer programme, targeting areas with the highest levels of inactivity. 

    Local leaders in Denbighshire, Blaenau Gwent, and Neath Port Talbot will design employment support schemes tailored to their community’s unique challenges.

    This localised, multi-agency approach aims to help people back into work, which is one of the most important ways to put extra money in people’s pockets and unlock growth as part of the UK Government’s Plan for Change.

    UK Government Minister for Employment, Alison McGovern said:

    Everyone deserves to thrive, including people suffering from long-term health conditions.

    No one will be written off and left on the scrapheap. That’s why we’re allocating the Welsh Government a £10 million boost to shake-up and connect health and employment services, delivering on the Plan for Change.

    Everyone deserves to benefit from the security and dignity that good work affords, and this trailblazer will help people to access this support.

    Welsh Government Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership, Jack Sargeant said: 

    This £10 million investment is an instrumental step in our collaborative approach to supporting people across our nation back into good employment. By working in partnership with the UK Government, Wales trailblazers will create a tailored approach that meets the unique needs of the three communities it is aiming to help in its first year.

    Our focus is on delivering integrated services that truly connect health support with employment opportunities, recognising that good work is fundamental to wellbeing. The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring no one is left behind, and this trailblazer programme demonstrates how devolved employment support can be responsive to local needs while contributing to our wider economic ambitions for Wales.

    Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens added:

    This £10 million programme to get people into work will deliver tailored support where it is most needed. Blaenau Gwent, Denbighshire and Neath Port Talbot have been selected as areas where we can make the most difference.

    It’s an approach that we know works and builds on the success of the Welsh Government’s Young Person’s Guarantee which already provides support for young people to gain skills or get into work.

    Work improves physical and mental health and raises people’s standard of living. The trailblazer scheme ensures that anyone who’s able to work is helped into employment.

    The trailblazers are the latest milestone in the UK Government’s £240 million Get Britain Working reforms which includes transforming Jobcentres to focus on people’s skills and careers, guaranteeing young people the chance to earn or learn and providing mental health support to help people to start and stay in work.

    Yesterday’s launch in Wales follows the launch of the first trailblazer in South Yorkshire earlier in April, which plans to deliver a new service working with employers to hire those with health conditions – with both programmes focused on boosting growth by getting communities back to health and back to work. 

    In the coming weeks, similar trailblazer schemes will launch in Greater Manchester, the North East, York and North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and three in London. 

    In addition to inactivity trailblazers, the UK Government has boosted the National Living Wage, increased the National Minimum Wage and is creating more secure jobs through the Employment Rights Bill to support people into good work and get Britain growing again.

    Funding provided to the Welsh Government for this programme also delivers on the Prime Minister’s promise to kickstart a new era of devolution, resetting relationships with devolved Governments so they have the support they need to play their part in delivering economic growth as part of the Plan for Change.

    Additional Information

    • The nine economic inactivity trailblazers, backed by £125 million of UK Government funding, is giving power to the Welsh Government and some Mayoral Authorities to design joined up work, health and skills offers.
    • Funding for Scotland and Northern Ireland has been devolved in the usual way.
    • Employment support measures are fully transferred to Northern Ireland. Jobcentre Plus services is reserved in both Scotland and Wales, but the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government also deliver other forms of employment support.
    • The UK Government also plans to establish new governance arrangements with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to help frame discussions around the reform of Jobcentres and agree how best to work in partnership on shared employment ambition across devolved and reserved provision. 
    • In April, UK Government increases to the National Minimum and National Living Wage came into effect, putting more money into people’s pockets. Full-time workers on the National Living Wage will get a £1,400 annual boost, while full-time workers on the Minimum Wage could see a £2,500 annual boost.
    • Details of the first inactivity trailblazer, in South Yorkshire, is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/south-yorkshire-kicks-off-125-million-plans-to-get-britain-back-to-health-and-work

    Updates to this page

    Published 23 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Breakthrough in bowel cancer research will speed up diagnosis

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Breakthrough in bowel cancer research will speed up diagnosis

    Government backs world-leading trial of cutting-edge technology to diagnose bowel cancer earlier, harnessing the power of technology to treat patients.

    Patients could soon benefit from world-leading technology to diagnose bowel cancer earlier, faster and cheaper, reducing the need for invasive colonoscopies and biopsies, and potentially saving valuable time and resource for the NHS, the government has announced today (Wednesday 23rd April).  

    The technology, made on British soil by Xgenera, in collaboration with the University of Southampton, has the potential to detect bowel cancer earlier, improving diagnosis rates, and offering patients valuable time back to treat the disease faster and more effectively.     

    Bowel cancer is the UK’s fourth most common cancer, with over 42,000 people diagnosed each year. Early diagnosis is crucial, with 9 in 10 people surviving bowel cancer when it’s detected at stage 1, compared to just 1 in 10 when diagnosed at stage 4.      

    This government is driving forward improvements to cancer care through the Plan for Change to fix our NHS – including by improving waiting times for lower gastrointestinal diagnosis. From July 2024 to February 2025, 76.6% of patients have received their cancer diagnosis or all clear within 28 days, an increase of 4ppt compared to the previous year. 

    Today’s announcement comes as the Health and Social Care Secretary is set to visit a research lab funded by Cancer Research UK, which has been renamed in memory of campaigner Dame Deborah James.       

    The BowelBabe Laboratory will bring together leading scientists to advance our understanding of bowel cancer. It will conduct cutting-edge research and will aid in the development of new treatments for bowel cancer.       

    Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, said:   

    From my own experience, I know the devastating toll cancer can take on patients and families, and how many of them have been faced with long waiting lists to get the diagnosis and treatment they deserve.  

    We know that the key to surviving cancer is catching it as early as possible, so this government is taking the urgent action needed to make sure that happens through our Plan for Change, from developing world leading technology to detect bowel cancer earlier, through to setting up hubs for the UK’s top scientists to research and treat the disease.   

    Dame Deborah James dedicated her life to raising awareness for cancer and finding ways that we can beat it, so it is only right that we honour her legacy by investing in research to help stop one of the country’s biggest killers.  

    And research is only one part of the work we’re doing. Our National Cancer Plan will transform cancer so patients can get the latest treatments and technology, ultimately bringing this country’s cancer survival rates back up to some of the best in the world. 

    Professor Lucy Chappell, Chief Scientific Adviser at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Chief Executive Officer of the NIHR said:  

    Innovations such as the mIONCO-Dx blood test offer an exciting new era in cancer detection with the potential for quicker, easier and more effective ways to detect cancers before they become more difficult to treat.  

    The NIHR is supporting initiatives such as these, utilising the latest technologies such as AI, to provide patients and the public with timely, accurate and easily accessible options. Supporting the UK’s thriving life sciences sector is key to seeing these strides in diagnosis and early prevention.

    In collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the government has awarded £2.4m to progress the development of the AI-driven blood test, known as miONCO-Dx. The test was developed on data from over 20,000 patients and has since been translated into a cheaper, faster and more scalable solution, marking a significant step forward. This new solution will be assessed in a clinical trial of 8,000 patients, giving a formal and significant step towards bringing the test closer to patients by ensuring it is fit for purpose in the NHS.

    The test works by measuring the microRNA in a blood sample and using AI to identify if cancer is present and if so, where it is located in the body.  Initial tests have produced promising results, having shown that it is able to detect 12 of the most lethal and common cancers, including bowel cancer, at an early stage, with over 99% accuracy. With no other trial currently working in the same way, this a world-leader and will support in placing Britain at the forefront of revolutionising healthcare.    

    The simple blood test will be able to identify cancer earlier, where treatment is not only more effective, but also cheaper and easier, potentially freeing up valuable NHS resources and staffing time in the long run. 

    Bowel cancer can be difficult to detect in the early stages, and survivability drops significantly as the disease progresses, as treatment options become more limited. Investing in technologies that can support experts to detect cancer early, such as the miONCO-Dx, is an essential first step in reducing the lives lost by cancer.    

    Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said 

    Bowel cancer is the second biggest cause of cancer deaths in the UK. I’m delighted to welcome the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, to the Bowelbabe Laboratory and show him the cutting-edge research being carried out in the name of the inspirational Dame Deborah James. She touched the lives of so many, and her legacy is supporting people affected by bowel cancer across the country. 

    This NIHR trial shows the importance of research and the impact new technology and developments could have. The upcoming National Cancer Plan for England is an opportunity for the UK Government to improve the lives of not just bowel cancer patients, but all cancer patients. We will continue to work with them on this. 

    Professor Sir Stephen Powis, NHS national medical director, said:  

    This blood test has the potential to help us detect bowel cancer earlier and reduce the need for invasive tests, and the next step in this trial will now be vital in gathering further evidence on its effectiveness and how it could work in practice. 

    Dame Deborah James was a tireless and inspirational campaigner who helped change the national conversation on bowel cancer – it’s fitting that this lab in her name will drive forward research that could help thousands more people survive the disease.

    Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said:

    Bowel cancer has brought heartbreak to too many families across the country. But working in partnership with the NHS, researchers, and business, we can harness AI to overhaul how we detect and treat this horrendous disease. This new method is less invasive and will help with earlier detection which means keeping more families together for longer.

    Our support for cancer research will unlock more innovation and make vital work like that of the BowelBabe Research Lab possible. All of this will help us build a better NHS as part of our Plan for Change.

    Fighting cancer on all fronts, from diagnosis, research, prevention and treatment, is a key commitment made by the government. Earlier this year, the government launched a call for evidence for the National Cancer Plan, designed to improve patient experience to fight cancer.    

    This forms part of the wider strategy to reduce lives lost to the biggest killers across the UK, with investment in AI and innovative technologies helping to speed up diagnosis and improve treatment.      

    As part of its Plan for Change, the government will transform the NHS and is already seeing results – with waiting lists falling by over 200,000 since July last year.    

    Updates to this page

    Published 23 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: New smart appliance standards will help consumers save on bills

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    New smart appliance standards will help consumers save on bills

    Consumers will be able to save money on their bills thanks to new regulations for many smart energy appliances.

    • New standards for smart appliances to save consumers money on their bills as part of the Plan for Change 
    • rules will mean new heat pumps and certain other electric heating appliances must be sold with smart functionality, which customers can choose to activate to access cheaper deals 
    • customers able to shop around for best deals as smart appliances like electric vehicle charge points and heat pumps must operate across different suppliers

    Consumers will benefit from a wider range of cheaper energy deals thanks to new requirements for smart appliances like heat pumps and electric vehicle chargers. 

    This will enable more households to access cheaper tariffs to cut their energy bills, to deliver on the government’s Plan for Change to put more money in people’s pockets. 

    Energy Smart Appliances allow consumers to shift their electricity usage to times when it is less costly for the energy system. When an appliance’s smart function is activated, it will respond to price signals and can then use energy when it is cheapest, such as overnight. 

    Many are already cutting their bills by taking advantage of off-peak deals. For example, electric vehicle owners with a typical annual mileage can save £332 a year by charging their cars overnight using a time-of-use tariff.  

    A new framework will introduce requirements for heat pumps to be sold smart-ready, in line with regulations that already apply to electric vehicle chargers. This will give heat pump owners the choice to activate smart functionality and make savings by heating their homes when energy is cheaper. This can save around £100 per year compared to the costs of a gas boiler.  

    The government will also ensure that a range of appliances including electric vehicle smart charge points, heat pumps, and battery energy storage systems must be able to operate across different tariffs. This will mean that devices are not tied to one energy supplier, and so consumers will not be locked into one plan. This will deliver savings by encouraging competition and allowing customers to shop around for the best deals regardless of what device they have. 

    The measures form part of the government’s Clean Power Action Plan, which sets out pro-consumer reforms to help households benefit from lower energy bills. 

    Energy Minister Michael Shanks said: 

    From EV chargers to heat pumps, smart appliances can do the hard work for consumers by automatically using energy when the price is low. We want to put more money in people’s pockets as part of Our Plan for Change by making it easier for people to benefit from cheaper off-peak tariffs in their home.  

    These new standards will also bring a common-sense approach to smart appliances by ensuring different brands and models can operate across different energy suppliers, allowing consumers to shop around for the best deals.

    Tough new cyber security standards will be introduced for smart appliances, to protect customers and their data from cyberattacks. 

    Not only will these measures help smart energy consumers to cut their bills, but lowering peak electricity demand would minimise the electricity infrastructure that needs to be built. This could contribute to saving £40 to £50 billion between now and 2050, leading to further savings for all billpayers.  

    Increased consumer-led flexibility will help to deliver the Clean Energy Mission, by enabling Britain to make the most of its renewable electricity at times of high generation or low demand, which will reduce the need for expensive fossil fuelled power. 

    The introduction of the Market-wide Half Hourly Settlement in 2027 will require energy suppliers to use the most accurate data, so they can offer more smart tariffs that allow customers to choose when to use energy and benefit from savings. Earlier this month, the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley wrote to energy companies warning that no further delay will be tolerated to the roll out of this new system, to ensure consumers can benefit as quickly as possible. 

    Notes to editors 

    The new regulations for heat devices will apply to hydronic heat pumps, storage heaters, heat batteries, standalone direct electric hot water cylinders, hot water heat pumps, and hybrid heat pumps, all up to a thermal capacity of 45 kW. 

    The savings for switching from a gas boiler to a heat pump on a time-of-use tariff are based on internal DESNZ analysis. In this scenario, switching from a gas boiler on a fixed price tariff to an air source heat pump on Octopus’ Cosy tariff have been modelled. 

    DESNZ published the potential savings from overnight EV charging in the Future default tariffs: call for evidence (p10). 

    The electricity infrastructure savings from CLF have been estimated by the Electricity Networks Strategic Framework analysis (ENSF) to be £40 to £50 billion (cumulative, 2021-2050, 2020 prices). 

    See more information on the letter from the Energy Secretary and Ofgem CEO. 

    The government will, subject to Parliamentary approval, put forward secondary legislation on energy smart appliances within the next year. There will then be a 20-month period to allow manufacturers to update production, before the regulations will be enforced. 

    The measures follow a consultation on Smart Secure Energy System proposals between April 2024 and June 2024.

    Updates to this page

    Published 23 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

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

    Source: International Monetary Fund

    April 22, 2025

    GFSR PRESS BRIEFING

    Speakers:

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

    Moderator: Meera Louis, Communications Officer, IMF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, the lady here in the front.

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION: Thank you. Rotus Oddiri with Arise News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION: Hi. Szu Chan from the Telegraph.

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

    Mr. ADRIAN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. WU: Maybe just quickly, to complement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The lady here in the front row.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. ADRIAN: Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Caio?

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you, Caio and Tobias. 

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

    QUESTION: Hi. Riley Callanan from GZERO Media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. LOUIS: Thank you. Tobias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Meera Louis

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

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pressley, Markey, Warren Demand Answers About Trump Administration’s Gross Misconduct of Immigration Enforcement System

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)

    Following the Abduction and Detention of Rümeysa Öztürk, Pressley, Markey, and Warren Sound the Alarm on the Trump Administration’s Unjust Deportation Agenda

    Text of Letter (PDF)

    WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) and Senators Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wrote today to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons demanding answers about the Trump administration’s concerning pattern of ripping individuals from their communities and shipping them to jurisdictions more favorable to the Trump administration’s deportation agenda.

    Last month, six plainclothes ICE agents apprehended Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national and fifth-year doctoral student at Tufts University, in broad daylight in Somerville, Massachusetts. ICE then moved Öztürk in a circuitous route through various states before placing her on a flight to Louisiana, miles away from her friends, lawyers, and community. The available evidence suggests that ICE did not transfer Öztürk to a Louisiana detention facility due to a lack of bed space in New England—as the government has claimed—but instead in an attempt to hand-pick the courts that will decide her case. These actions raise serious questions about the fairness and integrity of our immigration enforcement system.

    In the letter, the lawmakers write, “In court filings, immigration lawyers described ICE’s treatment of Öztürk as irregular, declaring they had never seen or heard of an ICE detainee arrested in Massachusetts be so quickly shuttled out of Massachusetts and to multiple separate locations. This quick movement—coupled with the government’s delayed notice regarding a detainee’s whereabouts—risks frustrating the filing of habeas petitions.”

    The lawmakers continue, “The government has since argued that Öztürk’s legal challenge must be heard in Louisiana, within the Fifth Circuit, where she is currently detained—a jurisdiction known for its strict immigration rulings. According to Mary Yanik, a clinical associate professor of law at Tulane University, in Louisiana the majority of ICE detention centers are within the jurisdiction of Louisiana’s Western District, which is the ‘slowest moving’ of the district courts in the state, very conservative, and whose release of detainees by formal order is ‘exceedingly rare.’ Decisions from federal district courts and immigration courts in Louisiana can eventually be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which the Center for American Progress has described as ‘arguably the most right-wing federal appellate court in the country.’ Legal experts and immigrant rights advocates have noted a troubling pattern in which ICE transfers detainees to jurisdictions with stricter immigration enforcement—such as Louisiana—thereby increasing the likelihood of deportation and limiting detainees’ access to legal representation and family support.”

    The lawmakers request answers to the following questions by May 6, 2025:

    • What specific criteria led ICE to determine that no bed space was available for Öztürk in New England?
    • Why was Öztürk transported to New Hampshire and Vermont before being flown to Louisiana, rather than being placed in a nearby facility in Massachusetts? Why was Öztürk transported to three separate locations in three different states before being flown to Louisiana?
    • When was the decision made to transport Öztürk to Louisiana? Who made this decision? What steps and protocols were undertaken in this decision-making process?
    • What is the total cost incurred by the government for Öztürk’s transportation from her arrest to her arrival in Louisiana, including flights and other logistical expenses?
    • Did the jurisdictional implications of placing Öztürk in Louisiana, within a federal judicial circuit known for its pro-government immigration rulings, factor into ICE’s decision to transfer her there?
    • What policies and procedures are in place to prevent forum shopping by ICE in detainee transfers?
    • Given the documented history of abuse and inadequate legal access at ICE detention facilities in Louisiana, what justifications does ICE have for continuing to send detainees there?

    Congresswoman Pressley, along with Sens. Warren and Markey, have pushed for answers and action since Öztürk’s March arrest.

    On April 18th, 2025, after a recent report indicated that an internal State Department memo concluded that the key premise underlying Rümeysa Öztürk’s arrest and detention was false, Congresswoman Pressley and Senators Warren and Markey sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanding the release of the department’s memo and other relevant documentation.

    Last month, they led over 30 lawmakers in writing to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Todd Lyons, demanding information about Öztürk’s arrest and detention as well as similar incidents across the country. The lawmakers also sounded the alarm on Öztürk’s medical neglect in DHS custody and renewed urgent calls for her release.

    Last month, Congresswoman Pressley issued a statement condemning reports that ICE arrested and detained Rümeysa Öztürk. Earlier that week, Congresswoman Pressley issued a statement following reports of ICE activity in Boston and other municipalities in Massachusetts.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Chinese Nationals Sentenced to Federal Prison for Participating in a Fraudulent Gift Card Conspiracy Involving the Purchase and Export of Apple Products to China

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    CONCORD – Three Chinese nationals were sentenced in federal court for their roles in a sophisticated Chinese gift card fraud conspiracy, Acting U.S. Attorney Jay McCormack announces.

    Naxin Wu, 26, a Chinese national unlawfully residing in Nashua, was sentenced by Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty to 33 months in prison and one year of supervised release.  Mengying Jiang, 34, a Chinese national residing in Nashua, was sentenced by Chief Judge McCafferty to 60 months in prison and one year of supervised release. Mingdong Chen, 28, a Chinese national unlawfully residing in Brooklyn, New York, was sentenced by Judge Joseph N. Laplante to 24 months in prison and one year of supervised release.  Earlier this year, the defendants each pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud.  All three defendants face deportation to China after completing their sentences.

    “The defendants played a critical role in laundering proceeds of romance and other online scams by purchasing the stolen gift cards and using them to purchase Apple products,” said Acting U.S. Attorney McCormack. “While they may not have committed the initial fraud, the defendants’ actions helped convert stolen funds into tangible goods, enabling a large-scale financial crimes conspiracy. We remain committed to dismantling every link in the fraud supply chain.”

    “These individuals were part of a Chinese transnational criminal organization that used a complex scheme to steal and launder millions of dollars through gift card theft. After a sophisticated criminal investigation with our partners, their scheme was uncovered and their crimes brought to light. Now, they’ll serve federal prison sentences and face deportation back to China,” said Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations New England Michael J. Krol.

    “The sentences imposed in New Hampshire emphasize the expansive reach of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service when it comes to dismantling criminal organizations. Anytime a criminal uses the U.S. Mail to further their illegal activity, postal inspectors will be there to bring them to justice. I’d like to thank our law enforcement partners involved in this case who, together with postal inspectors, brought these defendants to justice. This collaboration and dedication from law enforcement professionals plays a vital role in protecting the integrity of our communities from those who seek to exploit vulnerable Americans for personal gain,” said Ketty Larco-Ward, Inspector in Charge, U.S. Postal Inspection Service – Boston Division.

    According to court documents, organized criminal elements in China acquired well over $100 million in gift cards through multiple fraudulent means. For example, gift card data is obtained by hacking U.S. companies, tampering with physical gift cards, and targeting U.S. citizens through romance and elder fraud schemes. The criminal elements then send the gift card data to multiple cells of Chinese nationals operating in the United States through a Chinese-based messaging platform in exchange for cryptocurrency.

    Once U.S.-based cells receive the gift card data, they then spend the gift cards to purchase high-value electronics, principally Apple products. After purchasing the Apple products, cell members consolidate the electronics in warehouses for shipment to China, Hong Kong, or countries in Southeast Asia. The cells primarily operate in states with no sales tax, such as New Hampshire, to maximize their profits.

    Wu, Jiang, and Chen were members of one cell in New Hampshire. Wu and Jiang purchased fraudulent gift cards at a discount from their face value. They then either personally used the cards or disseminated them to others, including Chen, to use. Wu was responsible for $1.4 million, Jiang for $3 million, and Chen for $400,000 of fraudulent gift cards.

    Homeland Security Investigations, Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Concord Police Department led the investigation.  The Merrimack County Attorney’s Office provided valuable assistance. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander S. Chen prosecuted the case.

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

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Russell, Principal Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia

    Mick Tsikas/AAP, Joel Carret/AAP, Darren England/AAP, Ihor Koptilin/Shutterstock, The Conversation, CC BY

    Gambling prevalence studies provide a snapshot of gambling behaviour, problems and harm in our communities. They are typically conducted about every five years.

    In some Australian states and territories, four or five have been conducted over the past 20 or so years. These have provided a snapshot into how gambling has changed – and how it has not.

    So, how has gambling in Australia changed in the past two decades or so, and where may we be heading?

    The intensification of gambling

    In 1997-98, the Productivity Commission found about 82% of Australians had gambled in the previous 12 months.

    Almost all further prevalence studies show the proportion of adults gambling has declined substantially over time.

    The 2024 NSW prevalence survey, for example, found 54% reported gambling in the previous 12 months, down from 69% in 2006.

    While fewer people are gambling, the proportion of people experiencing problems has not changed much, nor has gambling turnover.

    In some states, gambling turnover has increased, even when you take inflation into account.

    So while a smaller proportion of people are gambling, those who do gamble are doing so more frequently, and spend more money – a phenomenon we have described as the “intensification” of the industry.

    As figures from the Grattan Institute show, the vast majority of gambling spend comes from a very small proportion of people who gamble.

    What’s the problem?

    Typically, the focus in gambling studies has been on “problem gamblers”, a term we now avoid because it can be stigmatising.

    This refers to those experiencing severe problems due to their gambling, which is typically about 1% of the adult population, and around 2% of people who gamble.

    This doesn’t sound like much, until you remember 1% of adults in Australia is more than 200,000 people. That’s a lot of people struggling with severe problems.

    Based on recent prevalence surveys in Australia, these gamblers spend about 60 times as much as people who do not experience problems.

    However, that’s just the most severe cases.

    How gambling harms people

    When most people think of gambling harm, they think about financial harm. But gambling can cause problems with relationships, work and study, emotional and psychological harm, and even cause health issues.

    Some degree of gambling harm is experienced by around 10-15% of people who gamble.

    Some groups are overrepresented: young men typically experience very high levels of harm compared to others. Other overrepresented groups are:

    • those who have not completed tertiary education
    • people who speak a language other than English
    • people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

    Harm isn’t just experienced by people who gamble, though – it impacts the people around them.

    While young men are more likely to experience harm from their own gambling, women, particularly young women, are most likely to experience harm from someone else’s gambling.

    When we take all of these sources of harm into account, we get a much better picture of gambling harm in our community: around 15-20% of all adults (not all gamblers) experience harm.

    That’s very different to the figure of 1% we’ve focused on in the past.

    We’re still missing some accounting, though: we don’t know how much harm is experienced by people under 18, for example, because prevalence studies typically only include adults.

    Where does the harm come from?

    The most problematic form in Australia is pokies, responsible for about 51-57% of problems.

    Casinos are responsible for another 10-14%, although fewer people have been gambling in casino games in recent years.



    Read more:
    Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended

    Sports betting and race betting together account for about another 19-20% of harm.

    Between them, pokies, casino games and sports and race betting account for about 90% of harm to Australian gamblers.

    Availability is an issue

    This widespread availability of pokies is the biggest single driver behind gambling harm in Australia.

    In other countries, pokies are limited to venues that are specifically used for gambling, like casinos or betting shops.

    We have pokies in a huge number of our pubs and clubs, except in Western Australia.

    A couple of years ago, we used national prevalence data to compare gambling problems in WA to the rest of the country.

    A higher percentage of adults in WA gamble, but mostly on the lotteries which are typically not associated with much harm.

    Gambling on pokies is far less prevalent in WA because they’re only available in one casino. Gambling problems and harm are about one-third lower in WA, and our analysis shows this can be attributed to the limited access to pokies.

    This also tells us something important. If pokies are not available, people will typically not substitute them with other harmful forms. It points to the role of the availability of dangerous gambling products in gambling harm, rather than personal characteristics.

    Online gambling has also become a lot more available. Most of us now have a mobile phone almost surgically implanted onto our hand, making online gambling more accessible than ever. Not surprisingly, online gambling continues to increase.

    An obvious solution to try

    Governments have taken increasingly proactive measures to help address gambling harm, such as the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Gambling, strategies for minimising harm such as NSW’s investment into gambling harm minimisation, Victoria’s proposed reforms on pokies including mandatory precommitment limits, Queensland’s Gambling Harm Minimisation Plan and the ACT’s Strategy for Gambling Harm Prevention.

    Voluntary limits have been trialled to help people keep their gambling under control, but have had virtually no uptake.

    For example, the recent NSW Digital Gaming Wallet trial was conducted in 14 venues. Only 32 people were active users, and 14 of these were deemed genuine users. Another study found only 0.01% of all money put through machines in Victoria used the voluntary YourPlay scheme.

    The problem with voluntary limits is, no one volunteers.

    Mandatory limits though are almost certainly necessary, just like we have mandatory limits for how fast you can drive, or how much you can drink before the bartender puts you in a taxi.

    There will almost certainly be push back against this, just like the introduction of mandatory seatbelts in the 1970s, or the introduction of random breath testing.

    Now, we accept them as important public health measures.

    History tells us the same will happen with mandatory gambling limits, even if we’re a bit uncomfortable about it at first.

    Alex Russell received funding from the Star Entertainment Group from 2014-2016 to conduct research examining gambling behaviour and problems amongst casino staff, and to provide recommendations to minimise risks associated with occupational exposure to gambling. He no longer accepts industry funding, or works on industry-funded projects.

    Matthew Browne receives funding from New Zealand and Australian State and Federal Government Authorities. Most recently, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

    Matthew Rockloff has receives funding from New Zealand and Australian State and Federal Government Authorities. Most recently, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Government of South Australia, Gambling Research Australia, and the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission.

    – ref. Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading? – https://theconversation.com/gambling-in-australia-how-bad-is-the-problem-who-gets-harmed-most-and-where-may-we-be-heading-252389

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI: Western New England Bancorp, Inc. Reports Results for Three Months Ended March 31, 2025 and Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    WESTFIELD, Mass., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Western New England Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company” or “WNEB”) (NasdaqGS: WNEB), the holding company for Westfield Bank (the “Bank”), announced today the unaudited results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The Company reported net income of $2.3 million, or $0.11 per diluted share, for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to net income of $3.0 million, or $0.14 per diluted share, for the three months ended March 31, 2024. On a linked quarter basis, net income was $2.3 million, or $0.11 per diluted share, compared to net income of $3.3 million, or $0.16 per diluted share, for the three months ended December 31, 2024.

    The Company also announced that its Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.07 per share on the Company’s common stock. The dividend will be payable on or about May 21, 2025 to shareholders of record on May 7, 2025.

    In addition, the Company announced that its Board of Directors authorized a new stock repurchase plan (the “2025 Plan”), pursuant to which the Company may repurchase up to 1.0 million shares of the Company’s common stock, or approximately 4.8% of the Company’s outstanding common stock as of today. The 2025 Plan will commence upon the completion of the Company’s existing share repurchase plan (the “2024 Plan”). The 2024 Plan was approved by the Board of Directors on May 21, 2024, and as of March 31, 2025, there were 265,609 shares of common stock available for repurchase under the 2024 Plan.

    James C. Hagan, President and Chief Executive Officer, commented, “I am pleased to report the results for the first quarter of 2025. Our strong, diversified core deposit base and our disciplined approach to managing our funding costs have resulted in an increase in net interest income for the third consecutive quarter. The net interest margin increased eight basis points to 2.49% compared to the preceding quarter. We will continue to proactively manage our funding costs and benefit from our liability sensitive balance sheet to support net interest margin growth. In the first quarter, core deposits increased $70.2 million, or 4.5%, and represented 70.0% of total deposits while the loan-to-deposit ratio decreased to 89.3%. During the same period, average funding costs decreased four basis points.

    “We continue to focus on extending credit within our markets and servicing the needs of our existing customer base while ensuring new opportunities present the appropriate levels of risk and return. Consistent with our prudent credit culture, we continue to proactively identify and manage credit risk within the loan portfolio. Our asset quality remains strong, with nonaccrual loans at 0.29% of total loans as of March 31, 2025.

    “The Company is considered to be well-capitalized, as defined by regulators and internal Company targets, and we remain disciplined in our capital management strategies. We continue to believe that buying back shares represents a valuable use of the Company’s capital. Today, we announced the 2025 Plan, which will commence upon the completion of the 2024 Plan. Our stock repurchase programs are an integral element of our capital management strategies. As such, we believe that repurchasing common stock enhances shareholder value. We are pleased to be able to continue to return value to shareholders through share repurchases.”

    Hagan concluded, “Our commitment to strong capital and liquidity levels gives us a solid foundation to take advantage of opportunities in the markets we serve and to enhance shareholder value in the long term.”

    Key Highlights:

    Loans and Deposits

    Total gross loans increased $9.3 million, or 0.4%, from $2.1 billion, or 77.9% of total assets, at December 31, 2024 to $2.1 billion, or 76.7% of total assets, at March 31, 2025. The increase in total gross loans was primarily driven by an increase in residential real estate loans, including home equity loans, of $8.1 million, or 1.0%, and an increase in commercial and industrial loans of $4.7 million, or 2.2%. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in commercial real estate loans of $3.0 million, or 0.3%, and a decrease in consumer loans of $526,000, or 12.0%.

    At March 31, 2025, total deposits of $2.3 billion increased $66.0 million, or 2.9%, from December 31, 2024. Core deposits, which the Company defines as all deposits except time deposits, increased $70.2 million, or 4.5%, from $1.6 billion, or 68.9% of total deposits, at December 31, 2024, to $1.6 billion, or 70.0% of total deposits, at March 31, 2025. Time deposits decreased $4.3 million, or 0.6%, from $703.6 million at December 31, 2024 to $699.3 million at March 31, 2025. Brokered time deposits, which are included in time deposits, totaled $1.7 million at March 31, 2025 and at December 31, 2024. The loan-to-deposit ratio decreased from 91.5% at December 31, 2024 to 89.3% at March 31, 2025.

    Liquidity

    The Company’s liquidity position remains strong with solid core deposit relationships, cash, unencumbered securities, a diversified deposit base and access to diversified borrowing sources. At March 31, 2025, the Company had $1.1 billion in immediately available liquidity, compared to $665.6 million in uninsured deposits, or 28.6% of total deposits, representing a coverage ratio of 171.5%.

    Uninsured deposits of the Bank’s customers are eligible for FDIC pass-through insurance if the customer opens an IntraFi Insured Cash Sweep account or a reciprocal time deposit through the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry System. IntraFi allows for up to $250.0 million per customer of pass-through FDIC insurance, which would more than cover each of the Bank’s deposit customers if such customer desired to have such pass-through insurance.

    Allowance for Credit Losses and Credit Quality

    At March 31, 2025, the allowance for credit losses was $19.7 million, or 0.95% of total loans, compared to $19.5 million, or 0.94% of total loans, at December 31, 2024. The allowance for loan losses, as a percentage of nonaccrual loans, was 327.1% and 362.9% at March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. At March 31, 2025, nonaccrual loans totaled $6.0 million, or 0.29% of total loans, compared to $5.4 million, or 0.26% of total loans, at December 31, 2024. Total delinquent loans decreased from $5.0 million, or 0.24% of total loans, at December 31, 2024 to $4.5 million, or 0.22% of total loans, at March 31, 2025. At March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company did not have any other real estate owned.

    Net Interest Margin

    The net interest margin increased eight basis points from 2.41% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 to 2.49% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The net interest margin, on a tax-equivalent basis, increased eight basis points from 2.43% for the three months ended December 31, 2024, compared to 2.51% for the three months ended March 31, 2025.

    Stock Repurchase Program

    On May 21, 2024, the Board of Directors authorized the 2024 Plan under which the Company may repurchase up to 1.0 million shares of its common stock, or approximately 4.6%, of the Company’s then-outstanding shares of common stock. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company repurchased 206,709 shares of common stock under the 2024 Plan, with an average price per share of $9.12. As of March 31, 2025, there were 265,609 shares of common stock available for repurchase under the 2024 Plan.

    On April 22, 2025, the Board of Directors authorized the 2025 Plan, pursuant to which the Company may repurchase up to 1.0 million shares of common stock, or approximately 4.8% of the Company’s outstanding shares as of the date the 2025 Plan was announced. Repurchases under the 2025 Plan will commence upon the completion of the 2024 Plan.

    The repurchase of shares under the stock repurchase program is administered through an independent broker. The shares of common stock repurchased under both the 2024 Plan and the 2025 Plan have been and will continue to be, as applicable, purchased from time to time at prevailing market prices, through open market or privately negotiated transactions, or otherwise, depending upon market conditions. There is no guarantee as to the exact number, or value, of shares that will be repurchased by the Company, and the Company may discontinue repurchases at any time that the Company’s management (“Management”) determines additional repurchases are not warranted. The timing and amount of additional share repurchases under both the 2024 Plan and the 2025 Plan will depend on a number of factors, including the Company’s stock price performance, ongoing capital planning considerations, general market conditions, and applicable legal requirements.

    Book Value and Tangible Book Value

    At March 31, 2025, the Company’s book value per share was $11.44, compared to $11.30 at December 31, 2024, while tangible book value per share, a non-GAAP financial measure, increased $0.15, or 1.4%, from $10.63 at December 31, 2024 to $10.78 at March 31, 2025. See pages 16-17 for the related tangible book value calculation and a reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures.

    Net Income for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2025 Compared to the Three Months Ended December 31, 2024.

    For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company reported a decrease in net income of $985,000, or 30.0%, from $3.3 million, or $0.16 per diluted share, for the three months ended December 31, 2024, to $2.3 million, or $0.11 per diluted share. Net interest income increased $261,000, or 1.7%, the provision for credit losses increased $904,000, non-interest income decreased $495,000, or 15.2%, and non-interest expense increased $258,000, or 1.7%. Return on average assets and return on average equity were 0.35% and 3.94%, respectively, for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to 0.49% and 5.48%, respectively, for the three months ended December 31, 2024.

    Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin

    On a sequential quarter basis, net interest income, our primary driver of revenues, increased $261,000, or 1.7%, to $15.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, from $15.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024. The increase in net interest income was primarily due to a decrease in interest expense of $410,000, or 3.1%, partially offset by a decrease in interest income of $149,000, or 0.5%.

    The net interest margin increased eight basis points from 2.41% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 to 2.49% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The net interest margin, on a tax-equivalent basis, increased eight basis points from 2.43% for the three months ended December 31, 2024, compared to 2.51% for the three months ended March 31, 2025.

    The average yield on interest-earning assets, without the impact of tax-equivalent adjustments, was 4.56% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to 4.52% for the three months ended December 31, 2024. The average loan yield, without the impact of tax-equivalent adjustments, was 4.89% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to 4.86% for the three months ended December 31, 2024. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, average interest-earning assets increased $12.7 million, or 0.5% to $2.5 billion, primarily due to an increase in average loans of $10.7 million, or 0.5%, and an increase in average securities of $3.9 million, or 1.1%.

    The average cost of total funds, including non-interest bearing accounts and borrowings, decreased four basis points from 2.20% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 to 2.16% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The average cost of core deposits, which the Company defines as all deposits except time deposits, increased 10 basis points to 1.08% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, from 0.98% for the three months ended December 31, 2024. The average cost of time deposits decreased 20 basis points from 4.31% for the three months ended December 31, 2024, to 4.11% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The average cost of borrowings, including subordinated debt, was 5.04% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Average demand deposits, an interest-free source of funds, decreased $9.6 million, or 1.6%, from $579.2 million, or 25.6% of total average deposits, for the three months ended December 31, 2024, to $569.6 million, or 24.8% of total average deposits, for the three months ended March 31, 2025.

    Provision for (Reversal of) Credit Losses

    During the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company recorded a provision for credit losses of $142,000, compared to a reversal of credit losses of $762,000 during the three months ended December 31, 2024. The increase was primarily due to changes in the most recent macroeconomic forecast. The provision for credit losses was also determined by a number of factors: the continued strong credit performance of the Company’s loan portfolio, changes in the loan portfolio mix and Management’s consideration of existing economic conditions. Management will continue to monitor macroeconomic variables related to the interest rate environment, changing tariff policies and concerns of an economic downturn. Management believes it is appropriately reserved for the current economic environment.

    During the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company recorded net charge-offs of $29,000, compared to net recoveries of $128,000 for the three months ended December 31, 2024.

    Non-Interest Income

    On a sequential quarter basis, non-interest income decreased $495,000, or 15.2%, to $2.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, from $3.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, service charges and fees on deposits decreased $17,000, or 0.7%, to $2.3 million from the three months ended December 31, 2024. Income from bank-owned life insurance (“BOLI”) decreased $13,000, or 2.7%, from the three months ended December 31, 2024 to $473,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2025. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company reported a gain of $7,000 from mortgage banking activities, compared to a loss of $11,000 during the three months ended December 31, 2024. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company reported unrealized losses on marketable equity securities of $5,000, compared to unrealized losses of $9,000, during the three months ended December 31, 2024. During the three months ended December 31, 2024, the Company reported gains on non-marketable equity investments of $300,000 and did not have comparable income during the three months ended March 31, 2025. During the three months ended December 31, 2024, the Company reported $187,000 in other income from loan-level swap fees on commercial loans and did not have comparable income during the three months ended March 31, 2025.

    Non-Interest Expense

    For the three months ended March 31, 2025, non-interest expense increased $258,000, or 1.7%, to $15.2 million from $14.9 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024. Occupancy expense increased $156,000, or 12.4%, primarily due to snow removal costs of $143,000. Advertising expense increased $119,000, or 38.4%, professional fees increased $75,000, or 15.9%, FDIC insurance expense increased $42,000, or 10.8%, and software related expenses increased $17,000, or 2.6%. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in furniture and equipment expense of $18,000, or 3.6%, a decrease in data processing expense of $18,000, or 2.0%, a decrease in debit card processing and ATM network costs of $16,000, or 2.7%, a decrease in salaries and related benefits of $16,000, or 0.2%, and a decrease in other non-interest expense of $83,000, or 5.8%.

    For the three months ended March 31, 2025 and the three months ended December 31, 2024, the efficiency ratio was 83.0% and 80.6%, respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the adjusted efficiency ratio, a non-GAAP financial measure, was 83.0% compared to 81.9% for the three months ended December 31, 2024. The increases in the efficiency ratio and the adjusted efficiency ratio were driven by higher expenses and lower non-interest income during the three months ended March 31, 2025 compared to the three months ended December 31, 2024. The Company’s detailed reconciliation between the non-GAAP measure and the comparable GAAP amount are included at the end of this document. See pages 16-17 for the related adjusted efficiency ratio calculation and a reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures.

    Income Tax Provision

    Income tax expense for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was $664,000, with an effective tax rate of 22.4%, compared to $1.1 million, with an effective tax rate of 24.6%, for the three months ended December 31, 2024.

    Net Income for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2025 Compared to the Three Months Ended March 31, 2024.

    The Company reported net income of $2.3 million, or $0.11 per diluted share, for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to net income of $3.0 million, or $0.14 per diluted share, for the three months ended March 31, 2024. Net interest income increased $188,000, or 1.2%, provision for credit losses increased $692,000, non-interest income increased $85,000, or 3.2%, and non-interest expense increased $402,000, or 2.7%, during the same period. Return on average assets and return on average equity were 0.35% and 3.94%, respectively, for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to 0.47% and 5.04%, respectively, for the three months ended March 31, 2024.

    Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin

    Net interest income increased $188,000, or 1.2%, to $15.5 million, for the three months ended March 31, 2025, from $15.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The increase in net interest income was due to an increase in interest and dividend income of $1.8 million, or 6.9%, partially offset by an increase in interest expense of $1.6 million, or 14.6%. The increase in interest expense was primarily due to an increase in average interest-bearing deposits of $156.1 million, or 9.9%, and an increase in the average cost of interest-bearing deposit accounts of 29 basis points from the three months ended March 31, 2024 to the three months ended March 31, 2025. As a result, the net interest margin decreased from 2.57% for the three months ended March 31, 2024, to 2.49% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The net interest margin, on a tax-equivalent basis, was 2.51% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to 2.59% for the three months ended March 31, 2024.

    The average yield on interest-earning assets, without the impact of tax-equivalent adjustments, increased 11 basis points from 4.45% for the three months ended March 31, 2024 to 4.56% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The average loan yield, without the impact of tax-equivalent adjustments, was 4.89% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to 4.82% for the three months ended March 31, 2024. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, average interest-earning assets increased $126.6 million, or 5.3%, to $2.5 billion, primarily due to an increase in average loans of $51.8 million, or 2.6%, an increase in average short-term investments, consisting of cash and cash equivalents, of $66.7 million, an increase in average securities of $5.9 million, or 1.6%, and an increase in average other investments of $2.3 million, or 18.6%.

    The average cost of total funds, including non-interest bearing accounts and borrowings, increased 19 basis points from 1.97% for the three months ended March 31, 2024, to 2.16% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The average cost of core deposits, which the Company defines as all deposits except time deposits, increased 32 basis points from 0.76% for the three months ended March 31, 2024 to 1.08% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The average cost of time deposits decreased one basis point from 4.12% for the three months ended March 31, 2024 to 4.11% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. The average cost of borrowings, including subordinated debt, increased 13 basis points from 4.91% for the three months ended March 31, 2024 to 5.04% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Average demand deposits, an interest-free source of funds, increased $11.9 million, or 2.1%, from $557.7 million, or 26.1% of total average deposits, for the three months ended March 31, 2024, to $569.6 million, or 24.8% of total average deposits, for the three months ended March 31, 2025.

    Provision for (Reversal of) Credit Losses

    During the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company recorded a provision for credit losses of $142,000, compared to a reversal of credit losses of $550,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2024. The increase was primarily due to changes in the most recent macroeconomic forecast. The provision for credit losses was also determined by a number of factors: the continued strong credit performance of the Company’s loan portfolio, changes in the loan portfolio mix and Management’s consideration of existing economic conditions. Management will continue to monitor macroeconomic variables related to the interest rate environment, the continued discussion on tariffs and the concerns of an economic downturn. Management believes it is appropriately reserved for the current economic environment.

    During the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company recorded net charge-offs of $29,000, compared to net recoveries of $67,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2024.

    Non-Interest Income

    Non-interest income increased $85,000, or 3.2%, from $2.7 million, for the three months ended March 31, 2024 to $2.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, primarily due to a $65,000, or 2.9%, increase in service charges and fees and an increase in income from BOLI of $20,000, or 4.4%.

    Non-Interest Expense

    Non-interest expense increased $402,000, or 2.7%, from $14.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024 to $15.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Salaries and benefits increased $169,000, or 2.0%, advertising expense increased $80,000, or 22.9%, occupancy expense increased $49,000, or 3.6%, debit card processing and ATM network costs increased $25,000, or 4.5%, FDIC insurance expense increased $21,000, or 5.1%, data processing expense increased $20,000, or 2.3%, furniture and equipment expense increased $3,000, or 0.6%, and other non-interest expense increased $98,000, or 7.8%. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in software related expenses of $40,000, or 5.7%, and a decrease in professional fees of $23,000, or 4.0%.

    For the three months ended March 31, 2025 and the three months ended March 31, 2024, the efficiency ratio was 83.0% and 82.0%, respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the adjusted efficiency ratio, a non-GAAP financial measure, was 83.0% compared to 82.0% for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The increases in the efficiency ratio and the adjusted efficiency ratio were driven by higher expenses during the three months ended March 31, 2025 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2024. See pages 16-17 for the efficiency ratio calculation and a reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures.

    Income Tax Provision

    For the three months ended March 31, 2025, income tax expense was $664,000, with an effective tax rate of 22.4%, compared to $827,000, with an effective tax rate of 21.8%, for the three months ended March 31, 2024.

    Balance Sheet

    At March 31, 2025, total assets were $2.7 billion, an increase of $56.2 million, or 2.1%, from December 31, 2024. The increase in total assets was primarily due to an increase in total gross loans of $9.3 million, or 0.4%, an increase in cash and cash equivalents of $44.1 million, or 66.4%, and an increase in investment securities of $3.6 million, or 1.0%.

    Investments

    At March 31, 2025, the investment securities portfolio totaled $369.8 million, or 13.6% of total assets, compared to $366.1 million, or 13.8% of total assets, at December 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025, the Company’s available-for-sale securities portfolio, recorded at fair market value, increased $7.1 million, or 4.4%, from $160.7 million at December 31, 2024 to $167.8 million. The held-to-maturity securities portfolio, recorded at amortized cost, decreased $3.4 million, or 1.7%, from $205.0 million at December 31, 2024 to $201.6 million at March 31, 2025.

    At March 31, 2025, the Company reported unrealized losses on the available-for-sale securities portfolio of $27.8 million, or 14.2% of the amortized cost basis of the available-for-sale securities portfolio, compared to unrealized losses of $31.2 million, or 16.2% of the amortized cost basis of the available-for-sale securities at December 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025, the Company reported unrealized losses on the held-to-maturity securities portfolio of $35.8 million, or 17.8% of the amortized cost basis of the held-to-maturity securities portfolio, compared to $39.4 million, or 19.2% of the amortized cost basis of the held-to-maturity securities portfolio at December 31, 2024.

    The securities in which the Company may invest are limited by regulation. Federally chartered savings banks have authority to invest in various types of assets, including U.S. Treasury obligations, securities of various government-sponsored enterprises, mortgage-backed securities, certain certificates of deposit of insured financial institutions, repurchase agreements, overnight and short-term loans to other banks, corporate debt instruments and marketable equity securities. The securities, with the exception of $8.7 million in corporate bonds, are issued by the United States government or government-sponsored enterprises and are therefore either explicitly or implicitly guaranteed as to the timely payment of contractual principal and interest. These positions are deemed to have no credit impairment, therefore, the disclosed unrealized losses with the securities portfolio relate primarily to changes in prevailing interest rates. In all cases, price improvement in future periods will be realized as the issuances approach maturity.

    Management regularly reviews the portfolio for securities in an unrealized loss position. At March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company did not record any credit impairment charges on its securities portfolio and attributed the unrealized losses primarily due to fluctuations in general interest rates or changes in expected prepayments and not due to credit quality. The primary objective of the Company’s investment portfolio is to provide liquidity and to secure municipal deposit accounts while preserving the safety of principal. The available-for-sale and held-to-maturity portfolios are both eligible for pledging to the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) as collateral for borrowings. The portfolios are comprised of high-credit quality investments and both portfolios generated cash flows monthly from interest, principal amortization and payoffs, which support’s the Bank’s objective to provide liquidity.

    Total Loans

    Total gross loans increased $9.3 million, or 0.4%, from $2.1 billion, or 77.9% of total assets, at December 31, 2024 to $2.1 billion, or 76.7% of total assets, at March 31, 2025. The increase in total gross loans was primarily driven by an increase in residential real estate loans, including home equity loans, of $8.1 million, or 1.0%, and an increase in commercial and industrial loans of $4.7 million, or 2.2%. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in commercial real estate loans of $3.0 million, or 0.3%, and a decrease in consumer loans of $526,000, or 12.0%.

    The following table presents a summary of the loan portfolio by the major classification of loans at the periods indicated:

      March 31, 2025   December 31, 2024
      (Dollars in thousands)
       
    Commercial real estate loans:      
    Non-owner occupied $ 881,105     $ 880,828  
    Owner-occupied   191,582       194,904  
    Total commercial real estate loans   1,072,687       1,075,732  
           
    Residential real estate loans:      
    Residential   659,984       653,802  
    Home equity   123,804       121,857  
    Total residential real estate loans   783,788       775,659  
           
    Commercial and industrial loans   216,368       211,656  
           
    Consumer loans   3,865       4,391  
    Total gross loans   2,076,708       2,067,438  
    Unamortized premiums and net deferred loans fees and costs   2,853       2,751  
    Total loans $ 2,079,561     $ 2,070,189  
                   

    Credit Quality

    Management continues to closely monitor the loan portfolio for any signs of deterioration in borrowers’ financial condition and also in light of speculation that commercial real estate values may deteriorate as the market continues to adjust to higher vacancies and interest rates. We continue to proactively take steps to mitigate risk in our loan portfolio.

    Total delinquency was $4.5 million, or 0.22% of total loans, at March 31, 2025, compared to $5.0 million, or 0.24% of total loans at December 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025, nonaccrual loans totaled $6.0 million, or 0.29% of total loans, compared to $5.4 million, or 0.26% of total loans, at December 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, there were no loans 90 or more days past due and still accruing interest. Total nonaccrual assets totaled $6.0 million, or 0.22% of total assets, at March 31, 2025, compared to $5.4 million, or 0.20% of total assets, at December 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company did not have any other real estate owned.

    At March 31, 2025, the allowance for credit losses was $19.7 million, or 0.95% of total loans and 327.1% of nonaccrual loans, compared to $19.5 million, or 0.94% of total loans and 362.9% of nonaccrual loans, at December 31, 2024. Total criticized loans, defined as special mention and substandard loans, decreased $2.1 million, or 5.5%, from $38.4 million, or 1.9% of total loans, at December 31, 2024 to $36.3 million, or 1.7% of total loans, at March 31, 2025.

    Our commercial real estate portfolio is comprised of diversified property types and primarily within our geographic footprint. At March 31, 2025, the commercial real estate portfolio totaled $1.1 billion, and represented 51.7% of total loans. Of the $1.1 billion, $881.1 million, or 82.1%, was categorized as non-owner occupied commercial real estate and represented 325.8% of the Bank’s total risk-based capital. More details on the diversification of the loan portfolio are available in the supplementary earnings presentation.

    Deposits

    At March 31, 2025, total deposits were $2.3 billion and increased $66.0 million, or 2.9%, from December 31, 2024. Core deposits, which the Company defines as all deposits except time deposits, increased $70.2 million, or 4.5%, from $1.6 billion, or 68.9% of total deposits, at December 31, 2024, to $1.6 billion, or 70.0% of total deposits, at March 31, 2025. Non-interest-bearing deposits increased $24.4 million, or 4.3%, to $590.0 million, and represent 25.3% of total deposits, money market accounts increased $45.7 million, or 6.9%, to $707.2 million, savings accounts increased $9.8 million, or 5.4%, to $191.4 million and interest-bearing checking accounts decreased $9.6 million, or 6.4%, to $140.8 million.

    Time deposits decreased $4.3 million, or 0.6%, from $703.6 million at December 31, 2024 to $699.3 million at March 31, 2025. Brokered time deposits, which are included in time deposits, totaled $1.7 million at March 31, 2025 and at December 31, 2024. The Company has experienced growth and movement in both money market accounts and non-interest-bearing deposits as a result of seasonal customer behaviors, relationship pricing, and the current interest rate environment, as opposed to time deposit specials or interest rate adjustments. We continue our disciplined and focused approach to core relationship management and customer outreach to meet funding requirements and liquidity needs, with an emphasis on retaining a long-term core customer relationship base by competing for and retaining deposits in our local market. At March 31, 2025, the Bank’s uninsured deposits totaled $665.6 million, or 28.6% of total deposits, compared to $643.6 million, or 28.4% of total deposits, at December 31, 2024.

    The table below is a summary of our deposit balances for the periods noted:

        March 31, 2025   December 31, 2024   March 31, 2024
        (Dollars in thousands)
    Core Deposits:            
    Demand accounts   $ 589,996     $ 565,620     $ 559,928  
    Interest-bearing accounts     140,769       150,348       125,377  
    Savings accounts     191,398       181,618       190,732  
    Money market accounts     707,153       661,478       624,474  
    Total Core Deposits   $ 1,629,316     $ 1,559,064     $ 1,500,511  
    Time Deposits:     699,277       703,583       643,236  
    Total Deposits:   $ 2,328,593     $ 2,262,647     $ 2,143,747  
                             

    FHLB and Subordinated Debt

    At March 31, 2025, total borrowings decreased $860,000, or 0.7%, from $123.1 million at December 31, 2024 to $122.3 million. At March 31, 2025, short-term borrowings decreased $870,000, or 16.1%, to $4.5 million, compared to $5.4 million at December 31, 2024. Long-term borrowings were $98.0 million at March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, borrowings also consisted of $19.8 million in fixed-to-floating rate subordinated notes.

    As of March 31, 2025, the Company had $447.5 million of additional borrowing capacity at the FHLB, $378.5 million of additional borrowing capacity under the Federal Reserve Bank Discount Window and $25.0 million of other unsecured lines of credit with correspondent banks.

    Capital

    At March 31, 2025, shareholders’ equity was $237.7 million, or 8.8% of total assets, compared to $235.9 million, or 8.9% of total assets, at December 31, 2024. The change was primarily attributable to a decrease in accumulated other comprehensive loss of $2.6 million, cash dividends paid of $1.4 million, repurchase of shares at a cost of $2.0 million, partially offset by net income of $2.3 million. At March 31, 2025, total shares outstanding were 20,774,319. The Company’s regulatory capital ratios continue to be strong and in excess of regulatory minimum requirements to be considered well-capitalized as defined by regulators and internal Company targets.

      March 31, 2025   December 31, 2024
      Company   Bank   Company   Bank
    Total Capital (to Risk Weighted Assets) 14.28 %   13.56 %   14.38 %   13.65 %
    Tier 1 Capital (to Risk Weighted Assets) 12.27 %   12.55 %   12.37 %   12.64 %
    Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (to Risk Weighted Assets) 12.27 %   12.55 %   12.37 %   12.64 %
    Tier 1 Leverage Ratio (to Adjusted Average Assets) 9.06 %   9.26 %   9.14 %   9.34 %
                           

    Dividends

    Although the Company has historically paid quarterly dividends on its common stock and currently intends to continue to pay such dividends, the Company’s ability to pay such dividends depends on a number of factors, including restrictions under federal laws and regulations on the Company’s ability to pay dividends, and as a result, there can be no assurance that dividends will continue to be paid in the future.

    About Western New England Bancorp, Inc.

    Western New England Bancorp, Inc. is a Massachusetts-chartered stock holding company and the parent company of Westfield Bank, CSB Colts, Inc., Elm Street Securities Corporation, WFD Securities, Inc. and WB Real Estate Holdings, LLC. Western New England Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiaries are headquartered in Westfield, Massachusetts and operate 25 banking offices throughout western Massachusetts and northern Connecticut. To learn more, visit our website at www.westfieldbank.com.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains “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, with respect to the Company’s financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, future performance, and business. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” and “potential.”  Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to our financial condition, results of operations and business that are subject to various factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from these estimates.  These factors include, but are not limited to:

    • unpredictable changes in general economic or political conditions, financial markets, fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies, including actual or potential stress in the banking industry;
    • the duration and scope of potential pandemics, including the emergence of new variants and the response thereto;
    • unstable political and economic conditions, including changes in tariff policies, which could materially impact credit quality trends and the ability to generate loans and gather deposits;
    • inflation and governmental responses to inflation, including recent sustained increases and potential future increases in interest rates that reduce margins;
    • the effect on our operations of governmental legislation and regulation, including changes in accounting regulation or standards, the nature and timing of the adoption and effectiveness of new requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Basel guidelines, capital requirements and other applicable laws and regulations;
    • significant changes in accounting, tax or regulatory practices or requirements;
    • new legal obligations or liabilities or unfavorable resolutions of litigation;
    • disruptive technologies in payment systems and other services traditionally provided by banks;
    • the highly competitive industry and market area in which we operate;
    • operational risks or risk management failures by us or critical third parties, including without limitation with respect to data processing, information systems, cybersecurity, technological changes, vendor issues, business interruption, and fraud risks;
    • failure or circumvention of our internal controls or procedures;
    • changes in the securities markets which affect investment management revenues;
    • increases in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation deposit insurance premiums and assessments;
    • the soundness of other financial services institutions which may adversely affect our credit risk;
    • certain of our intangible assets may become impaired in the future;
    • new lines of business or new products and services, which may subject us to additional risks;
    • changes in key management personnel which may adversely impact our operations;
    • severe weather, natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism and other external events which could significantly impact our business; and
    • other risk factors detailed from time to time in our SEC filings.

    Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, actual results may differ materially from the results discussed in these forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. We do not undertake any obligation to republish revised forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except to the extent required by law.

    WESTERN NEW ENGLAND BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Consolidated Statements of Net Income and Other Data
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
    (Unaudited)
       
      Three Months Ended
      March 31, December 31, September 30, June 30, March 31,
        2025       2024       2024       2024       2024  
    INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME:          
    Loans $ 24,984     $ 25,183     $ 25,134     $ 24,340     $ 24,241  
    Securities   2,422       2,273       2,121       2,141       2,114  
    Other investments   191       214       189       148       136  
    Short-term investments   840       916       396       173       113  
    Total interest and dividend income   28,437       28,586       27,840       26,802       26,604  
               
    INTEREST EXPENSE:          
    Deposits   11,376       11,443       11,165       10,335       9,293  
    Short-term borrowings   54       60       71       186       283  
    Long-term debt   1,219       1,557       1,622       1,557       1,428  
    Subordinated debt   254       253       254       254       254  
    Total interest expense   12,903       13,313       13,112       12,332       11,258  
               
    Net interest and dividend income   15,534       15,273       14,728       14,470       15,346  
               
    PROVISION FOR (REVERSAL OF) CREDIT LOSSES   142       (762 )     941       (294 )     (550 )
               
    Net interest and dividend income after provision for (reversal of) credit losses   15,392       16,035       13,787       14,764       15,896  
               
    NON-INTEREST INCOME:          
    Service charges and fees on deposits   2,284       2,301       2,341       2,341       2,219  
    Income from bank-owned life insurance   473       486       470       502       453  
    Unrealized (loss) gain on marketable equity securities   (5 )     (9 )     10       4       8  
    Gain (loss) on sale of mortgages   7       (11 )     246       –       –  
    Gain on non-marketable equity investments   –       300       –       987       –  
    Loss on disposal of premises and equipment   –       –       –       –       (6 )
    Other income   –       187       74       –       –  
    Total non-interest income   2,759       3,254       3,141       3,834       2,674  
               
    NON-INTEREST EXPENSE:          
    Salaries and employees’ benefits   8,413       8,429       8,112       7,901       8,244  
    Occupancy   1,412       1,256       1,217       1,218       1,363  
    Furniture and equipment   487       505       483       483       484  
    Data processing   882       900       869       846       862  
    Software   659       642       612       566       699  
    Debit/ATM card processing expense   577       593       649       643       552  
    Professional fees   546       471       540       581       569  
    FDIC insurance   431       389       338       323       410  
    Advertising   429       310       271       339       349  
    Other   1,348       1,431       1,315       1,414       1,250  
    Total non-interest expense   15,184       14,926       14,406       14,314       14,782  
               
    INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES   2,967       4,363       2,522       4,284       3,788  
               
    INCOME TAX PROVISION   664       1,075       618       771       827  
    NET INCOME $ 2,303     $ 3,288     $ 1,904     $ 3,513     $ 2,961  
               
    Basic earnings per share $ 0.11     $ 0.16     $ 0.09     $ 0.17     $ 0.14  
    Weighted average shares outstanding   20,385,481       20,561,749       20,804,162       21,056,173       21,180,968  
    Diluted earnings per share $ 0.11     $ 0.16     $ 0.09     $ 0.17     $ 0.14  
    Weighted average diluted shares outstanding   20,514,098       20,701,276       20,933,833       21,163,762       21,271,323  
               
    Other Data:          
    Return on average assets (1)   0.35 %     0.49 %     0.29 %     0.55 %     0.47 %
    Return on average equity (1)   3.94 %     5.48 %     3.19 %     6.03 %     5.04 %
    Efficiency ratio   83.00 %     80.56 %     80.62 %     78.20 %     82.03 %
    Adjusted efficiency ratio (2)   82.98 %     81.85 %     80.67 %     82.68 %     82.04 %
    Net interest margin   2.49 %     2.41 %     2.40 %     2.42 %     2.57 %
    Net interest margin, on a fully tax-equivalent basis   2.51 %     2.43 %     2.42 %     2.44 %     2.59 %
    (1) Annualized.      
    (2) The adjusted efficiency ratio (non-GAAP) represents the ratio of operating expenses divided by the sum of net interest and dividend income and non-interest income, excluding realized and unrealized gains and losses on securities, gain on non-marketable equity investments, and loss on disposal of premises and equipment.
     
    WESTERN NEW ENGLAND BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Consolidated Balance Sheets
    (Dollars in thousands)
    (Unaudited)
                       
      March 31,   December 31,   September 30,   June 30,   March 31,
        2025       2024       2024       2024       2024  
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 110,579     $ 66,450     $ 72,802     $ 53,458     $ 22,613  
    Securities available-for-sale, at fair value   167,800       160,704       155,889       135,089       138,362  
    Securities held to maturity, at amortized cost   201,557       205,036       213,266       217,632       221,242  
    Marketable equity securities, at fair value   414       397       252       233       222  
    Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston and other restricted stock – at cost   5,818       5,818       7,143       7,143       3,105  
                       
    Loans   2,079,561       2,070,189       2,049,002       2,026,226       2,025,566  
    Allowance for credit losses   (19,669 )     (19,529 )     (19,955 )     (19,444 )     (19,884 )
    Net loans   2,059,892       2,050,660       2,029,047       2,006,782       2,005,682  
                       
    Bank-owned life insurance   77,529       77,056       76,570       76,100       75,598  
    Goodwill   12,487       12,487       12,487       12,487       12,487  
    Core deposit intangible   1,344       1,438       1,531       1,625       1,719  
    Other assets   71,864       73,044       71,492       75,521       76,206  
    TOTAL ASSETS $ 2,709,284     $ 2,653,090     $ 2,640,479     $ 2,586,070     $ 2,557,236  
                       
    Total deposits $ 2,328,593     $ 2,262,647     $ 2,224,206     $ 2,171,809     $ 2,143,747  
    Short-term borrowings   4,520       5,390       4,390       6,570       11,470  
    Long-term debt   98,000       98,000       128,277       128,277       120,646  
    Subordinated debt   19,761       19,751       19,741       19,731       19,722  
    Securities pending settlement   2,093       8,622       2,513       102       –  
    Other liabilities   18,641       22,770       20,697       23,104       25,855  
    TOTAL LIABILITIES   2,471,608       2,417,180       2,399,824       2,349,593       2,321,440  
                       
    TOTAL SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY   237,676       235,910       240,655       236,477       235,796  
    TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY $ 2,709,284     $ 2,653,090     $ 2,640,479     $ 2,586,070     $ 2,557,236  
                       
    WESTERN NEW ENGLAND BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Other Data
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
    (Unaudited)
       
      Three Months Ended
      March 31,   December 31,   September 30,   June 30,   March 31,
        2025       2024       2024       2024       2024  
    Shares outstanding at end of period   20,774,319       20,875,713       21,113,408       21,357,849       21,627,690  
                       
    Operating results:                  
    Net interest income $ 15,534     $ 15,273     $ 14,728     $ 14,470     $ 15,346  
    Provision for (reversal of) credit losses   142       (762 )     941       (294 )     (550 )
    Non-interest income   2,759       3,254       3,141       3,834       2,674  
    Non-interest expense   15,184       14,926       14,406       14,314       14,782  
    Income before income provision for income taxes   2,967       4,363       2,522       4,284       3,788  
    Income tax provision   664       1,075       618       771       827  
    Net income   2,303       3,288       1,904       3,513       2,961  
                       
    Performance Ratios:                  
    Net interest margin   2.49 %     2.41 %     2.40 %     2.42 %     2.57 %
    Net interest margin, on a fully tax-equivalent basis   2.51 %     2.43 %     2.42 %     2.44 %     2.59 %
    Interest rate spread   1.74 %     1.63 %     1.60 %     1.66 %     1.85 %
    Interest rate spread, on a fully tax-equivalent basis   1.76 %     1.65 %     1.62 %     1.67 %     1.86 %
    Return on average assets   0.35 %     0.49 %     0.29 %     0.55 %     0.47 %
    Return on average equity   3.94 %     5.48 %     3.19 %     6.03 %     5.04 %
    Efficiency ratio (GAAP)   83.00 %     80.56 %     80.62 %     78.20 %     82.03 %
    Adjusted efficiency ratio (non-GAAP)(1)   82.98 %     81.85 %     80.67 %     82.68 %     82.04 %
                       
    Per Common Share Data:                  
    Basic earnings per share $ 0.11     $ 0.16     $ 0.09     $ 0.17     $ 0.14  
    Earnings per diluted share   0.11       0.16       0.09       0.17       0.14  
    Cash dividend declared   0.07       0.07       0.07       0.07       0.07  
    Book value per share   11.44       11.30       11.40       11.07       10.90  
    Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)(2)   10.78       10.63       10.73       10.41       10.25  
                       
    Asset Quality:                  
    30-89 day delinquent loans $ 2,459     $ 3,694     $ 3,059     $ 3,270     $ 3,000  
    90 days or more delinquent loans   2,027       1,301       1,253       2,280       1,716  
    Total delinquent loans   4,486       4,995       4,312       5,550       4,716  
    Total delinquent loans as a percentage of total loans   0.22 %     0.24 %     0.21 %     0.27 %     0.23 %
    Nonaccrual loans $ 6,014     $ 5,381     $ 4,873     $ 5,845     $ 5,837  
    Nonaccrual loans as a percentage of total loans   0.29 %     0.26 %     0.24 %     0.29 %     0.29 %
    Nonaccrual assets as a percentage of total assets   0.22 %     0.20 %     0.18 %     0.23 %     0.23 %
    Allowance for credit losses as a percentage of nonaccrual loans   327.05 %     362.93 %     409.50 %     332.66 %     340.65 %
    Allowance for credit losses as a percentage of total loans   0.95 %     0.94 %     0.97 %     0.96 %     0.98 %
    Net loan charge-offs (recoveries) $ 29     $ (128 )   $ 98     $ 10     $ (67 )
    Net loan charge-offs (recoveries) as a percentage of average loans   0.00 %     (0.01 )%     0.00 %     0.00 %     0.00 %
    (1) The adjusted efficiency ratio (non-GAAP) represents the ratio of operating expenses divided by the sum of net interest and dividend income and non-interest income, excluding realized and unrealized gains and losses on securities, gains on non-marketable equity investments, and loss on disposal of premises and equipment.
    (2) Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP) represents the value of the Company’s tangible assets divided by its current outstanding shares.
                                           

    The following table sets forth the information relating to our average balances and net interest income for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024 and reflects the average yield on interest-earning assets and average cost of interest-bearing liabilities for the periods indicated.

      Three Months Ended
      March 31, 2025   December 31, 2024   March 31, 2024
      Average       Average Yield/   Average       Average Yield/   Average       Average Yield/
      Balance   Interest   Cost(8)   Balance   Interest   Cost(8)   Balance   Interest   Cost(8)
      (Dollars in thousands)
    ASSETS:                                              
    Interest-earning assets                                              
    Loans(1)(2) $ 2,073,486     $ 25,105       4.91 %   $ 2,062,822     $ 25,311       4.88 %   $ 2,021,713     $ 24,351       4.84 %
    Securities(2)   365,371       2,422       2.69       361,476       2,273       2.50       359,493       2,114       2.37  
    Other investments   14,819       191       5.23       15,924       214       5.35       12,494       136       4.38  
    Short-term investments(3)   76,039       840       4.48       76,795       916       4.75       9,386       113       4.84  
    Total interest-earning assets   2,529,715       28,558       4.58       2,517,017       28,714       4.54       2,403,086       26,714       4.47  
    Total non-interest-earning assets   156,733                   155,538                   154,410              
    Total assets $ 2,686,448                 $ 2,672,555                 $ 2,557,496              
                                                   
    LIABILITIES AND EQUITY:                                              
    Interest-bearing liabilities                                              
    Interest-bearing checking accounts $ 140,960       250       0.72     $ 149,231       264       0.70     $ 135,559       234       0.69  
    Savings accounts   183,869       40       0.09       179,122       38       0.08       186,125       39       0.08  
    Money market accounts   704,215       3,968       2.29       654,965       3,553       2.16       626,267       2,587       1.66  
    Time deposit accounts   702,748       7,118       4.11       700,324       7,588       4.31       627,699       6,433       4.12  
    Total interest-bearing deposits   1,731,792       11,376       2.66       1,683,642       11,443       2.70       1,575,650       9,293       2.37  
    Short-term borrowings and long-term debt   122,786       1,527       5.04       147,748       1,870       5.04       160,802       1,965       4.91  
    Interest-bearing liabilities   1,854,578       12,903       2.82       1,831,390       13,313       2.89       1,736,452       11,258       2.61  
    Non-interest-bearing deposits   569,638                   579,168                   557,711              
    Other non-interest-bearing liabilities   25,464                   23,380                   27,078              
    Total non-interest-bearing liabilities   595,102                   602,548                   584,789              
    Total liabilities   2,449,680                   2,433,938                   2,321,241              
    Total equity   236,768                   238,617                   236,255              
    Total liabilities and equity $ 2,686,448                 $ 2,672,555                 $ 2,557,496              
    Less: Tax-equivalent adjustment(2)       (121 )                 (128 )                 (110 )        
    Net interest and dividend income     $ 15,534                 $ 15,273                 $ 15,346          
    Net interest rate spread(4)           1.74 %             1.63 %             1.85 %
    Net interest rate spread, on a tax-equivalent basis(5)           1.76 %             1.65 %             1.86 %
    Net interest margin(6)           2.49 %             2.41 %             2.57 %
    Net interest margin, on a tax-equivalent basis(7)           2.51 %             2.43 %             2.59 %
    Ratio of average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities           136.40 %             137.44 %             138.39 %
    (1) Loans, including nonaccrual loans, are net of deferred loan origination costs and unadvanced funds.
    (2) Loan and securities income are presented on a tax-equivalent basis using a tax rate of 21%. The tax-equivalent adjustment is deducted from tax-equivalent net interest and dividend income to agree to the amount reported on the consolidated statements of net income.
    (3) Short-term investments include federal funds sold.
    (4) Net interest rate spread represents the difference between the weighted average yield on interest-earning assets and the weighted average cost of interest-bearing liabilities.
    (5) Net interest rate spread, on a tax-equivalent basis, represents the difference between the tax-equivalent weighted average yield on interest-earning assets and the tax-equivalent weighted average cost of interest-bearing liabilities.
    (6) Net interest margin represents net interest and dividend income as a percentage of average interest-earning assets.
    (7) Net interest margin, on a tax-equivalent basis, represents tax-equivalent net interest and dividend income as a percentage of average interest-earning assets.
    (8) Annualized.
     
    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP to GAAP Financial Measures
     

    The Company believes that certain non-GAAP financial measures provide information to investors that is useful in understanding its results of operations and financial condition.  Because not all companies use the same calculation, this presentation may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures calculated by other companies.  A reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures is provided below.

      For the quarter ended
      3/31/2025   12/31/2024   9/30/2024   6/30/2024   3/31/2024
      (Dollars in thousands)
                       
    Loan interest (no tax adjustment) $ 24,984     $ 25,183     $ 25,134     $ 24,340     $ 24,241  
    Tax-equivalent adjustment   121       128       119       114       110  
    Loan interest (tax-equivalent basis) $ 25,105     $ 25,311     $ 25,253     $ 24,454     $ 24,351  
                       
    Net interest income (no tax adjustment) $ 15,534     $ 15,273     $ 14,728     $ 14,470     $ 15,346  
    Tax equivalent adjustment   121       128       119       114       110  
    Net interest income (tax-equivalent basis) $ 15,655     $ 15,401     $ 14,847     $ 14,584     $ 15,456  
                       
    Average interest-earning assets $ 2,529,715     $ 2,517,017     $ 2,441,236     $ 2,400,633     $ 2,403,086  
    Net interest margin (no tax adjustment)   2.49 %     2.41 %     2.40 %     2.42 %     2.57 %
    Net interest margin, tax-equivalent   2.51 %     2.43 %     2.42 %     2.44 %     2.59 %
                       
    Book Value per Share (GAAP) $ 11.44     $ 11.30     $ 11.40     $ 11.07     $ 10.90  
    Non-GAAP adjustments:                  
    Goodwill   (0.60 )     (0.60 )     (0.59 )     (0.58 )     (0.58 )
    Core deposit intangible   (0.06 )     (0.07 )     (0.08 )     (0.08 )     (0.07 )
    Tangible Book Value per Share (non-GAAP) $ 10.78     $ 10.63     $ 10.73     $ 10.41     $ 10.25  
                       
      For the quarter ended
      3/31/2025   12/31/2024   9/30/2024   6/30/2024   3/31/2024
      (Dollars in thousands)
                       
    Efficiency Ratio:                  
    Non-interest Expense (GAAP) $ 15,184     $ 14,926     $ 14,406     $ 14,314     $ 14,782  
                       
    Net Interest Income (GAAP) $ 15,534     $ 15,273     $ 14,728     $ 14,470     $ 15,346  
                       
    Non-interest Income (GAAP) $ 2,759     $ 3,254     $ 3,141     $ 3,834     $ 2,674  
    Non-GAAP adjustments:                  
    Unrealized losses (gains) on marketable equity securities   5       9       (10 )     (4 )     (8 )
    Gain on non-marketable equity investments   –       (300 )     –       (987 )     –  
    Loss on disposal of premises and equipment   –       –       –       –       6  
    Non-interest Income for Adjusted Efficiency Ratio (non-GAAP) $ 2,764     $ 2,963     $ 3,131     $ 2,843     $ 2,672  
    Total Revenue for Adjusted Efficiency Ratio (non-GAAP) $ 18,298     $ 18,236     $ 17,859     $ 17,313     $ 18,018  
                       
    Efficiency Ratio (GAAP)   83.00 %     80.56 %     80.62 %     78.20 %     82.03 %
                       
    Adjusted Efficiency Ratio (Non-interest Expense (GAAP)/Total Revenue for Adjusted Efficiency Ratio (non-GAAP))   82.98 %     81.85 %     80.67 %     82.68 %     82.04 %
                       

    For further information contact:
    James C. Hagan, President and CEO
    Guida R. Sajdak, Executive Vice President and CFO
    Meghan Hibner, First Vice President and Investor Relations Officer
    413-568-1911

    The MIL Network –

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

    US Senate News:

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

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

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Earth Day, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) announced a pair of bills to permanently protect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans from the dangers of fossil fuel drilling. The package includes Padilla’s West Coast Ocean Protection Act, which would permanently prohibit new oil and gas leases for offshore drilling off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Booker and Reed’s Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism (COAST) Anti-Drilling Act, which would permanently prohibit the U.S. Department of the Interior from issuing leases for the exploration, development, or production of oil and gas in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida Planning Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.

    This legislation comes just after the 15th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which resulted in the deaths of 11 workers, 134 million gallons spilled into the Gulf of Mexico over 87 days, the demise of thousands of marine mammals and sea turtles, and billions of dollars in economic losses from the fishing, outdoor recreation, and tourism industries.

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

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

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

    “We must end offshore oil drilling in coastal waters once and for all,” said Senator Padilla. “Over 50 years ago, after a catastrophic oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, Californians rose up and demanded environmental protections, spurring the modern environmental movement and creating the very first Earth Day. As the Trump Administration threatens to recklessly open our coasts to new drilling, California and the West Coast need permanent safeguards to protect our communities from the devastation of fossil fuels and disastrous oil spills. We must act now to fulfill the promises we made to our children and our constituents to meet the urgency of this environmental crisis with bold action.”

    “This week marks both Earth Day and the 15th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster,” said Senator Booker. “I’m standing alongside my colleagues in the House and Senate to reaffirm our commitment to protecting our communities and our environment. Offshore drilling endangers our coastal communities – both their lives and their livelihoods – and threatens marine species and ecosystems. The COAST Act, along with this critical package of legislation, will ensure that marine seascapes along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, and the wildlife, industries, and communities that rely on them, are protected from the dangers of fossil fuel drilling.”

    “Offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean would open up the eastern seaboard to considerable risk, and we have seen the destruction that an accident can cause. This legislation is about more than simply protecting the environment, it’s also about protecting the tourism and fishing industries that create jobs and help power Rhode Island’s economy,” said Senator Reed.

    “It’s clear that in the 15 years since the most catastrophic oil spill disaster in history, Republicans in the pocket of Big Oil have learned nothing. Offshore drilling poses significant threats to our public health, coastal economies, and marine life. The science is clear, and so is the public sentiment: we need to speed up our transition to a clean energy future, not lock ourselves into another generation of fossil fuel fealty,” said Representative Huffman. “We cannot let history repeat itself. My Democratic colleagues aren’t standing idly by as the Trump administration tries to reverse all of our progress so they can give handouts to Big Oil. Our legislation will cut pollution and ramp up clean energy, ensuring our coasts remain safe, clean, and open to all Americans— not turned into open season for fossil fuel billionaires looking to drill, spill, and cash in.” 

    “For decades, I’ve fought to protect our coasts from the dangers of oil and gas development, and this legislative package reaffirms that commitment. Offshore drilling risks devastating spills, accelerates climate change, and threatens the livelihoods of coastal communities like those in New Jersey. On Earth Day and every day, we must stand up to Big Oil and prioritize renewable energy that actually protects our planet,” said Representative Pallone.

    These bills reaffirm vital protections for America’s coastal communities and ecosystems. The Biden Administration protected more than 625 million acres of U.S. ocean waters — including the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, the entire East Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of the Northern Bering Sea — from offshore oil and gas drilling. President Trump immediately tried to roll back those protections, attempting to illegally reopen those areas to drilling on day one of his second term. Trump’s record speaks for itself: during his first Administration, the Interior Department proposed a sweeping plan to open 47 offshore oil and gas lease areas across nearly every U.S. coastline, from California to New England.

    The two bills would protect critical coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems against offshore drilling, which is especially important in the face of the climate crisis. U.S. coastal counties support 54.6 million jobs, produce $10 trillion in goods and services, and pay $4 trillion in wages. Offshore drilling poses significant threats to public health, coastal economies, and diverse marine life that play an important economical, ecological, and cultural role in our ecosystem. 

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

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

    The West Coast Protection Act is cosponsored by Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). It is endorsed by organizations including Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Oceana, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Surfrider Foundation, Seattle Aquarium, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Nassau Hiking & Outdoor Club, Lee (MA) Greener Gateway Committee, South Shore Audubon Society (Freeport, NY), Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Futureswell, Ocean Conservancy, Environment America, WILDCOAST, Food & Water Watch, Environmental Protection Information Center, Ocean Defense Initiative, Center for Biological Diversity, The Ocean Project, Business Alliance to Protect the Pacific Coast, Animal Welfare Institute, Wild Cumberland, Climate Reality Project – North Broward and Palm Beach County Chapter, U.S. Climate Action Network, American Bird Conservancy, Surf Industry Members Association, Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast (BAPPC), Clean Ocean Action, and Hispanic Access Foundation.

    The COAST Anti-Drilling Act is cosponsored by Senator Padilla as well as Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Angus King (I-Maine), Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Whitehouse, and Wyden. It is endorsed by organizations including Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Oceana, Surfrider Foundation, Earthjustice, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Nassau Hiking & Outdoor Club, Lee (MA) Greener Gateway Committee, South Shore Audubon Society (Freeport, NY), Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Futureswell, Ocean Conservancy, Environment America, Food & Water Watch, Waterspirit, Business Alliance to Protect the Atlantic, Clean Ocean Action, Jersey Coast Anglers Association (NJ), American Littoral Society, Save Coastal Wildlife, Environmental Protection Information Center, Defenders of Wildlife, Ocean Defense Initiative, Center for Biological Diversity, The Ocean Project, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Animal Welfare Institute, Wild Cumberland, Climate Reality Project – North Broward and Palm Beach County Chapter, U.S. Climate Action Network, National Aquarium, American Bird Conservancy, and Hispanic Access Foundation.

    “It’s time to end the threat of expanded drilling off America’s coasts forever,” said Joseph Gordon, Oceana Campaign Director. “Oceana applauds these Congressional leaders for reintroducing pivotal legislation that would establish permanent protections from offshore oil and gas drilling for millions of acres of ocean. Earth Day is an important reminder that every coastal community deserves healthy oceans and oil-free beaches. This bill is part of a national movement to safeguard our multi-billion-dollar coastal economies from dirty and dangerous offshore drilling. Congress must swiftly pass these bills into law and reject any expansion of drilling to protect our coasts.”

    “Protecting these waters puts coastal communities and wildlife above polluters and brings us closer to a world where our waters are free from oil spills, endangered whale populations are free from seismic blasting, and local economies can thrive,” said Taryn Kiekow Heimer, Director of Ocean Energy at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). “Now more than ever, we need leadership from Congress to protect our oceans from an industry that only cares about its bottom line – and a Trump administration willing to do anything to give those oil billionaires what they want.”

    “The Trump administration’s path of so-called ‘energy dominance’ is paved with threats to American coasts,” said Sierra Weaver, senior attorney for Defenders of Wildlife. “This set of bills offers real protections for coastal communities and wildlife against unwanted, unreasonable and unsafe offshore oil drilling. This is just the type of bold action we need on the 15th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.”

    “Imperiled species like Southern resident orcas and sea otters need clean, healthy ocean habitats to thrive. New offshore drilling would bring habitat destruction, noise pollution and the threat of spills and chronic contamination to those species and their homes,” said Joseph Vaile, Northwest Program senior representative for Defenders of Wildlife. “This legislation is a critical step toward permanently safeguarding marine mammals and coastal communities from irreversible harm. We thank Senator Padilla for championing the West Coast Ocean Protection Act at a time when the threat of offshore drilling is especially urgent.”

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

    “These bills will permanently protect our coastal communities from the threats of offshore drilling. Oil spills like the one caused by the deadly BP drilling disaster 15 years ago are dangerous to people’s health and our public waters. The economic vitality of entire regions depend on oceans staying healthy,” said Earthjustice Senior Legislative Representative Laura M. Esquivel. “We applaud these Members of Congress for doing what’s right on behalf of their constituents.” 

    “These important bills will protect our environment, communities, and economy from the harmful effects of offshore oil and gas development. Offshore drilling is a dirty and damaging practice that threatens our nation’s ocean recreation, tourism, and fisheries industries valued at $250 billion annually. The Surfrider Foundation urges members of Congress to support this important legislation to prohibit new offshore drilling in U.S. waters,” said Pete Stauffer, Ocean Protection Manager, Surfrider Foundation.

    “These bills are critical, especially now. Protecting our environment and frontline communities from the dangers of offshore oil and gas development must be a top priority in the face of the escalating climate and biodiversity crises,” said Elizabeth Purcell, Environmental Policy Coordinator with Turtle Island Restoration Network. “Congress must act swiftly and support these bills to protect our oceans from further exploitation by the oil and gas industry, ensuring a healthy and safe planet for all.”

    “We are the generation that will live with the consequences of today’s energy choices. As young ocean advocates, we want to leave a better legacy for ocean health behind us than what has been left for us,” said Mark Haver, North America Regional Representative with Sustainable Ocean Alliance. “Congress has a moral responsibility to prevent new offshore oil and gas drilling leases. We will be counting on Congress to act on behalf of our ocean and future generations.”

    “Our coasts are a source of life, livelihood, and recreation for coastal communities and the millions of visitors they see every year,” said Athan Manuel, Director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program. “They also support untold diverse wildlife and ecosystems that are put at risk by exploitation from the oil and gas industry. These bills provide much-needed critical protections for the health of our coastal communities and to ensure that future generations will get to enjoy the wonders of our oceans and beaches.”

    “It has been clear for years that we cannot afford to expand fossil fuel extraction and burning if we want any hope of staving off the ever worsening effects of climate change,” said Mitch Jones, Managing Director of Policy and Litigation at Food & Water Watch. “In addition to the threat of worsening climate chaos, offshore drilling directly endangers local environments, wildlife, and economies due to the threats of oil spills and disruptions to aquatic life. We urge Congress to pass these bills to protect our coastlines and our oceans from Trump’s disastrous push for more drilling.”

    “Water is the pulse of our planet, the sacred thread that connects all life. We all have a responsibility to protect the very essence that sustains us,” said Rachel Dawn Davis, Public Policy & Justice Organizer at Waterspirit. “The threat of exploitation-whether through drilling or pollution-puts ecosystems and future generations at risk. We must continue to honor and defend our waters; in preserving them, we preserve life itself.”

    “Our oceans provide forever benefits in so many ways for both local communities and whole nations. We thoroughly support the bipartisan protections put forward in these Bills, which would position the United States to lead the world and reap huge benefits for tourism, energy security, health and local jobs, not to mention the beautiful wildlife that drives billions of dollars of tourism and other benefits,” said Global Rewilding Alliance.

    “A clean ocean is crucial for the conservation of marine biodiversity,” said Jenna Reynolds, Executive Director of Save Coastal Wildlife. “A polluted ocean poses significant risks to marine wildlife, including increased vessel traffic around oil platforms, which can lead to collisions with marine animals, especially sea turtles and juvenile whales which are difficult to see from moving vessels. Oil spills can directly coat and kill marine animals, including seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and can also damage coastal ecosystems like beaches and coastal wetlands, impacting wildlife and people that rely on these areas. We need to bring back and fully protect biodiversity in our ocean!”

    “We must work toward a future where our coastal communities, economies, and marine life can thrive thanks to a healthy ocean. As the Trump Administration seeks to threaten our favorite beaches and ecosystems with new offshore drilling, it’s more important than ever for ocean champions in Congress to advance ocean protections,” said Sarah Guy, Ocean Defense Initiative. “We are grateful for the leadership of members supporting these bills, and commit to working toward a future where all our coasts are protected from the harms of offshore drilling.”

    “We believe our coasts are far too valuable to risk for short-term fossil fuel gains,” said Katie Thompson, Executive Director of Save Our Shores. “Permanently protecting offshore areas from oil and gas leasing is a critical step toward safeguarding marine ecosystems, coastal communities, and our climate future. These bills reflect the will of the people to prioritize ocean health and long-term sustainability over polluting industries of the past.”

    “This suite of legislation is a critical move to safeguard our marine resources against Trump and his Big Oil agenda,” said Rachel Rilee, oceans policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s been 15 years since the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster devastated coastlines and killed hundreds of thousands of marine animals. Our oceans and the incredible ecosystems they support are counting on us. Congress must pass these bills and then get right back to work protecting marine life and coastal communities from every manmade danger and every Republican attack.”

    “Americans love our coasts. For some of us, they’re home, and for many others, they’re home to wonderful memories, including family vacations at the beach, fishing trips with friends, and encounters with wildlife like sea turtles, dolphins, and whales. But oil spills can destroy all of that. It’s simply not worth the risk. We must not squander our children’s inheritance,” said Bill Mott, Executive Director of The Ocean Project. “The ocean offers endless inspiration, recreational opportunities, and serves as a critically important economic driver. Yet despite its vastness, it is incredibly vulnerable. As we’ve seen too many times before, offshore oil and gas drilling is not compatible with stewarding our ocean. We all share a responsibility to keep our coasts clean and our ocean healthy for future generations. That’s why we urge Congress to act now to prohibit new offshore oil and gas development forever.”

    “AWI commends these Congressional leaders for taking bold action to protect our oceans and coasts from dirty, dangerous oil and gas development along the outer continental shelf,” said Georgia Hancock, Senior Attorney and Director of the Animal Welfare Institute’s marine wildlife program. “Fifteen years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it remains painfully clear: there is no such thing as safe offshore oil drilling, nor is there any way to fully clean up a significant oil spill. Keeping oil rigs out of the ocean prevents unnecessary harm to sensitive marine animals like sea turtles, whales, and seabirds, and avoids the massive costs associated with environmental remediation when things go wrong. These bills draw a clear line in the sand: our marine ecosystems are too precious to risk.”

    “The Pacific west coast economy provides over $80 Billion in GDP via industries like tourism, outdoor recreation, fishing, retail, and real estate, supporting more than 825,000 jobs. And BAPPC’s 8,100 business members rely on a clean ocean to drive their revenues and provide for their customers, employees and families. We strongly support the West Coast Protection Act and other legislation to prohibit new offshore drilling and protect our businesses by prioritizing a healthy coastal ecosystem,” said Grant Bixby, Founding Member, The Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast.

    “The impact of offshore oil drilling on marine life is well-documented, from toxic discharges of drilling mud and fracking chemicals, to chronic oil spills, to the effects of a major well blow-out as has occurred many times in the history of offshore oil drilling. It is time we stopped burning fossil fuels and switch to non-polluting sources such as wind, solar, and other green energy sources. Industrializing our oceans is the last thing we should be doing,” said the International Marine Mammal Project, Earth Island Institute.

    “The oceans and coasts are the lifeblood of the US economy. They deserve not only protection but increased investment and stewardship. Anyone that threatens the coasts puts the entire US economy at risk,” said the Center for the Blue Economy.

    “We strongly support these bills to protect our vital coastal ecosystems and ocean health, which are increasingly threatened by the climate crisis. Offshore oil and gas leasing not only poses a direct risk of pollution to our waters and endangers marine life, but also contributes to climate change by perpetuating our reliance on fossil fuels. We urge swift passage of these protections to safeguard coastal communities, their economies, and a livable future for all,” said the U.S. Climate Action Network.

    “Offshore oil and gas drilling threatens coastal communities and endangers whales, sea turtles and other wildlife that Americans treasure,” said National Aquarium President and CEO John Racanelli. “On Earth Day and every day, all of us – people and wildlife – rely on a healthy ocean for our very survival. The science is clear that moving from dependence on fossil fuels towards clean energy sources safeguards marine ecosystems and protects public health. Legislation that places sensible limits on new oil and gas development along our shores is just smart public policy.”

    “President Biden’s recent permanent ban on offshore drilling in most ocean realms of the US is strong and cause for celebration! That said, codifying this long-overdue protection with acts of Congress is needed to add bulwark against attempts to override the ban as well as provide proof of bipartisan support for the ocean. The reason is simple: a healthy ocean sustains all life on earth and is essential to a vibrant clean ocean economy,” said Cindy Zipf, Executive Director of Clean Ocean Action.

    “Last year President Biden issued an executive action to protect more than 625 million acres of federal waters from fossil fuel development, a historic and bold decision to defend coastal communities, public health, and ecosystems. Azul’s 2024 nationwide poll found that Latinos across political ideologies support action to ban offshore drilling and are even willing to pay more out of pocket to make it happen. We applaud the leadership of members of Congress seeking to codify protections for coastal waters against offshore drilling, and these added protections are needed to defend against threats to undo existing protections against offshore drilling,” said Marce Gutiérrez-Graudins, Founder of Azul.

    “Protecting our oceans is a matter of safeguarding our health, our economy, and our future. Proposals to reduce existing ocean protections and expand offshore drilling raise serious concerns for coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and millions of livelihoods,” said Maite Arce, President and CEO of Hispanic Access Foundation. “Latino communities, many of whom live along our coasts and rely on clean water and healthy marine environments for recreation, jobs, and cultural connection, are uniquely impacted. We support efforts that uphold strong protections and ensure our public lands and waters remain preserved for future generations. Now is the time for bold, bipartisan leadership that centers communities and protects the ocean legacy we all share.”

    “The New Jersey Environmental Lobby unequivocally supports all of the bills,” said Anne Poole, President of the NJ Environment Lobby. “Our organization’s primary focus is State legislation and policies that affect our densely populated coastal state, but oceans know no national or state boundaries.  The oceans are connected and impact all life on this globe.  What affects one coast eventually affects us all. Thank you to all of these ocean champions for their foresight and political courage!”

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

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Highland Council appoints Chief Officer Education – Primary and Early Years

    Source: Scotland – Highland Council

    The Highland Council has appointed Bernadette Scott as Chief Officer Education – Primary and Early Years.

    The appointment completes the new senior management structure of the Council’s People Service Cluster under the leadership of Kate Lackie, Assistant Chief Executive – People.

    Bernadette Scott is currently employed by Perth and Kinross Council as Service Manager, Early Years and Childcare and is a committed education professional with over 30 years’ experience.  Most recently, Mrs Scott’s remit has included taking an overview of services for all children (aged 2-18), with responsibility for improvement in Early Learning and Childcare settings, Primary and Secondary schools. Her strategic remit included raising attainment, performance and reporting and leadership, learning and development of all education staff.

    Prior to her current role in the Central Management Team Bernadette was a Quality Improvement Officer and spent 12 years as a Head Teacher in Perth Primary Schools, leading school development and driving improvements in learning outcomes. 

    Convener of the Council Cllr Bill Lobban said: “I would like to congratulate Bernadette on her appointment and welcome her to The Highland Council. She brings with her a wealth of Education, Early Learning and Childcare experience and leadership to the Council.

    “With this latest appointment I am pleased to see the Council’s senior management structure progressing with continued pace. The new structure is forecasted to initially deliver savings of £370,000 as part of the budget savings agreed by Council in February 2024, and it is anticipated that savings will eventually equate to around 20% of senior management team costs as part of a more streamlined management structure.”

    Bernadette will be starting with Highland Council on 1 June and is looking forward to leading the journey of improvement, working collaboratively to raise primary attainment, support inclusion and deliver the best outcomes for all children and young people across the Highlands.

    As previously intimated in Highland Council’s budget plan for 2024/25, a new senior management structure is being implemented following approval by the Council on 14 March 2024. It reconfigures the senior management team into two layers, rather than three and brings Highland Council into line with other benchmarked authorities.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: PM meeting with Prime Minister Luxon of New Zealand: 22 April 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Press release

    PM meeting with Prime Minister Luxon of New Zealand: 22 April 2025

    The Prime Minister hosted New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon at Downing Street today.

    The Prime Minister hosted New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon at Downing Street today.

    The two leaders reflected on their visit to Operation Interflex to see Ukrainian troops being trained earlier today, and the importance of supporting Ukraine for the long term.

    Discussing the Coalition of the Willing, the Prime Minister thanked Prime Minister Luxon for New Zealand’s ongoing support, adding that the planning phase was making good progress across all four domains – land, air, regeneration and sea. 

    The Prime Minister welcomed New Zealand’s recent uplift in defence spending, and both agreed the direct link between defence spending, economic security and putting money back in the pockets of hardworking people.

    Turning to the situation in the Indo-Pacific, the leaders agreed on the importance of working together to support regional stability and counter malign threats.

    They also discussed the strong trade links between the UK and New Zealand, and the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    The leaders looked forward to speaking again soon.

    Updates to this page

    Published 22 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Defence Secretary Statement to the House of Commons

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Oral statement to Parliament

    Defence Secretary Statement to the House of Commons

    Ukraine Update

    Thank you Mr Speaker. Today, HMS Prince of Wales set sail from Portsmouth and I trust the whole House will join me in wishing the entire carrier strike group a safe and successful global deployment.

    Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the ongoing war in Ukraine.

    Today, parliament returns from its Easter break.

    But during the last two weeks Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has continued. Drones strikes. Missile attacks. Fierce fighting on the frontline.

    On Palm Sunday, men, women and children in Sumy, on their way to church were hit by Putin’s deadliest attack on Ukrainian civilians so far this year, killing 35 people – including young children – and injuring over 100 more.

    We are united in condemnation at this brutal attack and Putin’s illegal actions.

    At this critical moment for Ukraine and for European security, we have stepped up the Government’s efforts for Ukraine and we will step up further, both to increase military support for the fight today and to secure peace for tomorrow.

    Mr Speaker, we cannot jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war.

    So, ten days ago in Brussels, the UK convened and I co-chaired the 27th meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, alongside my good friend, the German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius.

    51 nations and partners – from Europe from the Indo Pacific, from South America – came together at NATO HQ, including Ukrainian President Zelensky, US Defence Secretary Hegseth and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

    We came together to step up our support for Ukraine in the fight. Together we pledged a record 21 billion euros of military support to put Ukraine in strongest possible position and to increase pressure on Putin to negotiate.

    Mr Speaker this year, the UK is providing £4.5 billion in military support to Ukraine, more than ever before.

    And in Brussels, I announced £200 million of support will be surged to the front line, with supplies starting to reach Ukraine’s fighters within the next month including radar systems, anti-tank mines and hundreds of thousands of drones.

    I also announced £160 million worth to help the repair and maintenance essential battlefield vehicles and equipment.

    This support will strengthen Ukrainian troops in the close fight now and strengthen our industrial links with Ukraine to boost UK businesses.

    When President Trump talks about peace through strength, it’s the commitments made through this Contact Group that provide the strength to secure that peace.

    Despite President Putin’s promise of a 30-hour pause in fighting, I can confirm that Defence Intelligence have found, and I quote “no indication that a ceasefire on the frontline was observed over the Easter period”.

    And 10,000 missiles and drones have been fired into Ukraine during this year alone, including from the Black Sea.

    So, while Putin has said he declared an Easter truce – he broke it.

    While Putin says he wants peace – he rejected a full ceasefire.

    And while Putin says he wants to put an end to the fighting – he continues to play for time in negotiations.

    And the military, the Russian military continue to press on a number of fronts.

    Mr Speaker, I can confirm Russian military progress is slowing.

    Putin gained less territory in March then he did in February and less territory in February than he did in January.

    Ukrainian towns which Russia have been targeting since before Christmas have still not been captured.

    Ukrainian troops have still not been ejected from Russian territory in Kursk.

    Whatever ground Putin is taking comes at enormous human cost. Over 940,00 Russians have likely been killed or injured in the war so far – including over 150,000 killed and injured this year alone.

    Last month, the average daily casualty rate on the Russian side was 1,300 – almost double the rate of this time last year.

    While at home, Putin faces crippling interest rates at 21 per cent, inflation running at over 10 per cent and the Russian government is spending nearly 40 per cent of its total budget on this military campaign.

    I have to say Mr Speaker, in the days ahead, it is likely that Russia will keep up attacks on the Sumy oblast to help it fully reclaim nearby contested areas of Kursk.

    In central Donetsk oblast, Russia is targeting urban strongholds such as Toretsk, Povrosk and Chasiv Yar. 

    And in Kharkiv, Russia is continuing to make assaults towards the rail and logistics hub of Kupiansk.

    We do expect more ground to be taken, and more Russian missiles fired into Ukraine.

    And that is why we must remain united for Ukraine across this House, across this country, and across those nations standing alongside Ukraine.

    And we will step up support for Ukraine and pressure on Putin to force him to recognise that now is the time for peace, and continuing the war will prove much worse in the long run for Russia.

    Updates to this page

    Published 22 April 2025

    Invasion of Ukraine

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Additional support provided for Middle East appeal

    Source: Scottish Government

    First Minister announces boost for humanitarian aid.

    First Minister John Swinney has announced an additional £300,000 funding will be provided to support humanitarian aid efforts in the Middle East through the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Appeal and Scottish charities, SCIAF and Mercy Corps.

    This funding, delivered through the Scottish Government’s Humanitarian Emergency Fund programme, will help provide urgent assistance to those affected by the ongoing conflict, including food, clean water, medical care, and shelter for displaced individuals in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.

    The announcement was made by the First Minister during a parliamentary debate on the international situation in which he also called for Scotland to champion the benefits of international trade, cooperation, and solidarity during this period of international turbulence.

    The First Minister said:

    “I’m pleased to announce a contribution of £240,000 through our Humanitarian Emergency Fund to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal for the Middle East, along with £30,000 each for Scottish charities, SCIAF and Mercy Corps for their responses in Lebanon and Syria.

    “This is in addition to the £250,000 that we provided to this appeal last November and comes at a time when humanitarian needs continue to increase across Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.

    “I believe that wherever we can, we do what is within our power to de-escalate and support recovery from disaster and conflict in our deeply interconnected world.

    “Investing in the wellbeing of the international community is also an investment in our national wellbeing and security and I make no apology for doing so in these turbulent times.”

    The First Minister added:

    “At a time when the US, the UK and other donors have slashed their aid budgets, we in Scotland are committed to continuing to support our Global South partner countries, and more widely to responding to humanitarian emergencies globally.

    “Though we recognise the amounts Scotland contributes may be small in the face of growing need, we will do all we can to ensure it has maximum impact. Scotland will continue to act as a good global citizen.”

    DEC spokesperson Huw Owen said: “This additional donation to the DEC Middle East Humanitarian Appeal from the Scottish Government through its Humanitarian Emergency fund is hugely welcome. 

    “The Appeal has now raised close to £4 million here in Scotland, over £45 million UK wide, which also includes many generous individual donations from the public.  We are hugely grateful for this support.

    “It will bolster DEC charities and their expert local partners’ continuing efforts in Gaza and the wider region, working in incredibly challenging circumstances, to reach the most affected communities with medical care, food and clean water as well as psychological support for traumatised children and their families.”

    Background:

    Humanitarian needs across the Middle East continue to escalate, with nearly half of the population of Gaza facing emergency levels of food insecurity and water, shelter and medicine in desperately short supply. By providing this funding, the DEC and its member charities can ensure that when the current blockade of Gaza is finally lifted, those needs can be addressed without delay.

    The DEC appeal for the Middle East launched on 17 October 2024 and the Scottish Government’s previous contribution of £250,000 supported DEC and partner organisations in delivering humanitarian aid across the region.

    Since the appeal’s launch, generous donations from the public have helped deliver lifesaving assistance, and further contributions remain essential to sustain these efforts. The appeal has raised £3.8m in Scotland and the Scottish public can make a donation at Donate to Middle East Appeal | Disasters Emergency Committee

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Preston City Council demonstrates commitment to tackling noise complaints

    Source: City of Preston

    Preston City Council has an ongoing commitment to using the full extent of its powers to tackle anti-social behaviour and protect residents from disturbances that can impact their quality of life.

    Mark Taylor, Interim Director of Environment, Property and Neighbourhood Services at Preston City Council, said:

    “Noise nuisance can be very distressing and is one of the most common causes of neighbour disputes. We always encourage residents to speak with their neighbours where possible, but when that fails and a legal notice is ignored, as in this case, enforcement action becomes necessary.

    Recently, Preston City Council seized noise equipment from a property in Avenham under powers granted by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, following persistent complaints and repeated warnings.

    The Council’s Environmental Protection team had received numerous reports of excessive noise and issued multiple warnings to the occupant. Despite being served with a legal abatement notice requiring them to reduce noise levels to prevent disturbance, the warnings were ignored and the nuisance continued.

    As a result, Council officers applied for and were granted a warrant to enter the property to abate the ongoing statutory nuisance. With the support of Lancashire Constabulary, the property was entered and equipment capable of producing excessive noise, including stereos and loudspeaker, was seized.

    The occupant may apply to have the equipment returned after 28 days, subject to payment of the Council’s costs.

    Mark Taylor added;

    “This operation sends a clear message that anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated in Preston. We urge anyone suffering from persistent or excessive noise to contact our Environmental Protection team for support.”

    Visit our report a noise nuisance page for more information or to report a noise issue.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK’s largest solar parking canopy project completed construction at Lakeside North Harbour

    Source: City of Portsmouth

    It is one of the largest car park solar panel and battery storage installations in the country.

    This innovative initiative comprises rooftop solar PV arrays on four buildings and newly constructed solar car park canopies in three car parking areas, equipped with accompanying battery storage. The full network of solar panels is set to generate approximately 4,000MWh per year. This is a huge amount of energy and is sufficient to power over 1,300 average three-bedroom houses for one year.

    The energy generated will meet around 40% of the entire site’s electricity usage and will mean, on very sunny days and weekends, excess power can be released to the grid. The project is estimated to prevent more than 900 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year.

    The completion of the solar panels and battery storage installation marks a significant milestone in Lakeside’s and Portsmouth City Council’s journey towards sustainability and greener energy, in line with the Council’s Net Zero ambitions.

    The Energy Services and Building Projects teams at Portsmouth City Council have been working with solar panel installation contractor, Custom Solar, to get the panels up and running at Lakeside.

    Cabinet Member for Greening the City and Climate Action Cllr Kimberly Barrett said: “We are thrilled to have reached the final stage of this groundbreaking project! All teams have been dedicated and relentless in their efforts towards completion. It’s truly inspiring to see another solar project land at Portsmouth and make a huge step towards greener energy and our Net Zero goal.”

    Simon Bateman, Asset Manager at Lakeside North Harbour, added: “This is an excellent opportunity for Lakeside businesses to benefit from the council’s Net Zero target at no direct cost to them. We are committed to creating a sustainable and environmentally responsible workspace for the businesses based here, the largest of its kind in this region. We recognise our responsibility to reduce environmental impacts, enhance sustainability, and contribute positively to the community and economy.

    “This solar project will enable us to have a green electric supply for all 60 businesses at Lakeside. The environment is a fundamental core value at Lakeside – from creating the right atmosphere for our occupier community to driving sustainability and efficient use of our valuable resources.”

     To keep up to date on their projects, follow Lakeside North Harbour on LinkedIn.

    To keep up to date on the council’s energy and building projects, follow the Portsmouth City Council building services on LinkedIn.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Policy approved to deliver a ‘consistent and equitable’ approach for the allocation of housing

    Source: City of Salford

    • Housing Allocation Policy for 2025 to 2028 approved by Salford City Council.
    • The policy underpins the council’s wider strategic priorities of its Corporate Plan 2024 to 2028 and commitment to ‘a good home for all’.
    • Housing options available will be dependent upon the level and type of housing need, in addition to the size, type and location of available properties. Each application is assessed on its own merits.

    Salford City Council’s cabinet has approved its Housing Allocation Policy for 2025 – 2028, which sets out how social rented housing is allocated within the area and how residents on the housing register are prioritised taking into account local considerations and needs.

    The need and strong demand for social housing currently outweighs the availability of social housing, with around 4,500 people on the council’s housing register, at any one time. This includes many of the 787 households currently housed in temporary accommodation. However, fewer than 900 properties are advertised or let every year, through the register.

    Furthermore, the city faces a number of challenges in the form of increasing homelessness, temporary accommodation use and costs. This policy, therefore underpins the council’s wider strategic priorities which are: homelessness prevention, making the best use of housing assets, supporting the council’s corporate parenting role/ responsibilities, reducing the impact of domestic abuse including the cycle of abuse and an anti-poverty approach.

    The policy is based on:

    • A fair system for the allocation of housing accommodation, which is transparent and easy to understand.
    • Making best use of increasingly scarce social housing stock (homes available for rent below market rate to households whose needs cannot be met by the commercial housing market – Housing and Regeneration Act 2008).
    • Preventing homelessness and reduce the usage and length of stay in temporary accommodation.
    • Giving priority to applicants with the greatest housing need.
    • Managing customer expectations by supporting people to make realistic and informed choices about where they live.
    • Creating sustainable tenancies in the light of welfare reform.
    • Creating balanced and stable communities.

    A first stage public consultation took place in March 2024, to review the existing policy criteria, which included members of the public, local organisations, key stakeholders and partners. A second stage public consultation was held in December 2024, to further explore the suggested and proposed policy changes – including engagement with vulnerable people who shared their real-life experiences.

    The outcome of this review and public consultation recommended 16 changes to be implemented within the new Allocation Policy (Adobe PDF format). A further review will take place in 2027/28 or earlier if required by new legislation or government guidance.

    The housing options available to a household will be dependent upon the level and type of housing need. Each application will be assessed on its own merits and exceptional circumstances will also be taken into consideration. Housing options and advice aim to achieve:

    • Help and support to remain in current accommodation.
    • Advice on securing alternative private rented accommodation.
    • Advice on mobility schemes that may help a household move out of the area.
    • Advice to current social housing tenants on mutual exchange.
    • Advice on low-cost home ownership options.
    • Access to the housing register to obtain social housing.

    Councillor Tracy Kelly, Lead Member for Housing and Anti-Poverty at Salford City Council said: “The policy enables the council to deliver a consistent and equitable approach to the allocation of social housing in Salford, to help us meet the housing needs of residents in our communities.

    “We recognise that social housing is in high demand, both in Salford and across the country, which is why we are continuing to deliver on our pledge to build good quality homes as well as truly affordable homes for social rent alongside support for people at risk of or experiencing homelessness. 

    “The need for affordable housing options in Salford means that it’s vital we continue to work to create long-term solutions to turn the situation around and provide truly affordable housing in our city which local people need and deserve.”

    People wanting to apply to the housing register can do so on the housing register. Anyone who needs housing advice, is homeless or feel they are at risk of losing their home can request an appointment on the Salford City Council website. A number of Registered Housing Providers (landlords of social rented homes) also advertise properties on the Salford Home Search website.

    Share this

    Date published
    Tuesday 22 April 2025

    Press and media enquiries

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Sex Offender from Uxbridge Charged with Possessing Child Pornography While on Federal Supervised Release

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    BOSTON – An Uxbridge man has been charged in federal court in Worcester for possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) while on federal supervised release for a prior CSAM conviction.

    Scott Morrill, 52, was charged with possession of child pornography. Morrill was arrested on April 7, 2025 and remains detained in federal custody following a detention hearing that was held on April 17, 2025. 
     
    According to the charging documents, during a search of his residence, Miller’s laptop was allegedly found to contain images and videos depicting CSAM. At the time of the alleged offense, Morrill was on federal supervised release for a 2013 conviction of distribution of child pornography, for which he was sentenced to five years in federal prison.

    The charge of possession of child pornography provides for a sentence of not less than 10 years and up to 20 years in prison, a minimum of five years and up to life 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; Michael J. Krol, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in New England; and the Colonel Geoffrey D. Noble, Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police made the announcement today. Valuable assistance was provided by the Uxbridge Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristen Noto of the Worcester Branch Office is prosecuting the case.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse, launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children, as well as identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit https://www.justice.gov/psc.

    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 –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: British Transport Police Authority is recruiting a new Deputy Chief Constable for the British Transport Police

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government Non-Ministerial Departments 2

    22 April 2025

    Following the retirement of Deputy Chief Constable Alistair Sutherland after his long and distinguished career in policing, the British Transport Police Authority is recruiting a new Deputy Chief Constable for the British Transport Police.

    Further details on the role and how to apply are available on a dedicated online microsite here.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Chair appointed for public inquiry into Nottingham stabbing attack

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Chair appointed for public inquiry into Nottingham stabbing attack

    Former senior circuit judge, Her Honour (HH) Deborah Taylor, has been appointed by the Lord Chancellor to chair the statutory inquiry into the Nottingham attacks.

    HH Deborah Taylor

    • Her Honour Deborah Taylor to chair Nottingham inquiry
    • Holistic review to provide recommendations to prevent similar incidents
    • Full Terms of Reference to be published in due course

    Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar, both 19, and Ian Coates, 65, were tragically killed and three others seriously injured by Valdo Calocane in Nottingham in June 2023.

    Speaking in the House of Commons today (April 22), the Lord Chancellor confirmed HH Deborah Taylor would undertake a thorough, independent assessment of the events that culminated in these brutal attacks, and provide recommendations to prevent similar incidents.

    The statutory inquiry will have the power to examine all the agencies involved, including the Nottinghamshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service; compel witnesses, and establish the facts. The Prime Minister has committed that the inquiry should report within two years.

    The bereaved families and survivors of the attack were present in the public gallery during the Lord Chancellor’s announcement.

    Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood said:

    The bereaved families and survivors of the Nottingham Attack, who have suffered so much, deserve to know how these horrific attacks were able to happen.

    I am pleased to appoint Her Honour Deborah Taylor as the Chair of this inquiry. She brings deep experience to the role, and I know she will undertake a fearless and thorough examination of the facts.

    The Chair, a retired senior circuit judge, has already engaged with survivors and victims’ families, and taken views on the draft Terms of Reference, which will be laid in due course.

    Minister for Victims and Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), Alex Davies-Jones, said:

    My thoughts remain with the bereaved families and survivors of this terrible incident, who in the face of such tragedy, have consistently called for an Inquiry.

    It is important for the bereaved families and survivors that this Inquiry reports without undue delay which is why the Prime Minister has committed the inquiry should report in two years.

    Notes to editors:

    • With the Chair in place and the inquiry being formally established today, it can begin preliminary work immediately. The final terms of reference will be published as soon as possible.
    • There have been nine separate reviews into various elements of the Nottingham attacks including: Valdo Calocane’s healthcare and the healthcare institution; actions by Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire Police; and decisions of the CPS.  IOPC investigations into the actions of Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire police are ongoing.
    • The Law Commission is undertaking a review into homicide law and will consider the partial defence of diminished responsibility.
    • HH Deborah Taylor was a Senior Circuit Judge, Resident Judge at Southwark Crown Court and Recorder of Westminster until her retirement from the Judiciary in December 2022. In 2022 she was Treasurer of Inner Temple, where she advocated for greater diversity at the Bar.
    • Deborah has chaired the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board (CLAAB) since July 2023.

    Updates to this page

    Published 22 April 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Testing continues at Blairgowrie Recreation Centre

    Source: Scotland – City of Perth

    The £36 million leisure centre will replace the existing Blairgowrie Recreation Centre which is now over 40-years-old. The new centre was due to open earlier this year but this was postponed after a leak was discovered in the pool.

    The new centre will be Scotland’s first leisure centre built to environmentally-friendly Passivhaus standards, providing state-of-the-art, low-energy facilities for community and school use.

    It has a six-lane 25m swimming pool; a four-court sports hall; two-court sports hall/gymnasium; fitness suite; dance studio; several different changing facilities; office; a PE classroom as well as a floodlit synthetic outdoor pitch.

    Construction on the long-awaited new centre began in June 2023.

    After the initial leak was repaired, further testing was carried out which revealed a second, minor, leak in the pool. Contractors are working to resolve this issue before an opening date for the new centre is announced.

    Council leader Councillor Grant Laing has now written to independent councillor Colin Stewart, convener of Perth and Kinross Council’s Scrutiny and Performance Committee, to undertake a review of the issues that have led to the delays.

    Councillor Laing said: “We are all looking forward to Blairgowrie Recreation Centre opening.

    “However, it is extremely frustrating that we have had to keep pushing back the opening date while contractors resolve these issues with the pool.

    “Although this is not incurring any cost to the Council and we will not accept handover of the building until we are satisfied everything is working properly, we owe it to our residents to learn exactly what caused these issues and if they can be prevented on any future construction projects, here in Perth and Kinross or elsewhere.”

    The leak had been traced to an area around the movable floor equipment in the pool.

    The pool has been drained to allow all fixing and seals to be tested and to carry out repairs before the Council accepts handover of the building.

    Stephen Crawford, Perth and Kinross Council’s Strategic Lead for Property Services, said: “Blairgowrie Recreation Centre is a hugely important facility for our residents in Eastern Perthshire and we want the building to be in perfect condition before it opens.

    “We are all disappointed at this additional delay. Our contractors are working hard to ensure there are no faults in the building before it is handed over to Perth and Kinross Council and we can make preparations for opening day.”

    Paul Carle, Construction Director with BAM UK and Ireland, said: “The new Blairgowrie Recreation Centre will be fantastic facility for the whole community and we’re disappointed that we have not yet been able to hand over the keys to Perth and Kinross Council.

    “The pool is a complex design, and we have been working with specialist contractors to deliver it. Unfortunately, there have been technical issues and it’s right that we take time to correct these before it opens to the public. We are sorry for the delay and remain fully focussed of getting the repairs undertaken as early as possible.”

    The existing Recreation Centre remains open and will be used as the venue for this year’s SQA exams.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: New public square unveiled in Gorton town centre

    Source: City of Manchester

    A new public square is now formally open, providing a new heart and focal point for the Gorton neighbourhood, while supporting the ongoing success of the existing Gorton Market.

    The new square is located off Garratt Way between the market and Tesco superstore, which has seen the conversion of part of the underused car park into a people-first space for the whole community.  

    The square has been designed following consultation with local people and community groups to create a splash of colour, a multi-functional space with new trees and plants, plenty of seats and space to host events and activities for children. Aa relaxing space for local people and visitors to eat and spend time.  

    Key features include: 

    • A flexible space that can host events and pop-up gatherings 
    • A raised market terrace area with seating for people to relax and an upgraded, outdoor trading space for Gorton Market  
    • A new nature area with significant planting to screen the square from Garratt Way and introduce biodiversity  
    • Imaginative interactive play features for young people  
    • Light projections to animate the space  
    • Improved and safer walking and cycling routes to and through the local area 
    • An altered road layout from Garratt Way, to slow traffic, reduce movement conflicts, but maintain access. 

    This new Square will enhance the existing market offer, helping to increase footfall and create a destination space. There will be further investment in the Square later this year  

    The project was funded by the UK Government. The square was built by Warden Construction.  

    This investment is part of the wider ambition for Gorton, set out in the Development Framework for the neighbourhood, and complements other investment in the local area, including the opening of the Gorton Hub community space in 2022. 

    The longer-term regeneration proposals for this part of Gorton include hundreds of new mixed tenure homes housing, including significant affordable homes, that will be built on Council-owned land overlooking the new square. 

    Find out more about the Council’s investment in the city’s high streets and district centres   

    Leader of the Council Bev Craig said:  

    “We are investing in our local communities across the city because we know how important Manchester’s high streets are to the people they serve. This isn’t just about accessing services easily – like health care and shops – this is also about creating pride in our local spaces and neighbourhoods our residents want to live in.  

    “We know that Manchester people want to live in welcoming, clean and green communities that support businesses, create jobs and provide opportunities for new affordable housing.  

    “This is what we’re doing in Gorton, Moston Lane, Withington high street and Wythenshawe town centre – and we have our sights set on other district centres, such as Newton Heath in north Manchester, for future investment that will continue our ongoing commitment to investing in the things our local communities want and need.” 

    Councillor Gavin White, Executive Member for Housing and Development said:  

    “This is an exciting milestone for Gorton and the next element of the investment plan, alongside the Gorton Hub, that is helping to create a real destination in this district centre.  

    “The new public space will host community events, support local businesses including Gorton Market, and create a new heart for the neighbourhood and community – ultimately supporting a strong local economy. 

    “New housing – including significant affordable housing – is also a key part of the regeneration plan for Gorton using Council-owned land close to the new town square, building the homes that the people of east Manchester need to thrive.” 

    Ian Williams, Managing Director at Warden Construction, added:

    “Warden Construction is incredibly proud to have played a key role in bringing this vibrant new public square to life for the people of Gorton. Seeing this underused space transformed into a welcoming heart for the community, one that complements the existing market and offers opportunities for connection and enjoyment for all ages, is truly rewarding. We believe this thoughtfully designed square will be a cornerstone of Gorton’s ongoing regeneration, and we look forward to seeing it thrive.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –