Source: Independent, Joe Sommerlad
Photo: President Donald Trump hosting a dinner in the East Room of the White House last October for donors to his controversial ballroom project (AFP/Getty)

Trump tasks Meredith O’Rourke with making multimillion dollar requests of corporate executives, according to a Wall Street Journal report

President Donald Trump’s hands-on approach to fundraising has raised a staggering $800 million for his pet projects in his second term, according to a report.

Trump calls his top fundraiser Meredith O’Rourke near-nightly to find out who has donated to his causes and by how much, The Wall Street Journal says.

The president is said to have instructed O’Rourke, who he has reportedly dubbed “the princess of darkness”, to increase the size of the requests she makes of major corporations, going as high as $50 million.

According to the WSJ, the Floridian tells potential donors: “This is very important to the president. He’s asked me to call you and ask you for this donation.” Or, more bluntly: “The boss wants this money.”

The WSJ analysis found the strategy to be hugely successful, with Trump raising substantial sums for a range of initiatives including the White House ballroom, presidential library, political action committees and this summer’s 250th anniversary celebrations.

Some of the highest donations received, according to the report, are $50 million from SoftBank for the library, $25 million from Apple for the ballroom and $10 million each from Meta and Microsoft and another $5 million from Amazon for a Trump-aligned PAC.

The WSJ adds that wealthy donors are commonly invited to exclusive candlelit dinners and White House events, where they are often subject to further appeals. One executive cited was reportedly approached for a further $1 million just days after making a similar contribution.

Wall Street analyst Blair Levin said companies now trade notes on what they call “The Trump Transaction Tax.”

“Another way of saying it is simply that we’re replacing the free market with the market for Trump’s affections,” Levin said.

“Trump is shattering all fundraising paradigms in regards to hitting up corporate America for donations. The scope is mind-bogglingly large,” concluded Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University.

“We used to talk about the Lincoln bedroom being for sale [under Bill Clinton], but this is just a wholesale money trough that’s totally different.”

The Independent has reached out to the White House for comment.

Danielle Alvarez, an outside spokeswoman for Trump and O’Rourke, said the president is the “most successful fundraiser in modern political history.”

She said Trump intends to use the money he has raised to “help Republicans win big in the midterms, build an enduring political infrastructure and continue advancing innovative private-sector initiatives.”

“One thing has never changed,” Alvarez added. “President Trump can’t be bought.”

However Marc Short, Trump’s former director of legislative affairs and later chief of staff to Mike Pence, said the president had little interest in fundraising when he first ran for the White House in 2016.

At the time, the Republican dismissed PACS as “a scam” and told his supporters: “I am self-funding my campaign and therefore I will not be controlled by the donors, special interests and lobbyists who have corrupted our politics and politicians for far too long.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-fundraising-corporate-donors-projects

Source: The Motley Fool, Bram Berkowitz
Photo: Getty Images

The crypto winter has led to a slowdown in trading activity.

Key Points

Robinhood saw weak crypto trading revenue in the second quarter, but robust activity for events-based contracts.

This was the first time revenue from event-based contracts outpaced crypto-related revenue.

Still, Robinhood saw strong interest in some of its newest blockchain-based products.

Having pioneered commission-free trading, Robinhood (HOOD-0.05%) is viewed as one of the most innovative online brokerages available for retail investors.

The company proved this yet again in the second quarter, showing just how much its early foray into the prediction markets is paying off.

Robinhood saw its transaction revenue from event-based contracts soar to $156 million in the second quarter, up over $50 million from the prior quarter and from practically nothing just one year ago.

This is also the first quarter in which event-based contracts revenue exceeded crypto transaction revenue, which came in at $100 million in the second quarter, down $60 million from one year ago.

Here’s what this means for crypto investors.

The crypto bear market

The weak quarter in crypto for Robinhood should come as no surprise, given the ongoing crypto winter. The price of Bitcoin is down nearly 26% this year.

The less interest there is in crypto, the fewer trades will be made, which hits every crypto platform. Robinhood’s $100 million of crypto-related transaction revenue is the weakest crypto quarter the company has seen in the past seven quarters. The number also missed Wall Street consensus estimates by $25 million.

When asked during a CNBC interview about concerns in the crypto business, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev said, “Long term, I think crypto is in a growth cycle.”

The company has been launching more products centered around digital assets.

Robinhood recently launched a layer-2 solution on Ethereum called Robinhood Chain that allows its tens of millions of users to trade tokenized U.S. stocks 24/7 in over 120 countries.

This shows that while crypto values may not be faring well, the underlying blockchain technology remains quite useful.

An uncertain future

If you are a crypto investor, these developments at Robinhood indicate strong demand for blockchain-based solutions.

Now, this crypto winter certainly feels different from past ones because it seems, to a certain extent, that investors have lost interest in crypto assets.

However, history is on the bulls’ side: cryptocurrencies have made remarkable recoveries after severe drawdowns, so investors can never count the sector out.

The passage of the Clarity Act, which is currently pending in the U.S. Senate, could serve as a catalyst.

Tenev also said he’s paying close attention to what happens with the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which President Donald Trump created via executive order last year but has not yet been officially launched.

It’s possible that crypto investors simply got ahead of themselves last year when Trump came in with a pro-crypto agenda, the first President to really embrace crypto.

It’s also possible that exuberance over artificial intelligence and quantum technology has overshadowed crypto. What happens next is anyone’s guess, as crypto movements are extraordinarily difficult to predict.

My advice for crypto bulls is to stick with mainstream tokens like Bitcoin and Ethereum, which could certainly still have promise. Bitcoin may yet serve as a key store of value, while Ethereum’s blockchain network remains compelling. I would ignore most other cryptocurrencies right now.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/07/30/robinhood-is-now-making-more-money-from-prediction-markets-than-crypto-trading-heres-what-that-means-for-crypto-investors/

Source: Silicon Bay Partners’ staff with assistance from ChatGPT
Photo:

For generations, Republicans criticized government ownership of private businesses as “socialism,” arguing that markets—not politicians—should decide which companies succeed and which fail. Yet one of the more unusual economic developments during President Donald Trump’s second term has been the federal government’s growing willingness to acquire minority equity stakes in private companies deemed strategically important.

Those investments have included semiconductor manufacturers, quantum computing firms, rare earth mining companies, and critical minerals projects—industries viewed as essential to America’s economic competitiveness and national security. Rather than simply awarding grants or tax incentives, the government increasingly seeks an ownership interest, allowing taxpayers to potentially share in future profits if the companies succeed.

The strategy represents one of the most significant departures from traditional Republican economic philosophy in decades.

Is It Socialism?

That depends on whom you ask.

Classical socialism generally involves public ownership or control of the means of production, where government owns or operates industries for the public rather than leaving them to private markets.

The Trump administration’s approach is different.

The government is generally taking minority, non-controlling ownership stakes, leaving management in private hands while providing capital for industries considered vital to national security. Supporters compare it to a venture-capital investment made on behalf of taxpayers rather than a government takeover.

Critics, however, argue that the distinction may be smaller than it appears.

When government becomes both regulator and shareholder, conflicts inevitably arise. Regulators could be tempted—intentionally or unintentionally—to favor companies in which taxpayers now own an interest. Competitors may find themselves competing not only against private firms but also against firms backed by the federal government.

That is why critics across the political spectrum have described the policy as everything from “corporate socialism” to “state capitalism” to industrial policy on steroids.

The National Security Argument

Supporters argue that America faces an unprecedented strategic challenge.

China dominates much of the world’s rare-earth mineral processing, controls large portions of battery supply chains, and continues investing heavily in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing.

If critical technologies become dependent on geopolitical rivals, national security could suffer.

Viewed through that lens, purchasing equity stakes resembles wartime industrial mobilization rather than ideology. Government has occasionally intervened before—from defense contracting to emergency financial rescues—to preserve industries considered indispensable.

Supporters argue that if taxpayers are assuming the financial risk, they should also have the opportunity to share in the financial upside.

The Risks

The policy also creates significant questions.

Who decides which companies receive investment?

What safeguards prevent political favoritism?

Could administrations reward politically connected firms while overlooking better competitors?

Will future regulators remain impartial if government owns stock in companies they oversee?

These concerns have prompted calls for greater transparency and congressional oversight. Some lawmakers have argued that direct ownership risks allowing government to “pick winners and losers,” potentially distorting competition and innovation.

What Is It, Then?

Several labels fit better than socialism.

Industrial Policy – Government actively directs investment toward industries considered strategically important.

State Capitalism – Private companies remain privately managed, but government becomes an investor seeking both economic and strategic returns.

Strategic Investment – Similar to sovereign wealth funds used by countries such as Singapore or Norway, except focused on domestic industries tied to national security.

Each description captures part of what’s happening, though none is a perfect fit.

Could It Become Permanent?

History suggests government programs rarely disappear entirely once established.

If one administration successfully uses taxpayer-funded equity investments, future administrations—Republican or Democratic—may be tempted to expand the practice into additional industries.

That prospect concerns both fiscal conservatives, who oppose government ownership on principle, and progressives who worry about insufficient oversight, transparency, or conflicts of interest.

How Could the Practice Be Limited?

Congress has several tools if it decides government ownership should remain the exception rather than the rule.

Lawmakers could:

Require explicit congressional authorization before federal agencies acquire equity in private companies.

Impose sunset provisions requiring government ownership interests to be sold after a specified period.

Establish independent oversight boards to review proposed investments.

Require full public disclosure of investment criteria, valuations, and any conflicts of interest.

Limit equity investments to narrowly defined national security emergencies rather than broad economic development initiatives.

Ultimately, Congress—not the executive branch—has the power to redefine or restrict these authorities through legislation.

Whether these investments prove visionary or misguided may not be known for years.

If they help rebuild American semiconductor manufacturing, strengthen critical mineral supply chains, and generate returns for taxpayers, supporters will likely call them prudent strategic investments.

If they become vehicles for political favoritism, market distortion, or taxpayer losses, critics will point to them as evidence that government should never become a shareholder in private enterprise.

Either way, one thing is clear: the debate is no longer simply about free markets versus government intervention. It is about how far government should go in shaping America’s industrial future—and whether becoming an investor is a bridge too far.

Source: LA Times Politics, Mark Z. Barabak
Photo: California’s wine industry has been struggling due to higher costs and lower sales. A Canadian ban on U.S. liquor sales has been an added whammy. (Josh Edelson/For The Times)

It’s hard to hate on Canada. It’s like cursing a cotton ball, or raging about tapioca.

The friendliest of neighbors, the country has fought alongside the U.S. in conflicts going back to World War I, purchased many trillions of dollars worth of American goods and blessed this country with, among other gifts, ice hockey, Drake, Joni Mitchell and Alex Trebek.

While you can question the nation’s culinary sensibility — the unofficial dish, poutine, is an abomination consisting of French fries, cheese curds and hot gravy — Canada is basically a very large, very pretty country filled with a lot of very nice, extremely polite people.

But for reasons only he can fathom, President Trump has declared economic war on our amiable northern neighbor.

After more than a year of trading tit-for-tat tariffs, Trump recently escalated the conflict by slapping a new 50% tax on a variety of Canadian exports, including cement, furniture, dairy products and, most iconically, hockey sticks. The added levy, which will further burden inflation-weary U.S. consumers, is set to take effect in mid-August.

The move makes little sense from an economic or foreign policy standpoint. It’s best to regard Trump’s trade moves as a wind gauge charts a blustery storm; his on-again, off-again tariffs are not the result of some carefully thought-out policy but, rather, a measure of the president’s shifting moods and pique toward certain foreign leaders.

And they carry a not-inconsiderable price tag — California’s struggling wine industry being just one example.

For decades, the industry has been a vital and growing part of California’s agricultural economy. Recent years, however, have seen a number of setbacks.

Costs are rising. Sales are falling, as younger generations favor hard seltzers, canned cocktails or premium beers over crushed grapes. At the same time, climate change and the growing incidence of wildfire threaten the viability of some of California’s premier wine-growing regions.

A Canadian ban on alcohol imports

Then there’s the trade war with Canada, the industry’s largest export market and formerly a major customer of California wines. Until recently, the Canadian market accounted for more than a third of the state’s exports.

But last year, several provinces stopped purchasing U.S. alcohol in response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats — more slapstick than real — to annex the country and make Canada the 51st American state. While two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, soon lifted their bans, the two most populous, Ontario and Quebec, have not.

As a result of this “geopolitical friction,” to use the words of University of California researchers, California wine exports to Canada fell by nearly 80% in 2025 compared with the year before. Unsurprisingly, Canadian sales of homegrown wines have soared.

Stick that in your terroir!

In response to the dramatic drop in exports, more than a dozen California members of Congress wrote last month to Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, urging her to lift the retaliatory ban on U.S. wine and spirits.

“Reopening the market to American wine would restore consumer choice and signal a commitment to restoring fair and balanced trade for Québecois consumers and American wineries who have no connection to the underlying trade disputes,” the letter read.

Keep up with California

Sen. Adam Schiff also wrote Fréchette asking her to resume the sale of California wine and U.S. spirits.

“The restriction on American wine has had damaging consequences for regional consumers, businesses, and producers who have no influence over national policies,” the California Democrat stated. “In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to and voted against the President’s harmful trade policies, including as they pertain to Canada.”

Fréchette’s response was, in a word: “Non!”

“In the context of the ongoing trade war, the premier continues to defend Quebec’s economic interests,” a spokesperson for Fréchette told CBC Radio. “This measure will remain in place as long as the United States maintains these unjustified tariffs. Our government will re-evaluate its position when the American administration reverses these measures.”

And that statement came before Trump upped the ante, along with the tariffs on Canada, which, presumably, doesn’t help matters.

Red or white?

Mike Thompson has seen the damage of Trump’s economic warfare firsthand. The St. Helena Democrat represents the heart of Wine Country and spearheaded, along with Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of Carmel and Republican Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, the bipartisan overture to Quebec’s premier.

“I talked to a vintner today,” Thompson said during a drive this week through his sprawling Northern California district. “They went from an $11-million annual wine export to a $2-million annual wine export to Canada because of this.”

Thompson has introduced legislation, including a measure to reimburse wine producers for the money they’ve lost due to Trump’s tariffs, but the proposals have stalled in the House despite bipartisan support. His effort, Thompson dryly noted, “has not been warmly embraced by the administration.”

Meanwhile, the cross-border hostilities continue. Neither Trump nor Fréchette seems ready to budge, with California vintners still stuck in the middle.

So the question in Montreal and Toronto remains: What pairs best with poutine? Canadian white or red?

Source: MSN, Almira Dolino
Photo: Person completes a U.S. passport application while holding an open passport at a desk with additional United States passports, identification cards, and paperwork. (© Image generated with ChatGPT)

Book a flight, and your passport works fine, until the moment you try to use it. For thousands of parents across the country, that moment is arriving without warning. No renewal application. No trip to a passport office. The federal government now has the power to invalidate a person’s travel documents based entirely on a number sitting unpaid in a state child support file, and it has already started pulling passports from people who had no idea it was coming.

The system behind this isn’t new. Congress created the Child Support Program in 1975 to push noncustodial parents to help fund their children’s upbringing, and enforcement tools have expanded ever since, from wage garnishment to seized tax refunds. In 2023, the most recent year with full data, parents transferred $25.7 billion in support payments nationwide, according to a March 2025 Congressional Research Service report. Only 65% of what was actually owed got collected.

One enforcement tool sat mostly dormant for nearly three decades: a 1996 law allowing the government to revoke passports from parents behind on payments. For years, it only kicked in when someone applied to renew their documents. That changed in the first week of May 2026, when officials decided enforcement would no longer wait for anyone to apply for anything.

On Thursday, May 7, 2026, the State Department told the Associated Press it would begin revoking passports the very next day for parents who owe at least $100,000 in unpaid child support. The initial rollout hit roughly 2,700 passport holders nationwide. Officials were direct that this wasn’t the full scope of the plan, just the opening tier of a much larger enforcement effort still being built out.

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mora Namdar framed the shift as an extension of existing policy, telling the Associated Press the government was expanding a practice already proven to push people toward paying what they owe. She added that once parents settle their debts, they regain the privilege of holding a U.S. passport. The message was clear: pay up, and the document comes back.

What made this rollout different wasn’t just the dollar threshold. It was who was doing the reporting. The Department of Health and Human Services began proactively sending data on parents with overdue balances straight to the State Department, rather than waiting for a renewal application to trigger a review. That shift in process is what set up the next, much larger phase.

The $100,000 tier was only the starting point. Under the same 1996 law, any parent owing $2,500 or more in child support becomes eligible for passport revocation, a threshold that had gone largely unused for enforcement purposes until now. There’s no precise count yet of how many people fall into that group, since HHS is still compiling the data, but the number dwarfs the initial 2,700.

Officials told the State Department that many more thousands of parents would likely be swept into the crackdown once the lower threshold takes full effect. Some parents are already reacting before it hits them directly. The Associated Press reported that hundreds of people took action and resolved their overdue balances with state authorities once news of the policy broke.

The consequences extend beyond simply losing travel privileges. Anyone whose passport is revoked will be notified and barred from using the document for travel, full stop. And for parents who happen to be abroad when the revocation takes effect, there’s no workaround: they’ll need to obtain an emergency travel document from a U.S. consulate just to get back into the country.

Paying Off the Balance Is the Only Way Back, and It Doesn’t Happen Overnight

For parents owed support, this program is designed to work in their favor. Every state runs its own child support enforcement department, and those agencies collect and distribute past-due payments once they come in. Anyone waiting on support they’re owed can contact their state’s Child Support Program directly to check on the status of their case and find out what options exist for recovering what’s owed.

For parents who owe and can’t cover the full balance at once, a payment agreement may be possible, according to legal analysts tracking the rollout. But an agreement doesn’t erase the underlying support order, and it doesn’t return a passport automatically. The document stays revoked until the balance is paid off and a new passport application is submitted and processed.

There’s no shortcut built into this system, and that’s precisely the point. The government isn’t offering warnings before the fact anymore, and it isn’t waiting for parents to come asking for a renewal. It’s checking the ledger first and letting the travel document follow. For every parent with an overdue balance, the passport in their drawer is no longer proof of anything until the debt behind it is settled.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/other/us-can-now-block-your-passport-over-unpaid-debts-2-700-americans-have-already-been-hit

Source: Better Homes and Gardens, Sophia Beams
Photo: Feverpitched/Getty Images

Is a foreclosed home worth the buy?

Foreclosed homes in 2026 can offer nearly 30% savings, boosting their popularity and page views.

Buyers should be prepared for potential repair costs and limited listing details, as foreclosed homes often have fewer photos and shorter descriptions.

With patience and preparation, foreclosures provide an affordable option, offering meaningful discounts in a challenging housing market.

There’s a type of home on the market that could save you nearly 30% of its original listing value in 2026. Realtor.com’s new report looks into foreclosed homes—and as they’re lowering in price, these listings are also rising in popularity with buyers. So far, they’ve also been netting over 26% more page views than the average listing in 2026, which isn’t surprising, given their lower-than-average prices.

If you’re thinking about taking advantage of these types of deals in 2026, here’s what you need to know.

Why Are Foreclosed Homes So Much Cheaper?

It might seem a little strange that foreclosed homes can net you savings of over 20%. The good news is, these low prices aren’t necessarily because there’s something wrong with the home—in most cases, the lender is offering a discount in order to sell the home faster.

Realtor.com says that foreclosure availability can vary based on a state’s rules. In Alabama, for example, the previous owner of the foreclosed home can reclaim their property within a short time period after it’s been sold. This means that fewer foreclosed homes sell at auction due to the risk, with more homes appearing on the real estate owned (REO)market. These factors help to lower the selling price of foreclosed homes even further.

The foreclosed homes you see on the market have already failed to sell at auction. When this happens, the home usually moves to a Multiple Listing Service (which includes platforms like Realtor.com). Then, you (or your real estate agent) can look at the listing and see if it might be a good fit. The longer a lender owns a foreclosed home, the more costs they incur to keep it. Therefore, they want to sell it as quickly as possible. Once it hits the MLS, it’s prime time for you to score a discount.

The Potential Downsides of Buying a Foreclosed Home

That’s not to say that foreclosed homes don’t come with issues of their own. If the home needs extensive repairs, you’ll likely need to take these on yourself, which means, after shelling out for a remodel, your initial discount may not be quite as hefty as it seemed.

Realtor.com also points out some other statistics that might make it tricky for you to settle on a foreclosed home. The platform says that REO homes had 30.4% fewer photos and 33% shorter descriptions than your average listing, which makes it more difficult to determine if the home is worth a look. Rather than being able to identify dealbreakers from a listing alone, you’ll need to dedicate more time to looking at foreclosed homes in person.

Don’t Discount These Discounted Homes

While purchasing a foreclosed home can seem daunting, it’s still a great way to save money on a home in 2026. Realtor.com experts say that as long as you know what you’re getting into, looking into foreclosed listings in your area is a good way to go.

“In a market where affordability is still the dominant challenge, foreclosures offer a path to a meaningful discount,” said Joel Berner, Senior Economist at Realtor.com, in a press release. “The process takes patience, but for buyers who are prepared and can navigate the challenges of buying this type of home, the savings are real.”

https://www.bhg.com/foreclosure-prices-2026

Source: Independent, J.R. Duren
Photo: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, right, told President Donald Trump that Canada is “not for sale” after Trump alluded to Canada becoming the 51st state (AFP/Getty)

Canadians are boycotting the United States in record numbers thanks to President Donald Trump.

That boycott by our northern neighbors has cost $3.3 billion in tourism dollars to the U.S., according to a new report from the Canadian government.

Visits hit rock bottom in July, falling more than 30 percent year-on-year for the first time since the months following 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“The resulting 11-month streak of year-over-year declines was the deepest and most sustained on record for border crossings from the United States,” the report also noted.

The report pointed to Trump’s return to the White House and his ensuing tariffs on Canada as the catalyst for the drastic decline in travel to the U.S.

Canada’s costly pullback from U.S. travel continued through early 2026, indicating Canadians are embracing a “persistent shift” from visits to America, the study said.

Canadians have a widespread distaste for Trump’s rhetoric and policies toward Canada over the past 19 months, a survey last month from polling firm Pew Research Center revealed.

Overall, perceptions of the U.S.’s reliability have also plummeted since 2022. “In Canada, 83% described the U.S. as a reliable partner in 2022, compared with 35% today,” the Pew survey found.

Only 17 percent of Canadians support Trump’s tariffs against Canada, which have reached 50 percent on aluminum and steel, according to nonpartisan think tank EconoFact.

Policies aside, Trump’s rhetoric about The Great White North has done America’s tourism industry no favors. The U.S. president has on multiple occasions said he wants Canada to become the 51st first state.

After one such mention to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at a White House meeting in May, Carney responded: “It’s not for sale. Won’t be for sale, ever.”

While Trump’s not-so-veiled desire seems outlandish, the president’s tariff strategy is having concrete impacts on the Canadian economy. Significant layoffs have taken place in regional auto parts manufacturers that rely on U.S. exports for business, the Bank of Canada noted in a 2025 analysis.

“Several Ontario auto parts and assembly plants have announced layoffs and production cuts, and manufacturing jobs are down 55,000 since January,” the analysis said. “More broadly, we’ve seen a big decline in employment in trade-sensitive sectors since the start of the year.”

Trump’s trade policies with Canada could cut the country’s gross domestic product by as much as 2.1 percent, according to a study by the Yale Budget Lab.

That shift represents a shift that represents a loss of at nearly $49 billion in gross domestic product, or around 69 billion Canadian dollars, according to data from international relief organization The World Bank Group.

The Independent is the world’s most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/canadian-tourists-have-cost-the-us-3-billion-with-travel-boycott

Source: Yahoo News, Steve Benen
Photo: Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), speaks to members of the media outside the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, July 24, 2025. Donald Trump downplayed his clash with the Federal Reserve Chair over cost overruns during a tour of the central bank’s renovation project, saying he saw the issue of lower interest rates as a more pressing concern. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During last fall’s government shutdown, the Trump administration started cutting energy grants to states, but the only states that were seriously affected were ones Donald Trump lost in the 2024 election. At the time, officials in the affected states accused the White House of “mafioso tactics” and brazenly abusing its powers by politicizing grant decisions that are supposed to be based on merit.

Team Trump was initially dismissive of the claims. Russell Vought, the White House budget director who terminated hundreds of grants, insisted that he was simply paring back Biden-era federal grants that the White House considered wasteful because as Vought put it, they were part of a “Green New Scam” — whatever that was supposed to mean.

It wasn’t long, however, before that posture started evolving.

In December, for example, the Republican administration’s lawyers made no real effort to deny the underlying allegations, instead arguing in a court filing that it’s “constitutionally permissible” to consider partisan politics when distributing (or canceling) federal funds.

This week, Team Trump gave up the game, effectively admitting in a legal filing that the “mafioso tactics” claims were correct all along. The New York Times reported:

In little-noticed court documents, federal officials acknowledged this month that they had terminated the funding “based solely” on political criteria, targeting projects in states that were represented by Democrats and had voted for Kamala Harris, the party’s presidential nominee, in the 2024 election.

The stunning admission offered an unvarnished glimpse into the way President Trump has weaponized the provision of federal education, energy, health, housing and infrastructure aid in his second term. Far from rooting out the sort of misspending that Mr. Trump sees as rife in Washington, the White House has instead sought to leverage the budget as a tool to assist its allies — or as a cudgel to hurt the president’s foes.

The White House and the Energy Department did not respond to the Times’ requests for comment, which is just as well, since I seriously doubt even the most creative Republican communications professionals could put a positive spin on developments like these.

The article went on to note, “Federal officials offered the new details about the grant cancellations as part of an agreement with plaintiffs meant to spare the government an exhaustive, evidence-uncovering process known as discovery, the court filings said. That process could have required federal agencies to hand over more damaging records.”

In other words, this is the good version of the developments from the White House’s perspective. The agreement reached by the administration prevented other potential abuses from coming to public light.

We’re talking about a White House that admits it withholds federal resources from states based on local voters casting ballots in ways the president doesn’t like. Not to put too fine a point on this, but that sounds an awful lot like an impeachable offense. It’s a fundamental corruption of how federal tax dollars are allocated.

Making matters worse is the familiarity of the circumstances. Team Trump approves disaster aid requests from red states, while rejecting comparable requests from blue states. Team Trump curtails healthcare funds, but only for states the White House doesn’t like. Team Trump tried to freeze $10 billion in funding for social services programs in five states, but only blue states were impacted. Team Trump launched a supposed crackdown on “fraud” in social insurance programs, but its sole focus is on Democratic cities and states.

Taking stock of the broader dynamic, the Times’ Jamelle Bouie argued last fall, “Trump seems to see Democratic-led states — and the people in them — less as constituents to which he has a set of larger obligations and more as enemies to be pacified and defeated. For Trump, there is no whole people of the United States. There are only his people and his states.”

The Republican White House seems unnervingly eager to prove the observation true.

The post White House admits it scrapped grants to blue states because they didn’t vote for Trump appeared first on MS NOW.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/white-house-admits-scrapped-grants-194941343.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

Source: Silicon Bay Partners’ staff with assistance from ChatGPT
Photo: ChatGPT

As Artificial Intelligence Replaces Workers, Governments Face a Difficult Question: Should Machines Pay Taxes Too?

Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic concept reserved for science fiction movies. It’s writing articles, reviewing legal documents, answering customer service calls, diagnosing diseases, coding software, creating artwork, driving vehicles, and even replacing white-collar professionals once considered immune to automation.

For businesses, AI represents unprecedented efficiency. For workers, it represents unprecedented uncertainty.

The Industrial Revolution replaced muscle with machines. The AI Revolution is replacing minds.

That raises an uncomfortable question policymakers around the world are only beginning to confront:

If AI and robots replace millions of workers who pay income taxes, who replaces the tax revenue?

The Workforce Is Already Changing

Automation has existed for decades, but today’s AI systems are fundamentally different.

Traditional automation replaced repetitive physical tasks. Modern AI is replacing cognitive work.

Occupations increasingly affected include:

Customer service representatives
Data entry clerks
Accountants
Graphic designers
Copywriters
Translators
Software developers
Legal assistants
Medical transcriptionists
Financial analysts
Call center employees

Even highly educated professionals are discovering that AI can complete many routine tasks in seconds rather than hours.

Companies aren’t necessarily eliminating entire jobs overnight—but they’re hiring fewer people, expecting existing employees to oversee AI systems instead.

Productivity Soars—Employment Doesn’t

Businesses understandably love AI.

A chatbot can answer thousands of customer inquiries without taking lunch breaks.

An AI coding assistant can help one programmer do the work that previously required two or three.

Marketing campaigns that once demanded entire creative departments can now be drafted by a handful of employees working alongside AI.

Productivity rises.

Payroll falls.

Wall Street applauds.

Workers worry.

The Tax Problem Nobody Wants to Discuss

Most governments rely heavily on payroll taxes and income taxes.

When workers disappear, so does a significant portion of government revenue.

Imagine a factory employing 5,000 workers. Those workers pay income taxes. The employer pays payroll taxes. Employees spend their wages locally, generating sales taxes and supporting nearby businesses.

Now imagine that same factory employs 500 people and 2,000 robots.

Production may actually increase—but tax collections from labor decline dramatically. Meanwhile, governments still need to fund:

Schools
Roads
Police and fire departments
Medicare and Medicaid
Social Security
National defense
Public infrastructure

Someone still has to pay.

The Case for an AI or Robot Tax

Some economists argue that companies replacing human workers with AI should contribute to the public systems those workers once supported.

Rather than taxing robots themselves, governments could impose an Automation Impact Fee based on measurable reductions in human labor.

Possible approaches include:

Payroll Replacement Assessment

If a company eliminates 100 full-time positions through automation, it would pay a fee equivalent to a percentage of the payroll taxes that would have been collected.

AI Productivity Tax

When AI dramatically increases profits while reducing headcount, companies could pay a modest surcharge tied to the productivity gains generated by automation.

Per-System Licensing

Businesses deploying large-scale commercial AI systems might pay annual licensing fees, similar to regulatory fees paid in industries such as banking or telecommunications.

Universal Workforce Contribution

Companies could pay into a national workforce transition fund used to finance retraining programs, apprenticeships, and education for displaced workers.

The goal wouldn’t necessarily be to punish innovation but to ensure society shares in its benefits.

Critics Warn It Could Backfire

Not everyone supports the idea.

Opponents argue that taxing AI would discourage innovation, reduce economic competitiveness, and drive companies to countries with friendlier regulations.

History offers some support for that concern.

When tractors replaced horses, governments didn’t tax tractors to protect stable workers. When computers replaced typewriters, nobody imposed a keyboard tax.

Technology has always displaced jobs while creating new ones. The question is whether AI is fundamentally different. Unlike previous technological revolutions, AI has the potential to automate both manual labor and knowledge work simultaneously.

That could accelerate job displacement faster than new industries can absorb displaced workers.

What Could Regulation Look Like?

Governments may eventually regulate AI much like they regulate financial institutions, pharmaceuticals, or utilities.

Possible safeguards include:

Registration requirements for large-scale commercial AI systems

Mandatory transparency regarding AI-generated decisions

Independent audits for high-risk AI applications

Worker notification requirements before large automation initiatives

Retraining investments tied to automation projects

Privacy and cybersecurity standards

Human oversight requirements in healthcare, criminal justice, and financial services

The challenge will be finding the balance between encouraging innovation and protecting workers.

Could Universal Basic Income Become Reality?

If AI ultimately produces extraordinary wealth with far fewer human workers, governments may revisit ideas once considered politically unrealistic.

Universal Basic Income (UBI)—providing every citizen with a guaranteed income regardless of employment—has moved from academic debate into mainstream policy discussions.

Supporters argue that if AI creates immense productivity gains, society should share in those gains.

Critics counter that meaningful work provides purpose as well as income, and replacing jobs with government checks could create unintended social and economic consequences.

The Human Advantage

Despite rapid advances, AI still struggles with qualities that define human interaction.

Empathy.
Creativity rooted in lived experience.
Ethical judgment.
Leadership.
Complex negotiation.
Trust.

Jobs emphasizing these uniquely human strengths may prove more resilient than those built primarily around predictable tasks.

Rather than replacing every worker, AI may transform many professions into partnerships between humans and intelligent machines.

Preparing for the Next Economy

The AI revolution is unlikely to slow down. Businesses that ignore automation risk falling behind competitors, while governments that ignore its economic consequences risk shrinking tax bases and widening inequality.

Whether through automation fees, revised corporate taxes, workforce transition funds, or entirely new economic models, policymakers will almost certainly revisit how society finances itself in an age where machines perform an increasing share of productive work.

The debate isn’t really about taxing robots.

It’s about deciding who benefits from the extraordinary wealth AI can generate—and how those benefits are shared in a society where work itself is being redefined.

The Industrial Revolution reshaped the world by transforming physical labor. Artificial intelligence may prove even more consequential by transforming intellectual labor. The question isn’t whether AI will change the workforce. It already has.

The real question is whether our tax systems, labor policies, and social safety nets will evolve quickly enough to keep pace.

Source: Silicon Bay Partners’ Staff with assistance from ChatGPT
Photo: Premiere Of Columbia Pictures’ “Flatliners” – Red Carpet

Hollywood has always been a place where dreams are manufactured—but the paychecks behind those dreams have gone through a transformation almost as dramatic as the movies themselves.

In the 1930s, even the biggest stars were employees of the studios, locked into contracts that gave executives enormous control over their careers and salaries. By the 1960s, television had created a new path to fame and fortune, but movie stars were still fighting for a larger piece of thepie. Today, the biggest names in entertainment can command tens of millions of dollars for a single project, sometimes before a camera even rolls.

The journey from studio contracts to streaming megadeals is the story of how Hollywood learned that a famous name can be worth almost as much as the movie itself.

The 1930s: When Hollywood Owned the Stars

During Hollywood’s Golden Age, studios didn’t just make movies, they controlled the actors.

Major studios such as MGM, Warner Bros., Paramount, and 20th Century Fox signed actors to long-term contracts. Stars were paid weekly salaries rather than receiving enormous upfront movie fees.

A-list talent earned impressive money compared with average Americans, but by today’s standards, the numbers seem modest.

Clark Gable — The King of Hollywood

Clark Gable was one of the biggest stars of the 1930s. At the height of his career, he reportedly earned around $6,000 per week at MGM—roughly equivalent to more than $130,000 per week today when adjusted for inflation.

His legendary role as Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind (1939) made him the most recognizable leading man in America.

Greta Garbo — Hollywood’s First Female Superstar

Greta Garbo was among the highest-paid actresses of her era. By the late 1930s, she earned approximately $300,000 per year, making her one of the highest-paid women in the country.

Garbo’s mystique was so valuable that MGM famously marketed her simply with the phrase: “Garbo Talks!” when she transitioned from silent films to talking pictures.

Shirley Temple — The Child Superstar

Shirley Temple was Hollywood’s biggest box-office attraction in the mid-1930s. At her peak, she earned about $1,250 per week—an astonishing amount during the Great Depression.

The twist? The studio controlled much of her income, and laws were eventually created to protect child performers.

The 1960s: Television Changes the Game

By the 1960s, Hollywood was facing a new competitor: the television set sitting in almost every American living room.

Actors were no longer just movie stars. They were television personalities who could become part of the family.

One of the biggest examples was:

Lucille Ball: From $2,000 Per Episode to a Hollywood Empire

Lucille Ball changed Hollywood economics forever.

When I Love Lucy premiered in 1951, Ball and Desi Arnaz reportedly earned about $2,000 per episode each—a substantial amount at the time.

But the real fortune came from ownership.

Ball and Arnaz created Desilu Productions and negotiated ownership rights to their show. That decision made them far wealthier than simply collecting a salary. Desilu later became one of the most powerful production companies in television history.

Lucy wasn’t just getting paid to perform, but she was getting paid like a business owner.

Other 1960s Stars:

Elizabeth Taylor

Earned approximately $1 million for Cleopatra (1963), one of the first million-dollar acting salaries in Hollywood history.

Sean Connery

Earned around $100,000 for early James Bond films, later negotiating better deals as the franchise exploded.

Today: The Era of the $20 Million Paycheck

Hollywood’s biggest stars no longer just receive salaries. They negotiate:

Upfront fees
Box office bonuses
Streaming bonuses
Producer credits
Ownership stakes

A major star can make more money from one film than some actors earned over entire careers decades ago.

Highest-Paid Actor Today

According to recent Forbes rankings, Adam Sandler was the highest-paid actor for 2025, earning approximately $48 million.

Other top earners included:

Tom Cruise — about $46 million
Mark Wahlberg — about $44 million
Brad Pitt — about $41 million

Highest-Paid Actress Today

Scarlett Johansson ranked as the highest-paid actress, earning approximately $43 million in 2025, boosted by acting fees and profit participation.

Other modern top earners include:

Jennifer Aniston — around $20 million
Reese Witherspoon — around $26 million
The Hollywood Money Machine Has Completely Changed

In the 1930s, studios owned the stars. In the 1960s, stars began demanding ownership and creative control.

Today, the biggest names are no longer just actors—they are brands, producers, entrepreneurs, and sometimes the studios themselves.

A century ago, Hollywood’s biggest stars were paid thousands per week.

Today, one blockbuster name can command tens of millions before the first scene is filmed.

The cameras may still roll the same way, but the checks have gotten a whole lot longer.

Lights. Camera. Cha-ching.

Note: Historical salaries vary depending on contract structures, bonuses, inflation calculations, and whether earnings include ownership or production income.