It’s no secret that Americans are frustrated by the economy: Consumer sentiment has fallen for four straight months to one of its lowest levels on record, according to a closely watched metric from the University of Michigan. In surveys, people report feeling exasperated by high prices and slowing incomes. The job market is weakening, and the stock market has been inching down from last month’s record highs. A measure by the Conference Board released Tuesday showed a sharp decline in consumer confidence in November. “Consumer economic sentiment is suffering,” said Elizabeth Renter, senior economist at NerdWallet. “People are concerned about affordability, the labor market and business conditions.” But not everyone is equally upset. A closer look at the data shows considerable variance based on factors such as a person’s age, income and political leaning. Some people are even feeling better about their finances now than they were a few months ago. Here, in four charts, is a breakdown of who is feeling relatively good about the economy — and who isn’t. One of the biggest determinants of Americans’ views on the economy: who’s in the White House. People tend to feel better about their financial situations when their political party is in power, according to surveys going back to the Reagan era. This split has become particularly pronounced in recent election cycles, as the country becomes more politically polarized. Democrats, who were feeling glum about the economy during President Donald Trump’s first term, quickly changed their tune after Joe Biden was elected in late 2020. That trend quickly reversed last year, with Republicans giving the economy much higher marks once Trump won, according to the University of Michigan survey. And although people across the political spectrum are feeling worse about the economy than they were a month ago, Republicans continue to have a much rosier outlook than Democrats or independents do. It’s not particularly surprising that Americans with higher incomes tend to feel better about the economy than their lower-paid counterparts. Wealthier households typically spend a smaller share of their incomes on basics, like gas and groceries, which means they have a bigger cushion to fall back on when prices rise. Still, economists note that the gap between the highest earners and everyone else has recently widened, as economic stress begins to pinch the middle class. Consumer sentiment among middle-income families has tumbled 17 percent since July, compared with an 11 percent decline for those with both higher and lower incomes. The stock market has posted huge gains this year — hitting record highs, before retreating in the past month. Overall, the S&P 500 index is up 35 percent since early April and 16 percent for the year to date. As a result, Americans with stocks are feeling flush, according to University of Michigan data through September. Sentiment among those with the top 20 percent of stock holdings, in particular, has picked up since March. But those without stocks are feeling worse about the economy than they have all year. For context, roughly 60 percent of Americans own stocks, often in the form of retirement funds or mutual funds, according to a recent Gallup poll. Well-off Americans — with college degrees and household incomes of $100,000 or more — are most likely to have a stake in the stock market. Race also plays a role: 70 percent of White adults own stocks, compared with 53 percent of Black adults and 38 percent of Hispanic adults. Americans under 35 may have less wealth than older generations, but it turns out they’re more optimistic about the economy. That’s especially the case now, Conference Board data shows, with consumer sentiment among younger adults at a two-year high. Older cohorts, meanwhile, are feeling worse than they were a few months ago. Economists say it isn’t entirely clear why young adults are feeling more hopeful than older generations but say recent wage growth trends may offer one explanation. Younger workers have also seen the largest annual incomes gains — 5.9 percent, as of August, for Americans ages 16 to 24, compared with a 4.2 percent increase for all workers, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. In addition, younger adults, especially in their 20s, may still be living with their parents or relying on them for health insurance or other financial help, helping shield them from rising costs, said Dana Peterson, chief economist at the Conference Board. “It’s a pretty notable gap, those under 35 and over,” she said. “They’re young, and they’re more optimistic, and that’s been the case since even before the pandemic.”

Campbell’s soup has been a staple of American childhood, sick days and holiday casserole recipes for decades. This week it’s also at the center of a debate over its ingredients. Campbell’s called the claims “patently absurd.” The amount of sodium in many canned soups is “shockingly high,” says Maya Vadiveloo, associate professor of nutrition at the University of Rhode Island, especially since most people probably aren’t going to limit themselves to a single serving. “You’re going to probably eat a whole can,” she says. Excess sodium raises blood pressure, and high blood pressure is a major risk factor for heart attacks and strokes. Campbell’s said it has many varieties of lower-sodium soup, as well as unsalted versions to help consumers meet their unique dietary needs. “We are proud of the food we make and the high-quality ingredients we use,” a Campbell’s spokesperson said. “We provide clear nutritional information so consumers can make the right decisions for their personal health goals.” High-sodium foods are hard to resist—what nutrition researchers call hyperpalatable. Salt “makes us over consume, that makes us gain weight and then that’s associated with a whole host of negative health consequences,” says Christina A. Roberto, director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. If you do want a can of soup, “that’s ok” for most people, says Yasi Ansari, a registered dietitian in Los Angeles. Just remember for the rest of the day to be “a little bit more mindful when it comes to your sodium intake.” Write to Andrea Petersen at [email protected]

Twenty-four million Americans are facing spiking health insurance prices because of expiring enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that Republicans have so far refused to extend. Lawmakers are divided on the way ahead, with the deadline to sign up for 2026 coverage on Dec. 15. GOP leaders are faced with competing proposals across the House and Senate but the same political dilemma: Either they extend the subsidies and endorse ObamaCare, which Republicans have long opposed, or they let the subsidies expire ahead of next year’s midterms and deal with the electoral fallout. Some want a deal to preserve the enhanced subsidies, heading off voter ire and preventing an election-year nightmare scenario for the GOP. Others want the enhanced subsidies to expire and be replaced by direct cash to Americans, convinced they can blame Democrats for high costs. No matter what happens, the law’s underlying subsidies that help people afford premiums will continue past year’s end. But the expiration of the enhanced subsidies, enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, means millions will see higher monthly payments. Here’s what’s on the GOP menu, and who is behind it: One bill comes from Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), and Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.). Their bill would extend ObamaCare’s enhanced subsidies for two years, along with some changes to try to assuage conservatives’ concerns about fraud. The bill would extend the enhanced tax credits through 2027 for enrollees earning less than $200,000 per year for a family of four, and it would phase out the subsidies for enrollees earning between $200,000 and $300,000 for a family of four. It would also create new guardrails to prevent “ghost beneficiaries” — ObamaCare enrollees who don’t have any health care claims. It’s one of the main criticisms Republicans have of the subsidies, and they argue it’s an indication of widespread fraud. The bill would codify the federal government’s authority to remove bad actors from ACA marketplaces and require marketplaces to regularly confirm enrollee eligibility and that enrollees haven’t died. The bill would also extend open enrollment to May 15 as a recognition that many would-be recipients may have been discouraged from purchasing health insurance by sticker shock over high premiums. Separately, Bacon joined another small bipartisan group led by California Reps. Kevin Kiley (R) and Sam Liccardo (D) to back a two-year subsidy extension with an income cap that includes a pay-for. It seeks to create savings by cutting “excessive Medicare Advantage payouts to insurers” through the common practice of “upcoding.” Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.), who’s facing a tough reelection contest, has her own bill promoting a one-year extension. It’s been endorsed by 14 other GOP lawmakers. The plan from Cassidy, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, would let the enhanced subsidies expire. Congress would then use that funding to deposit money directly into savings accounts (HSAs) for people who buy high-deductible plans on ObamaCare exchanges. The original subsidies would still go toward marketplace premiums. Giving people HSAs has been a favorite idea among Republicans for years, and it was a key part of the party’s 2017 ACA replacement bills in the House and Senate. The idea appeals to Republicans who want to promote free market competition in health care. Cassidy argued that offering HSA funds to a patient directly cuts out the insurer and empowers a patient to make their own choices for healthcare. “We don’t have to be paternalistic,” he said during a recent Finance Committee hearing on health costs. Cassidy’s plan is not the official Republican position, and he hasn’t released legislation yet. But it aligns with a demand by President Trump to end the enhanced subsidies and send money directly to consumers. His idea takes advantage of a change made possible by the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which allowed ObamaCare “bronze” plans to be eligible for HSAs. Bronze plans feature lower premiums but high deductibles and only 60 percent coverage for medical expenses. HSAs can’t be used to pay for monthly premiums, and critics argue that they won’t help if someone can’t afford the underlying cost in the first place. They also are of little help for someone with an expensive medical condition like cancer or diabetes. Cassidy said he doesn’t have a cost estimate, and he hasn’t worked out how to allocate the HSAs to consumers. Prior to the Thanksgiving recess, Cassidy said his goal was to have a plan ready to go by mid-December, which is when Senate GOP leaders promised Democrats they would hold a vote on extending the enhanced subsidies. Like Cassidy’s idea, Scott’s legislation centers on health savings accounts and would let the enhanced subsidies expire. But his proposal goes even further than Cassidy’s and could undermine the entire structure of the Affordable Care Act. Scott’s bill lets states submit a waiver to the federal government to replace the base ACA premium tax credits and instead fund “HSA-style Trump Health Freedom Accounts.” Unlike traditional HSAs, people could use the funds to pay for both premiums and health expenses. According to the bill, the payments would be effective starting Jan. 1. According to health research group KFF, the “freedom accounts” could be used for any type of health insurance plan, including short-term plans that can exclude people based on pre-existing conditions, which is not allowed under ObamaCare. States could also waive certain provisions of the ACA, including the requirement to cover certain benefits. Scott’s plan would allow insurers to sell plans across state lines, opening up the possibility of selling plans that don’t meet a state’s regulatory requirements. Scott’s plan could lead to a collapse of the ACA marketplace in states that fund the freedom accounts. Healthy people would be able to buy less expensive coverage or skip insurance altogether and use their accounts to pay for health care directly. People with expensive health conditions would only be able to get coverage from ACA exchange plans. President Trump has been sending conflicting messages. Earlier this month, he posted an all-caps message on Truth Social telling Congress not to “waste your time and energy” on extending the subsidies. But then a leaked White House plan reported by various outlets was closer to the House moderates’ idea than the ones from Cassidy or Scott. It involved temporarily extending the ACA subsidies, potentially for two years, while incorporating a series of guardrails, like income eligibility limits and a requirement that all enrollees pay some form of premium. Both those policies seek to address the allegations of fraud. It also reportedly would have included some incentives for enrollees to choose a high-deductible plan and redirect some federal aid into a health savings accounts. Yet the apparent trial balloon popped soon after it was leaked. The reports sparked backlash from Republicans, who have spent years railing against the law. On Nov. 25, Trump told reporters on Air Force One he’d “rather not” extend the subsidies. “Somebody said I want to extend them for two years. I don’t want to extend them for two years. I’d rather not extend them at all,” Trump said. “Some kind of extension may be necessary to get something else done, because the un-Affordable Care Act has been a disaster.” Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

A veteran reporter noticed that President Donald Trump's top officials are dodging questions about exactly when the suspected Washington, D.C., gunman was granted asylum. Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for D.C., identified the suspect as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who had been living in Washington state, but FBI Director Kash Patel avoided a direct question on whether his asylum claim was granted during Trump's presidency, as multiple outlets have reported. "There is reporting from CNN and other news outlets about this, the gunman receiving asylum during the Trump administration," said MS NOW's David Rohde. "FBI Director Patel referred that to statements by [Homeland Security] Secretary [Kristi] Noem. But our colleagues here at MS NOW, we've all looked at Secretary Noem's remarks and she did not say anything. So essentially, the administration has not answered the question about whether or not he was granted asylum during the Trump administration." Lakanwal, who had worked in his home country with the CIA, came to the U.S. in 2021 under a Biden-era program following the American military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and multiple law enforcement officials told CNN and other outlets that he was granted asylum in April 2025, during the Trump administration. "One of the details here is that he drove across the entire country to Washington to carry out this attack, drove his own car, and that's a startling amount of effort that went into this in terms of premeditation," Rohde said. "It also shows how hard it is to find someone when they drive across the country and have a weapons in a car. There was an incident, a shooting in New York at the building where the NFL is housed, and that was a young man who drove with a weapon in his car all the way from Las Vegas to New York. So those are difficult things to to track." Patel was asked directly Thursday morning to comment on Lakanwal's arrival and asylum approval, and he pointed reporters to statements from DHS, which said the suspect was paroled into the U.S. on Sept. 8, 2021, on humanitarian grounds and applied for asylum with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2024 and had that claim granted in 2025. "Well, you miss all the signs when you do absolutely zero vetting," Patel told the reporter, "and that's exactly what happened in this case, when you in the prior administration made the decision to allow thousands of people into this country without doing a single piece of background checking or vetting, that's how you miss every single sign, and Secretary Kristi Noem has put out details specifically related to your other questions, so I'll let that speak for themselves." The reporter specifically asked Patel to provide a timeline for his asylum claim, and he again deferred to DHS. "Yes, I believe Kristi Noem put that out," Patel said, "and that's a DHS matter, and I'll refer it to them." - YouTube youtu.be

Thousands of troops from NATO countries trained together earlier this year in Romania. Vadim Ghirda/Associated Press U.S. adversaries are using President Trump’s eagerness to strike deals as a chance to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies and undermine the Washington-led security order that has for years held them in check. In Europe, Russia is seeking to exploit Trump’s desire to halt the war in Ukraine and strike business deals with Moscow by shaping a peace plan that meets many of its strategic objectives, including winning chunks of Ukrainian territory and closing off any hope Kyiv had of joining NATO. In Asia, Chinese leader Xi Jinping is attempting to steer Trump toward abandoning Taiwan in exchange for an expansive U.S.-China trade accord, a key Trump goal. China claims the self-ruled island as its own and hasn’t ruled out taking it by force. Trump on Tuesday advised Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, a close ally, not to provoke Beijing over Taiwan, The Wall Street Journal reported, as he works toward a trade deal with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Takaichi’s office denied Trump made such a remark. A leaked conversation between White House special envoy Steve Witkoff and a senior Russian official further underscored the extent to which the Trump administration has opened the door to dealmaking. “The president will give me a lot of space and discretion to get to the deal,” Witkoff told Yuri Ushakov, a top aide to President Vladimir Putin, about a potential Ukraine peace deal, according to a transcript of the call published by Bloomberg News. Moscow and Beijing see opportunity in Trump’s single-minded focus on striking short-term bargains for both capitals to advance long-held goals, analysts say. “There is certainly a sense that this is a moment to press their objectives, to undermine U.S. leadership in both Europe and Asia,” said Christopher Johnstone, a partner at the Asia Group, a Washington, D.C.-based strategic advisory firm, who served in senior national security positions in multiple U.S. administrations. “They think they’ve figured him out.” U.S. alliances are fraying as a result. European governments and Kyiv’s supporters in Congress were taken aback last week by a 28-point plan for peace in Ukraine that appeared to reflect many of Russia’s objectives. The plan was drawn up by Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner with input from Kremlin confidante Kirill Dmitriev. The Kremlin didn’t formally endorse the plan but has said it could form the basis for talks. In addition to limiting Kyiv’s military and blocking NATO membership, it called for Ukraine’s withdrawal from the eastern Ukrainian region of the Donbas that Russia hasn’t been able to take in nearly four years of war. “An aggressor like Russia must not be rewarded for its aggression. Otherwise, it will spread,” German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Tuesday in Berlin, calling for territory to be divided along the current front lines. “Even if the fighting were to stop now, what remains is an imperial and aggressive Russia whose ambitions extend far beyond Ukraine,” he said. Trump spoke positively about NATO this summer after allies agreed to more than double military spending. But Europeans see his actions since then—notably his Alaska summit with Putin in August—as undermining the deterrence and cohesion of an alliance that the U.S. created in 1949 and led in the decades since. Europeans have striven this year to maintain U.S. backing for Ukraine—or at least blunt a reduction in U.S. support. European national security advisers met with Ukrainian officials and members of the Trump administration in Geneva this week to reshape the plan. Afterward, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the talks productive, and the 19-point plan that emerged appeared to be more acceptable to Ukraine. The White House has said it remains committed to NATO and is playing the role of mediator between Russia and Ukraine to bring an end to the war. But the latest developments in the peace talks have underscored European fears that the Trump administration sees its interests and those of the alliance diverging. “I think it’s one more episode in that painful series of kind of American disengagements—not ground disengagement but I would say heart-and-mind disengagement from Europe,” said Fabrice Pothier, a former NATO director of policy planning now at Rasmussen Global political think tank. Europeans are now confronting deepening questions about the future of the alliance. Retired Gen. Sir Richard Barrons, who recently led the U.K.’s strategic defense review to set out priorities for rearming, said his message to Washington would be: “We know you are going to do less in Europe, but would you please make it a managed exit rather than a cliff edge?” U.S. and Philippine troops took part in joint military exercises this year in the Philippines. Getty Images Meanwhile, U.S. allies in Asia are questioning the commitment of U.S. forces to the defense of Taiwan and the wider region, where China’s economic clout is matched by a growing assertiveness in pushing territorial claims and expanding its military reach. Only weeks ago Trump was lauding new Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi as one of the country’s greatest leaders aboard the aircraft carrier USS George Washington at an American naval base in Japan. On Tuesday, Trump phoned Takaichi and advised her to temper her comments around the Taiwan issue, The Wall Street Journal reported, as the president doesn’t want friction over Taiwan to endanger a detente reached last month with Xi. Relations between Tokyo and Beijing nosedived in recent weeks following Takaichi’s remark Nov. 7 that a blockade or invasion of Taiwan by China would risk pulling Japan into a conflict alongside the U.S. were Washington to come to the island’s defense. China reacted with fury, urging Chinese travelers to avoid Japan, canceling cultural events and protesting at the United Nations. State media likened Takaichi to the Japanese militarists who led the country into World War II. The U.S. ambassador to Japan and the State Department have voiced their backing for the U.S.-Japan alliance. Trump told reporters this week that he had a great talk with Takaichi and reiterated that he thinks she will be a great leader. Xi spoke with Trump by phone Monday and stressed the importance to Beijing of uniting Taiwan and China, according to Chinese state media. Trump didn’t mention Taiwan when he posted a message on social media following the call, instead lauding Xi and saying relations between China and the U.S. are “extremely strong.” Trump said he had accepted Xi’s invitation to visit Beijing in April, adding that Xi would visit the U.S. later next year. Chinese experts say Beijing will likely feel encouraged by the call with Xi and Trump’s subsequent call with Takaichi, interpreting them as an indication of Trump’s desire to keep up the recent momentum in U.S.-China relations and ensure the chance of a trade deal stays high. “He doesn’t want the Taiwan issue to become a problem for China-U. S. relations,” said Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Shanghai’s Fudan University. Write to Jason Douglas at [email protected], Chun Han Wong at [email protected] and Bertrand Benoit at [email protected]

MAGA is a foreign influence operation. Not “incidental to MAGA,” not touching it,” not “nudging it,” not “occasionally exploiting it.” MAGA is a foreign influence operation, root and branch. While pundits spent more time this weekend than anyone should on RFK Jr’s uh erotic poetry to Olivia Nuzzi (and by that, I mean SWEET JESUS BLEACH IT FROM MY BRAIN), we learned foreign influence operations are at the tweeting, bleating heart of the MAGA moment. MAGA is not just a political movement of goateed, 50-ish white dudes who all rock that same avatar of them copping what they imagine is an expression of manly vigor in the front seat of their behind-on-the-payments Ford F-350. It’s a delivery system. A supply chain for chaos that starts in Moscow and Tehran and Beijing, runs through bot farms in industrial parks outside St. Petersburg or the Pardis Technology Park north of Tehran, or some Nigerian click farm, or a Chinese-criminal-owned social media and tech scam prison in the wilds of Burma, bounces off a rage-merchant influencer “from Ohio” who has never set foot in America, and ends up in your pissed off MAGA uncle’s Facebook feed as a “patriotic truth.” It’s tempting to call MAGA the most gullible cohort of political suckers, mooks, rubes, and slowcoaches ever to blight this nation. I want to tell you I’m going to resist that temptation, but that would be as big a lie as the thousands of MAGA accounts with AI avatars who look and sound like American patriots, flooding social media platforms from their lairs abroad.

Updated [hour]:[minute] [AMPM] [timezone], [monthFull] [day], [year] Updated 1:46 PM PST, November 26, 2025 Add AP News on Google Add AP News as your preferred source to see more of our stories on Google. CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A Massachusetts woman who was once engaged to the brother of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt remains in ICE custody two weeks after being arrested on her way to pick up the son she shares with her former fiance. Bruna Ferreira, 33, was driving to her son’s school in New Hampshire on Nov. 12 when she was pulled over in Revere, Massachusetts, her attorney, Todd Pomerleau, said Wednesday. “She wasn’t told why she was detained,” he said. “She was bounced from Massachusetts, to New Hampshire, to Vermont, to Louisiana on this unconstitutional merry-go-round.” Pomerleau said Ferreira’s 11-year-old son lives with her former fiance, Michael Leavitt, in New Hampshire, but they have shared custody and maintained a co-parenting relationship for many years since their engagement broke off. He said the boy lived with both parents at one point and later split his time between them, spending numerous nights and weekends with his mother. “She was detained for no reason at all. She’s not dangerous. She’s not a flight risk. She’s not a criminal illegal alien,” he said. “She’s a business owner who pays taxes and has a child who was wondering where mommy was after school two weeks ago.” Michael Leavitt did not respond to a message sent to his workplace. The White House press secretary declined comment. Karoline Leavitt grew up in New Hampshire, and made an unsuccessful run for Congress from the state in 2022 before becoming Trump’s spokesperson for his 2024 campaign and later joining him at the White House. Stay up to date with the news and the best of AP by following our WhatsApp channel. Follow on Pomerleau said his client was 2 or 3 when she and her family came to the U.S. from Brazil, and she later enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Obama-era policy that shields immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. He said she was in the process of applying for a green card. The Department of Homeland Security said Ferreira entered the U.S. on a tourist visa that required her to leave in 1999. A department spokesperson said Ferreira had a previous arrest for battery, an allegation her attorney denied. An online search of court cases in several Massachusetts locations where she has lived found no record of such a charge. In New Hampshire, court records show, she had two motor vehicle violations in 2020: speeding and driving an unregistered vehicle. The charges were placed on file without a finding on the condition that she enroll in a safe driving course and remain on good behavior for one year. “They’re claiming she has some type of criminal record we’ve seen nowhere. Show us the proof,” Pomerleau said. “She would’ve been deported years ago if that was true. And yet, here she is in the middle of this immigration imbroglio.” A DHS spokesperson confirmed Ferreira is being held in Louisiana. President Donald Trump’s efforts to broadly reshape immigration policy have included changing the approach to DACA recipients. Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin recently issued a statement saying that people “who claim to be recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are not automatically protected from deportations. DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country.”

A Massachusetts woman who was once engaged to the brother of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt remains in ICE custody two weeks after her arrest on the way to pick up the son she shares wit...

A full year after making a public pledge to do so, President Trump has disclosed a list of donors who helped pay for his transition to power. The list of 46 individuals, released by the transition team, includes billionaires like Jeff Yass and Paul Singer as well as several supporters who went on to be appointees in the current administration. In total, the transition said it raised slightly more than $14 million, but did not specify how much each donor contributed. It said $13.7 million was spent on the transition effort. “President Trump greatly appreciates his supporters and donors; however, unlike politicians of the past, he is not bought by anyone and does what’s in the best interest of the country,” Danielle Alvarez, a spokeswoman for the Trump transition, said in a statement. “Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.” Among those on the list are Linda McMahon and Howard Lutnick, who served as co-chairs of the transition and were subsequently appointed as the secretaries of education and commerce, respectively. Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, donated, as did Stanley Woodward Jr., the third-ranking official in the Justice Department. Dominick Gerace II, who was sworn in as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Ohio in August, is also listed as a donor.ImageMr. Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in the Oval Office earlier this year. Mr. Lutnick was one of the dozens of donors to Mr. Trump’s transition, and his family donated to the $300 million White House construction project.Credit...Tierney L. Cross for The New York Times At least three of the entries on the list matched names of Washington lobbyists, but their identities could not be confirmed. Lobbyists with those names did not respond to requests for comment on Tuesday evening. Because the list did not include addresses, hometowns or professions, it was not possible to confirm the identity of many other individuals described as donors. Until now, the Trump administration had not released any information about the finances of its transition, the work-intensive project of preparing to take control of the government in the period after a presidential election. Late last year, Mr. Trump’s transition team refused to sign an agreement with the General Services Administration that would have required it to publish the names of its contributors and the amount of money they donated within 30 days of the inauguration in exchange for more than $7 million in federal funding and administrative support. Prior administrations, including Mr. Trump’s in 2016, signed that agreement, which in addition to the disclosure obligation caps individual donations at $5,000 and bars foreign contributions. By declining to sign, the second Trump transition sidestepped those strictures and presumably could accept far larger contributions. Almost exactly one year ago, Susie Wiles, now serving as Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, described the decision not to sign the G.S.A. agreement as a way to “save taxpayers’ hard-earned money.” At the time, she also pledged to disclose the names of donors and to ensure that no noncitizens contributed to the transition. Mr. Trump had reported raising $6.5 million for his first presidential transition, all from private donations under the $5,000 cap. In 2021, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. disclosed $22.1 million in contributions to his transition.ImageEducation Secretary Linda McMahon was a donor for Mr. Trump’s transition and for his inaugural fund.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times Watchdog groups had raised alarm about the lack of transparency surrounding the most recent Trump transition, noting that by not revealing who was contributing — and how much they had chipped in — it was nearly impossible for the public to know about potential conflicts of interest or pay-for-play arrangements. “They claimed they were saving taxpayers money, but what they were doing was hiding the ball about who is buying the government,” said Max Stier, the president of the nonpartisan nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, which promotes best practices in the federal government and runs the Center for Presidential Transition. Last week, that group released a report on the Trump transition that criticized it for “significant departures from established norms,” noting that it started late and relied heavily on a handful of outside think tanks, chiefly the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute, to develop policy and hire personnel for the new administration. The report called on Congress to create laws requiring transitions to disclose the names of donors who give over a threshold amount as well as to publicly account for spending by the transition, which it said would “create public scrutiny that encourages the transition team to police itself tightly against conflicts of interest.” The transition organization, formally known as Trump Vance 2025 Transition Inc., was incorporated in Florida and registered with the I.R.S. as a type of non-charitable nonprofit. As such, it does not have to pay taxes, but cannot give its donors a tax break for their gifts. By law, the nonprofit must file an annual report with the I.R.S. showing what it raised and how it spent its money, although it is not required to disclose the names of donors. That report must be provided to the public upon request. The New York Times requested that report on Tuesday from the nonprofit’s agent, a lawyer in West Palm Beach, Fla. He said it would be released in the coming days.ImageSteve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, with the president in May. Mr. Witkoff was one of Trump’s donors.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times Three of the donors also gave to Mr. Trump’s inaugural fund. Ms. McMahon and Mr. Singer each donated $1 million, while Marlene Ricketts, the wife of the founder of TD Ameritrade, contributed $1.1 million. In total, the incoming president raised a record $250.4 million for his inauguration, more than double the amount raised for his first one. Mr. Lutnick’s family was also a donor to the $300 million White House construction project, according to a list disclosed by the administration last month. Linda McMahon Howard Lutnick Robert Johnson Suzanne Johnson Marlene Ricketts Robert Bishop Samantha George Stephen Plaster Adam Clampitt Jeff Yass Paul Singer Steve Witkoff Robert Bigelow Stanley Woodward Gene Ventura Andrew Cuff Elias Levy Jeff Littlejohn Stephen Dewey Robert Turley James Tuell Michael Desmond Susan Silverie Jonathan Slemrod Thomas Schiavone Marcel Kaminstein Conor Sheehey Wade Eyerly Robert Foran Kenneth Bridger Roy Dominick Gerace Kameel Ali Matthew Iager Robert Newton Anita Winsor Jeremy Isenberg Scott Pillath Harry Jackson Douglas deWysocki Jesus Cuartas Thomas Griffy Frederick Wilson Charles Mccarthy Hector Wong Brigette Frantz Catalina Lamontain

The Boring Company, Elon Musk’s tunneling startup, is reportedly facing significant issues with its new project in Nashville, Tennessee. A key subcontractor has walked off the job, alleging that the company has failed to pay for work completed on the “Music City Loop,” claiming they have received only 5% of what they are owed. We have been following The Boring Company’s expansion efforts closely. After the relative success of the Las Vegas Loop and several projects that failed to materialize, it looked like the company was winding down until a new proposal in Nashville gained some momentum. However, a new report from the Nashville Banner indicates that the project is hitting a major wall. Shane Trucking and Excavating, a local contractor hired to handle preliminary work for the tunnel project, pulled its workers off the site this Monday. William Shane, the owner of the company, told the Banner that The Boring Company has “ghosted” them and failed to pay invoices totaling in the six figures. According to Shane, the payment terms were initially set for every 15 days, then unilaterally switched to 60 days. Now, he claims it has been over 120 days since they broke ground, and his company has received only a fraction of the payment due. “We were really skeptical from the beginning, and then since then, things pretty much just went downhill,” Shane said. The contractor was reportedly responsible for preparing the launch pad for “Prufrock,” The Boring Company’s proprietary tunnel boring machine (TBM). We previously reported on Prufrock’s capabilities, with the company claiming it can dig tunnels significantly faster than conventional machines, supposedly porpoising directly from the surface to avoid digging expensive launch pits. If the launch pad isn’t finished because the excavator wasn’t paid, Prufrock isn’t digging anywhere. This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of payment issues involving Musk-led companies. Tesla has been known to not pay its bills, leading to small companies going bankrupt. As The Boring Company was stiffing Shane on the bills, the company tried to poach workers from its own contractor and lied about it: “One of their head guys texts two of my welders, offering them a job for $45 an hour from his work phone,” Shane described, noting that the same TBC employee denied sending the texts when confronted with screenshots. “That’s actually a breach of contract.” On top of the missed payments, Shane alleges serious safety concerns. They made several official complaints to OSHA: “Where we’re digging, we’re so far down, there should be concrete and different structures like that to hold the slope back from falling on you while you’re working. Where most people use concrete, they currently have — I’m not even kidding — they currently have wood. They had us install wood 2x12s.” The Boring Company Vice President David Buss blamed missed payments on “invoicing errors” in a statement to the Banner: “It does look like we had some invoicing errors on that. It was, you know, unfortunately, too common of a thing, but I assured them that we are going to make sure that invoices are wired tomorrow.” He also said that he would look into the poaching allegations, but added that he is not aware of any OSHA complaints. The “Music City Loop” was pitched as a solution to connect downtown Nashville to the airport, a route that is notoriously congested. The Boring Company claims it can complete the project without public money, but there are some obvious issues with its financing. I’ve been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the “Loop” concept. While it falls short of the original “autonomous pods” vision or the “Hyperloop” speed dreams, the system in Las Vegas does work to move people, even if it is just Teslas in tunnels driven by humans. There’s just no evidence that it would be more efficient than any other public transit system. When Musk launched The Boring Company’s first test tunnel in LA, I asked him if he had any simulations showing his “loop” system to be more efficient. He said that they were working on that. That was 7 years ago. Therefore, while The Boring Company appears to have achieved marginal improvements in tunnel boring, mainly when it comes to smaller tunnels; it has yet to show clear evidence that its Loop system is a better solution than any other public transit system. FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

A lone gunman stepped out from around a corner near the White House and opened fire on two National Guard members, leaving both in critical condition and Washington on edge.

Lawyers for victims of Jeffrey Epstein and many of their clients have supported efforts to release more records relating to Epstein’s crimes. Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg News Dozens of Jeffrey Epstein victims’ names have been exposed in documents that were recently made public by Congress, setting off a legal dispute about the Justice Department’s plans to release more materials about the late sex offender. Lawyers for the women have asked two federal judges who oversaw the prosecutions of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to ensure that the victims’ privacy is protected in any additional document releases by the Justice Department. Judge Richard Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday evening ordered the government to provide him a detailed description of its privacy process, including redactions the government seeks to employ, to protect the rights of Epstein victims. He attached a copy of a letter from the victims’ lawyers. Berman handled proceedings in the government’s 2019 case against Epstein, which was cut short when Epstein died in jail. Berman must approve requests to unseal documents from the case. Another federal judge in New York oversaw the prosecution of Maxwell and will decide the fate of sealed documents from that case. The Justice Department is reviewing its records and working on redactions after Congress overwhelmingly passed a law mandating the agency to release documents tied to Epstein. The measure passed over the initial objections of President Trump and top Justice Department officials, who had said earlier this year there were no additional records that warranted public release. Bradley Edwards and Brittany Henderson, lawyers who have represented hundreds of Epstein’s accusers, said in the letter to the court that Epstein’s estate and the Justice Department had failed to redact several of their clients in documents recently made public by the House Oversight Committee. “Given the number of times we have drawn Congress’s attention to this issue, and the fact that victims’ names continue to be produced by DOJ in unredacted form, many of the victims believe this is being done intentionally,” they wrote. A spokeswoman for Republicans on the House Oversight Committee said its subpoena instructs the Justice Department to redact victims’ information. The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. In one document provided by the Justice Department, there were at least 28 names of victims left unredacted, including individuals who were minor children at the time of their abuse, according to the letter. The victims’ lawyers and many of their clients have supported efforts to release more Epstein records. “Our request is simply that the identity of all victims be protected,” the attorneys wrote in the letter. “These women are not political pawns. They are mothers, wives, and daughters.” The Epstein estate exposed the names of some victims as a result of a software error, according to the letter, and the parties are working to ensure the mistake isn’t repeated. Daniel Weiner, a lawyer for one of Epstein’s executors, said the estate has engaged with victims’ lawyers to ensure victims’ names are redacted from documents it provides. He said the estate isn’t using redaction software and is “using attorneys and other professional staff to painstakingly review the documents.” The Justice Department hasn’t disclosed its redaction process and is likely working from an incomplete list of victims, according to Edwards and Henderson. They said that prosecutors in 2007 included victims in Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement without realizing Epstein was funding their lawyers to keep them quiet. They also said the Justice Department’s 2019 investigation didn’t focus on adult women Epstein trafficked after 2008, including many from Europe and Russia. Edwards and Henderson said they have a list of more than 300 victims that could be securely provided to the government to ensure that the women are protected. The issue of redactions created conflict earlier this month when the House Oversight Committee released a batch of Epstein emails. It began when Democrats released a selection of emails from Epstein. In one message, Epstein wrote about Trump spending hours with a woman whose name was redacted by Democrats. Republicans soon released the same email showing the unredacted name was Virginia Giuffre, who previously had said that she never saw Trump participate in any abuse. They also released a cache of more than 20,000 pages. Republicans and the White House said Democrats were selectively leaking information to smear the president. “Oversight Democrats have been careful to not release any information that contains the names of any victims,” said a spokeswoman for the committee’s Democrats. “It’s horrific that Republicans won’t do the same.” A spokeswoman for the committee’s Republicans said, “The American people want full transparency about the Epstein case and we are committed to providing it while protecting victims’ information.” Write to Khadeeja Safdar at [email protected]