Tag: Politics

  • Trump Pushes for Extended DC Police Control Beyond 30-Day Limit

    Trump Pushes for Extended DC Police Control Beyond 30-Day Limit

    WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump has said federal control over Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department should last more than 30 days.

    “We’re going to be asking for extensions on that—long-term extensions,” the president told reporters on Aug. 13 at the Kennedy Center.

    Under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, the president can declare an emergency and take over the police department in the nation’s capital city for two days. He can prolong that for 30 days by notifying Congress.

    For the emergency to be extended further, Congress must give the go-ahead. That effort could face a filibuster from Democrats in the Senate.

    On X, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the takeover “a political ploy and attempted distraction.”

    Trump also floated declaring a national emergency, suggesting it might enable him to sidestep the D.C. Home Rule Act’s limitations if Congress does not act.

    “I don’t want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will, but I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously,” he said.

    The House and the Senate, which are both under Republican control, are in recess until early September. That’s within 30 days of when Trump first declared a crime emergency to restore safety in Washington on Aug. 11.

    image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.theepochtimes.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F08%2F13%2Fid5900629 national guard GettyImages 2229091472
    National Guard troops are deployed to the Washington Monument as part of President Donald Trump’s mobilization of law enforcement in Washington on Aug. 12, 2025. © Andrew Leyden/Getty Images

    Trump has also activated the National Guard to assist the federalized police in combating crime. Those troops started arriving in the city on Aug. 12.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has praised the president’s takeover, writing on X, “House Republicans support this effort to clean up Washington, end the crime wave, and restore the beauty of the greatest capital in the world.”

    “President Trump is rightly using executive power to take bold and necessary action to crack down on crime and restore law and order in Washington, D.C.,” Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, said in a statement on Aug. 11.

    ef2df304 a784 4179 86b8 21679a3322d3 GTY 1460829318
    Look Who James Comer Thinks Is Part of the Deep State Now. © Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Comer has also announced that the committee would hold a hearing involving D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and other local officials next month.

    In the upper chamber, the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.

    The NY Budgets also reached out to that committee’s chair, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for comment on the president’s request but did not receive a response by publication time.

    Trump also told a reporter he hopes to advance new crime legislation.

    “It’s going to pertain initially to D.C.,” he said.

    Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) reintroduced the D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe (CRIMES) Act in Congress on Aug. 8.

    The legislation would not permit offenders older than 18 to be charged as youth offenders. That category now extends to individuals as old as 24.

    The D.C. CRIMES Act would also create a website to track juvenile crime in the city and prevent the district’s city council from altering criminal liability sentences.

    2305010 byron donalds mb 1202 6c27c7
    Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., came under criticism from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign Wednesday after he pushed back against the state’s new Black history standards. © Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images file

    In 2024, a previous version of the D.C. CRIMES Act passed the GOP-controlled House 225–181, netting the support of all Republicans and 18 Democrats.

    It died in a committee in the Senate, which was at that time controlled by Democrats.

  • President Trump’s vision involves a partisan economist leading the charge in managing the nation’s data

    President Trump’s vision involves a partisan economist leading the charge in managing the nation’s data

    Washington, D.C. – In a decisive step to restore accuracy and transparency to America’s economic reporting, President Donald Trump has nominated E.J. Antoni, a sharp-eyed economist from the Heritage Foundation, to helm the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This follows Trump’s prompt removal of the previous commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, after a July jobs report riddled with downward revisions that critics argue inflated perceptions of weakness in an otherwise resilient economy. Antoni, a staunch advocate for data integrity and a vocal supporter of Trump’s pro-growth policies, is set to inject much-needed reform into an agency plagued by methodological flaws and declining survey response rates.

    The nomination has drawn predictable fire from liberal economists and media outlets, who decry Antoni’s conservative credentials as a threat to “nonpartisanship.” But from a right-leaning perspective, this is exactly the shake-up the BLS needs. For years, conservatives have highlighted inconsistencies in BLS data that seem to downplay economic strengths under Republican leadership while overstating them during Democratic administrations. Antoni’s track record of exposing these issues positions him as the ideal leader to rebuild trust—not through status quo preservation, but through bold improvements that align statistics with real-world realities.

    Profiling E.J. Antoni: A Conservative Crusader for Economic Truth

    E.J. Antoni, Ph.D., currently serves as Chief Economist and Richard Aster Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget. He holds master’s and doctoral degrees in economics from Northern Illinois University, with a focus on labor economics, money and banking, and fiscal policy. Before Heritage, Antoni was an economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and is now a senior fellow at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, co-founded by Trump advisor Stephen Moore.

    Antoni’s expertise shines in his frequent congressional testimonies on economic issues and his media appearances on outlets like Fox Business, where he dissects BLS reports with precision. He has critiqued BLS methodologies, pointing to post-pandemic drops in survey response rates that lead to unreliable preliminary estimates and massive revisions. In a recent Fox Business interview, Antoni suggested pausing monthly jobs reports until accuracy improves, favoring quarterly releases for better data quality—a proposal that, while controversial, addresses genuine flaws like the 258,000 downward revision in the July report.

    Trump praised Antoni on Truth Social as a “Highly Respected Economist” who will deliver “HONEST and ACCURATE” numbers, echoing Antoni’s pre-nomination commitment to “more accurate data, as timely as possible.” Antoni’s alignment with Trump’s narrative is clear: he has championed the economic booms from tax cuts and deregulation, while exposing Biden-era distortions like overstated job growth. Supporters like Stephen Moore call him a “very good statistician and a sound, solid economist” unlikely to face confirmation hurdles.

    On X, conservative voices rally: “Trump’s nominee for BLS commissioner… has demonstrated no commitment to truth,” quipped one critic, but right-leaning users counter, “Finally, someone to fix the rigged system.”

    Departing from the Establishment: Antoni Compared to Past Commissioners

    BLS commissioners have traditionally been academic insiders with extensive statistical backgrounds but often accused by conservatives of liberal biases. Erica Groshen (Obama-era) and Katharine Abraham (Clinton-era) exemplified this, with Ph.D.s from elite institutions and Fed ties, prioritizing survey methodologies over real-world applicability. Even Trump’s first-term pick, William Beach, emphasized “nonpartisanship,” but critics argue this led to unchecked flaws.

    Antoni breaks this mold: his Ph.D. is from a practical program, and his experience is in policy think tanks, not academia. Detractors like Jason Furman call him “completely unqualified” and an “extreme partisan,” while Joey Politano notes his five years post-Ph.D. and think-tank focus. Justin Wolfers labels him a “disastrously terrible” Trumper with “misrepresentations.” But this reeks of elitism—Antoni’s “lack of research record” ignores his real-world impact, like testifying on fiscal issues and critiquing BLS’s “phony baloney” health insurance data.

    From the right, Antoni represents a necessary outsider to challenge entrenched biases, much like Trump’s disruption of Washington norms.

    Market Ramifications: Short-Term Jitters, Long-Term Gains?

    The BLS’s data on unemployment, CPI, and productivity drives Fed decisions, corporate strategies, and investor moves. Trump’s firing of McEntarfer sparked initial market dips, with the Dow falling 0.5% amid fears of politicization. Bond yields edged up as uncertainty grew over inflation data reliability. Critics warn of eroded trust leading to volatility, but conservatives see opportunity: accurate reforms could reveal Trump’s economic strengths, boosting confidence.

    Historical parallels, like Argentina’s data manipulation, show risks, but Antoni’s push for transparency—more website info, methodology reviews—could stabilize markets. If revisions persist (e.g., post-COVID response drops), quarterly reports might prevent panics. Ultimately, a reformed BLS could highlight successes like low minority unemployment, encouraging investment in manufacturing amid tariffs.

    The Conservative Case: Antoni as America’s Data Watchdog

    In a time of institutional distrust, nominating a “partisan” like Antoni isn’t reckless—it’s restorative. The BLS has long been a liberal stronghold, producing data that justifies big-government narratives while ignoring issues like immigration’s wage effects. Antoni’s Heritage role and Project 2025 contributions ensure focus on working Americans, not elites.

    Criticisms from Furman and Wolfers? Partisan sniping from Obama alums. Even Beach’s caution reflects establishment fear of change. Antoni’s “chainsaw” quip to BLS inefficiencies is rhetoric for reform, not destruction. With Senate confirmation ahead, this is a win for truth over technocracy.

  • Israel Approves Plan to Seize Gaza City Amid International Condemnation

    Israel Approves Plan to Seize Gaza City Amid International Condemnation

    Israel has approved plans to take control of Gaza City, while distributing humanitarian aid to civilians outside combat zones, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Friday, amid international pushback.

    The decision follows a security cabinet meeting in which a majority of ministers endorsed five principles for ending the war.

    These include disarming the Hamas terrorist organization, securing the release of all remaining Israeli hostages held in Gaza, maintaining Israel’s security control over the territory, and establishing an alternative civil administration unaffiliated with either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority.

    In an interview with Fox News on Aug. 7, Netanyahu said the plans align with Israel’s long-standing objectives in Gaza, ensuring the enclave poses no threat to the country’s security or existence.

    Those goals have been central since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, in which more than 1,200 people were killed, and about 250 people kidnapped.

    The assault triggered a prolonged war.

    According to the Gaza Ministry of Health, which operates under the control of Hamas, more than 60,000 people have been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023. The number does not distinguish between combatants and civilians and includes some deaths from natural causes. The Epoch Times cannot verify the casualty numbers.

    International Reactions

    Countries remain divided over how to end the conflict. Western allies such as France, the UK, Canada, and Australia are pressing for a two-state solution—a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel and the United States reject recognizing Palestinian statehood under current conditions, arguing it would endanger Israel’s security.

    The UK, Australia, and Turkey on Friday condemned Israel’s plan to expand military operations in Gaza.

    British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it would “only bring more bloodshed” and wouldn’t help secure the release of hostages, while Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the move would worsen the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

    In a statement, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Israel’s plan aims to make Gaza uninhabitable and forcibly displace Palestinians from their land.

    The leaders back a two-state solution for the region, which will be a key focus of the 80th U.N. General Assembly in September, where France, the UK, and Canada said they plan to formalize their recognition of a Palestinian territory.

    U.N. officials urged Israel to stop its planned full military takeover of the Gaza Strip. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk cited a ruling by the International Court of Justice and said, “Israel must end its occupation and achieve a two-State solution giving Palestinians the right to self-determination,” according to a U.N. press statement on Aug. 8.

    Netanyahu dismissed the court’s findings as “fundamentally wrong” and one-sided, while the United States said the court should avoid any ruling that might hinder negotiations toward a two-state solution based on the “land-for-peace” principle.

    U.S. State Department spokesperson Thomas Pigott, when asked on Thursday to respond to Netanyahu’s remarks, reiterated U.S. policy priorities: delivering aid to Gaza without it being looted by Hamas, securing the release of hostages, and ensuring Hamas does not continue to exist.

    German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Aug. 8 that its exports of military equipment that could be used in Gaza will be suspended.

    Merz affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself and the need to disarm Hamas, but he said that measures approved by the Israeli Security Cabinet “are making it increasingly unclear how these goals will be achieved.”

    He also called on Israel to avoid steps toward annexing the West Bank.

    Internal Tensions

    Internal divisions deepened in Israel after the security cabinet approved sending forces into Gaza City, rejecting an alternative proposal that ministers said would not ensure Hamas’s defeat or the return of hostages.

    Opposition leader Yair Lapid called the decision “a disaster” on Aug. 8, warning it would drag on for months, lead to the deaths of hostages and soldiers, cost Israeli taxpayers tens of billions, and end in political collapse.

    “This is exactly what Hamas wanted: for Israel to be trapped in the field without a goal, without defining the picture of the day after, in a useless occupation that no one understands where it is leading,” Lapid said on X.

    The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, representing relatives of those held in Gaza, also condemned the decision as “abandoning the hostages.”

    The group said that expanding the fighting “only further endangers those still held in Gaza’s tunnels” and leaves them “at the mercy of Hamas.”

    “Hamas continues to exploit military escalation as justification for its brutal treatment of our loved ones,” the group said. “The only way to bring the hostages home is through a comprehensive deal.”

    In an interview with Fox News, Netanyahu said Israel is “doing everything“ in its power ”to salvage the hostages.”

    He said that Israel can achieve the release of the remaining 50 hostages “with a combination of the right military tactics and international pressure.”

    “Without military pressure, nothing works,” he said.

    Some protesters blocked a highway in Tel Aviv on Thursday, according to a report by the Times of Israel, demanding a deal for the release of the hostages and demonstrating against an expansion of the war in Gaza.

  • Trump Slaps 50% Tariff on India Over Russian Oil Purchases

    Trump Slaps 50% Tariff on India Over Russian Oil Purchases

    President Donald Trump is imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on India, lifting the total rate to 50 percent. Trump, writing in an Aug. 6 executive order, said India’s government is “currently directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil.”

    “Accordingly, and as consistent with applicable law, articles of India imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25 percent,” the executive order states.

    Last week, the president announced a 25 percent tariff against India, one of the largest U.S. trading partners. Additionally, India would face another penalty over its purchases of Russian energy and military equipment.

    In an Aug. 5 interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” he confirmed that he would increase the tariff on India “very substantially over the next 24 hours” because it is buying Russian crude oil that is “fueling the war machine.”

    The new tariff rate on India is now the largest of the tariffs imposed on U.S. trading partners.

    While Trump has called Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi a “friend,” he has regularly expressed concerns about India’s trade imbalance, tariffs, and nontariff trade barriers.

    Last year, the U.S. goods trade deficit with India was $45.8 billion, up 5.9 percent from 2023, according to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office.

    India has also been in the crosshairs of Trump’s targeting of the BRICS coalition, a group of emerging market countries headlined by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

    “BRICS … is basically a group of countries that are anti the United States, and India is a member of that, if you can believe it,” he said at a July 30 press conference.

    “It’s an attack on the dollar, and we are not going to let anybody attack the dollar. So it’s partially BRICS and it’s partially the trade situation.”

    Despite BRICS’ years-long campaign to dethrone the U.S. dollar and embrace bilateral trade settled in local currencies, the greenback remains the dominant currency in global trade. The dollar accounts for nearly half of international payments, SWIFT data for June show.

    Pressure Campaign

    Trump’s announcement follows through on his threats to ratchet up pressure to end the Russia–Ukraine conflict. One strategy the Trump administration has employed is targeting countries buying Russia’s petroleum products, threatening to implement secondary tariffs.

    In an Aug. 4 Truth Social post, the president stated that India is also using the Russian oil it purchases to sell it “on the open market for big products.”

    “They don’t care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,” he said.

    India has defended the transactions as a means to provide the population with affordable energy since conventional supplies were diverted to Europe following the war in Ukraine.

    “In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable,” a spokesperson for India’s foreign ministry said, adding that the government will employ all necessary measures to protect its economic and national interests.

    Officials also say India is engaged in long-term oil contracts with Russia, making it challenging to break those contracts overnight.

    According to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade, India has accelerated its imports of Russian crude oil since 2022. Last year, India purchased almost $53 billion in oil, up from nearly $49 billion in 2023.

    Last week, Trump reduced his original 50-day deadline for Russia to end the war, giving Moscow 10 to 12 days.

    The Kremlin criticized the White House’s campaign to force countries to eliminate trade with Russia.

    Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Kremlin, says India and other countries should be allowed to select their own trading partners for trade and economic cooperation.

    “We hear many statements that are in fact threats, attempts to force countries to cut trade relations with Russia. We do not consider such statements to be legal,” Peskov told reporters on Aug. 5.

    U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff is in Moscow on Aug. 6, just a few days before Trump’s deadline.

  • Palantir’s Success in Washington and the Resulting 600% Surge in Its Stock Price

    Palantir’s Success in Washington and the Resulting 600% Surge in Its Stock Price

    Once dismissed as a niche Silicon Valley data-mining firm, Palantir Technologies PLTR +600.00% ▲ has undergone a dramatic metamorphosis, transforming into a central fixture in Washington’s national security and AI strategies. As its stock soared nearly 600% from early 2024 through mid‑2025, Palantir cemented its reputation as a co-equal to political insiders—and embraced the aggressive posture of the Trump era it now serves.

    Once dismissed as a niche Silicon Valley data-mining firm, Palantir Technologies has undergone a dramatic metamorphosis, transforming into a central fixture in Washington’s national security and AI strategies. As its stock soared nearly 600% from early 2024 through mid‑2025, Palantir cemented its reputation as a co-equal to political insiders—and embraced the aggressive posture of the Trump era it now serves.

    In early 2023, CEO Alex Karp stunned the company by announcing that Palantir was developing a next-generation Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP)—even though no such project existed. As The Wall Street Journal recounts, Karp viewed the shift toward AI as inevitable and confidently placed Palantir at the center of it. His engineers then raced to build the product. What emerged became a centerpiece of national defense contracts and commercial integrations.

    In Q2 2025, AIP’s adoption helped Palantir smash through its first $1 billion quarterly revenue—a 33% rise in profits and skyrocketing U.S. commercial business by 93% year-over-year.

    Palantir’s proximity to power was turbocharged in President Trump’s second term, as the firm took over major federal contracts. It consolidated dozens of disparate deals into a $10 billion Department of Defense agreement, serviced by Palantir’s mission-grade Gotham and AIP platforms Axios reported.

    This alignment transformed Palantir from tech oddball to national strategic partner. Its new posture earned comparisons to Trump himself—tough, unfiltered, unapologetically patriotic.

    Palantir’s share price multiplied more than six-fold since early 2024, drawing enormous investor attention. Analyst Stephen Guilfoyle of WallStreetPit flagged the firm’s explosive growth: over 52% U.S. business growth in Q4, a 36% revenue increase, $1.25 billion in adjusted free cash flow, and profitability—even boasting 7 cents adjusted EPS. He raised his price target to a lofty $153/share, reflecting continued bullish sentiment.

    The stock’s rise has outpaced major indices. In early 2025, Palantir was among the top performers in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq‑100, ending over $400 billion in market cap—surpassing giants like Salesforce and Adobe.

    With the stock surging, CEO Karp executed an aggressive share selloff: 38 million shares worth roughly $1.88 billion in 2024 alone, much of it near the presidential election. He’s signaled plans to sell nearly 10 million more in 2025, indicating a continued cash-out strategy leveraging Palantir’s rally.

    Despite such windfalls, critics highlight Palantir’s outsized valuation—trading at more than 200x future earnings and 80x projected revenue, per FT’s John Foley. While revenue is strong, skeptics warn the stock behaves like a meme—powered more by hype than fundamentals.

    Palantir’s success rests on an ideological playbook: blend AI prowess with government proximity. The company has built a “revolving door” of personnel exchanges between Washington and its executive ranks—including figures drawn from the Pentagon, CIA, DHS, and even the UK’s NHS. That insider network helped lock in contracts exceeding $1.3 billion with U.S. defense agencies and expanded lobbying to $5.8 million in 2024.

    The firm’s approach is flexible: smartly toe political lines, anticipate shifts in power, and monetize defense policymaking. Palantir’s global positioning reflects that model—growing its Washington footprint even as its commercial footprint expands.

    The company’s victories aren’t immune to challenges. In February 2025, Palantir shares plunged nearly 20% after news broke that the Pentagon might cut defense spending by 8% annually for five years, threatening Palantir’s pipeline.

    Moreover, critics raise alarms about ethics and bias—its close ties to ICE and surveillance applications invite scrutiny over privacy, fairness, and oversight.

    Still, Palantir’s AI platform is winning new contracts beyond defense—it now serves clients like the FAA, CDC, IRS, and even corporate giants, and stands as a singular example of AI-centric growth in a sluggish tech sector.

    Palantir’s journey from controversial data firm to the poster child of AI‑powered government contracting has redefined what it means to succeed in tech—the old Silicon Valley playbook of consumer apps and venture capital liquidity has been traded for political entanglement and defense scoring.

    Its 600% stock run was fueled not just by AI hype, but by a deliberate embrace of political alignment and contract design. The question now is whether that trajectory can last—once the federal tide turns, or budgets tighten, Palantir’s value may be tested.

  • ‘Mamdani of Minneapolis’ Highlights Growing Divide Within the Democratic Party Beyond NYC

    ‘Mamdani of Minneapolis’ Highlights Growing Divide Within the Democratic Party Beyond NYC

    2025 07 10T182418Z 519278079 RC2SJFAMN2O7 RTRMADP 3 USA ELECTION NEW YORK MAYOR 1752489872
    US Rep Adriano Espaillat and NNYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani attend a news conference in New York City on July 10, 2025. © Jeenah Moon/Reuters

    Forget identity politics—what we’re witnessing is a full-scale ideological insurgency. The rise of Zohran Mamdani in New York City and Omar Fateh in Minneapolis isn’t a tale of diversity breaking barriers—it’s an alarm bell signaling a growing socialist push challenging the very foundations of the U.S. Constitution.

    Zohran Mamdani, a self-professed democratic socialist, pulled off a political upset in June by defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo to clinch the Democratic mayoral nomination in New York City. Despite scant executive experience, Mamdani’s grassroots machinery—backed by NYC-DSA volunteers knocking on over 1.6 million doors—delivered him a primary victory commanding 43.5% of first-choice votes, ahead of Cuomo’s 36.4% (ranked-choice results matter). He ran on a platform of fare-free buses, city-run grocery chains, childcare, rent freezes, and significantly, progressive taxation including a flat 2% tax on millionaires.

    Mamdani hails from a socialist tradition aligned with figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Critics worry these policies undermine American constitutional principles by expanding government power over markets, property rights, and freedom of association.

    In Minneapolis, Omar Fateh—a Somali-American state senator—secured the DFL’s endorsement over two-term Mayor Jacob Frey at a convention marked by opaque processes: e-voting system failures, fraudulent upgrades, and a final “hand‑badge count” decided by the convention chair. Despite procedural controversy, Fateh won over 60% delegate support, representing a brazen socialist push at local party levels.

    687fb753e9131.image
    Mayoral candidate state Sen. Omar Fateh waves to the crowd during the Minneapolis DFL convention at Target Center in Minneapolis on Saturday. © Rebecca Villagracia/The Minnesota Star Tribune

    Fateh stands on the same socialist platform: rent freezes, taxing billionaires, eliminating public safety cooperation with ICE, free public college for low-income families. If implemented, these measures push Minneapolis toward socialist governance and away from constitutional limits on government power.

    These parallel rises of Mamdani and Fateh aren’t isolated incidents—they’re harbingers of a broader leftward shift within the Democratic Party. According to The Wall Street Journal, they exemplify “a widening ideological divide” between establishment pragmatic moderates and insurgent socialist factions mobilized on affordable housing and Gaza solidarity.

    Yet the deeper issue is not policy details—it’s the rejection of individual rights, free markets, and constitutional checks in favor of centralized planning. Both candidates’ platforms—fare-free transit, rent freezes, wealth taxation—reflect a willingness to expand government far beyond its constitutional bounds.

    Fateh’s campaign volunteer (and brother-in-law) was convicted of mishandling absentee ballots in his 2020 Senate bid. While an ethics panel cleared Fateh of wrongdoing, the scandal unnerved many.

    He also faced a conflict-of-interest probe over a $500,000 grant he sponsored to a nonprofit that advertised his campaign. Again, no penalties followed—only mandated financial training.

    Fateh’s vocal support for abolishing the Minneapolis Police and defunding ICE, including a 2023 speech comparing GOP senators to white supremacists, raised alarm among moderates before ethical complaints were dropped.

    Mamdani lacks executive leadership experience and has been criticized for muted responses to NYC shootings—raising concerns about future governance ability.

    Financial and Electoral Panic Rings the Alarm

    Mamdani’s win spooked Wall Street. CNBC reported hedge fund and real estate investors were “alarmed” and “depressed,” while JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon admitted privately that Mamdani’s policy agenda is “Marxist-ish.” Business sentiment sank as real estate markets and luxury housing felt exposed.

    As New York City faces a fracturing general election (with Cuomo and Adams running as independents), and Minneapolis gears up for a must-win race—voters must decide if they support vibrant constitutionalism or disruptive socialist crackdowns on liberty.

    If Fateh and Mamdani succeed, it heralds serious repercussions in 2026—shifts toward expensive entitlement schemes, defunding of public safety, and erosion of property rights. For swing states and suburban moderates, this could be electoral poison.

    The ascendance of socialist insurgents like Mamdani and Fateh represents more than political upset—it’s a constitutional crisis in the making. Their policies rest on centralized control, regressive messaging, and ideological purity. America cannot remain strong if these power grabs go unchecked.

    If constitutional liberties—speech, free markets, property, due process—are to survive, conservative and moderate voters must mobilize to defend realism over radicalism in the party and the nation.

  • Watchdog Agency Launches Investigation into Jack Smith, the Prosecutor Who Investigated Trump

    Watchdog Agency Launches Investigation into Jack Smith, the Prosecutor Who Investigated Trump

    In a stunning development with far-reaching political implications, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has officially launched an investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who led the federal prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump. The inquiry, announced over the weekend, centers on allegations that Smith may have violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that prohibits government officials from engaging in partisan political activity while performing their official duties.

    The OSC, an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act, confirmed to several news outlets—including The Hill, Fox News, and Reuters—that it is now examining complaints lodged by Republican lawmakers about Smith’s conduct during his tenure leading high-profile investigations into the 45th president. These investigations began shortly after Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith in November 2022—just three days before Trump formally declared his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election.

    While the OSC declined to provide specific details regarding the scope of the probe, a spokesperson stated that “appropriate steps are being taken to evaluate potential violations of the Hatch Act or other misconduct involving Mr. Smith.”

    The timing of the announcement has reignited fierce partisan debate over the integrity and neutrality of the Justice Department and the role of special prosecutors in politically sensitive cases.

    The Allegations and GOP Response

    Leading the charge is Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), who has openly accused Smith of wielding his prosecutorial power for political ends. In a strongly worded post on X (formerly Twitter), Cotton alleged, “Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns. This isn’t just unethical—it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office.”

    Cotton further pointed to Smith’s push for an “unprecedented and rushed” trial schedule—seeking jury selection just two weeks before the Iowa GOP caucuses—as evidence of politically motivated intent. “No other case of this magnitude and complexity would come to trial this quickly,” he said.

    Other conservative lawmakers, including Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), have echoed Cotton’s sentiments, calling for sweeping reviews of the Justice Department’s prosecutorial discretion and accusing it of being “weaponized” against political opponents.

    Smith, a veteran prosecutor and former head of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, has firmly denied any improper conduct. In a final report issued in January 2025 before his resignation, Smith maintained that “the ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine alone.”

    “To all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable,” Smith wrote in the report.

    His report detailed what he called a “throughline of deceit,” accusing Trump of knowingly spreading false claims about election fraud and obstructing a constitutionally mandated process. “Until Mr. Trump obstructed it, this democratic process had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years,” he wrote.

    After Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, Smith stepped down from his role and ultimately dismissed charges against the president-elect, citing political and logistical barriers to achieving a conviction.

    Pam Bondi Cleans House

    Adding more intrigue to the already politically charged case, newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi fired 20 Justice Department employees who were reportedly tied to Smith’s investigations just weeks before the OSC announced its inquiry. While the DOJ has not publicly commented on the dismissals, sources told Politico and Axios that Bondi’s team is reviewing all DOJ prosecutions initiated during the Biden administration.

    Bondi, a close Trump ally and former Florida attorney general, has previously criticized what she described as “a two-tiered justice system” and vowed to restore impartiality at the Department of Justice.

    The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits executive branch employees from using their official authority to influence elections or engage in partisan political activity. Violations can result in disciplinary actions including suspension, removal from federal service, or referral for criminal prosecution if warranted.

    While the OSC does not have direct prosecutorial power, it can submit its findings to the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General or Office of Professional Responsibility, or recommend sanctions to federal agencies.

    Legal experts say proving a Hatch Act violation in Smith’s case may be difficult. “You’d have to show not just political impact, but political intent,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former DHS official and senior fellow at the R Street Institute, speaking to NPR. “The threshold is very high.”

    A Broader Political Battle

    The investigation into Jack Smith is yet another chapter in the intensifying legal-political drama engulfing Washington, where partisanship increasingly clouds public perception of the justice system. While Democrats accuse Republicans of undermining the rule of law, the GOP sees a pattern of political targeting that must be rooted out.

    On the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly referred to Smith as “deranged” and painted his prosecution as part of a “deep state conspiracy.” Meanwhile, Democrats have accused the former president of trying to evade accountability for actions that culminated in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

    The OSC’s investigation is expected to unfold over the coming months, though no specific timeline has been set. Depending on the outcome, the case could either vindicate Smith—or add fuel to Republican arguments of DOJ corruption and abuse.

    As 2026 approaches, and with President Trump now back in office, the results of this inquiry could reshape the public’s understanding of the relationship between law enforcement and electoral politics for years to come.

  • Trump may live to regret suing Murdoch for libel regarding Epstein’s birthday card

    Trump may live to regret suing Murdoch for libel regarding Epstein’s birthday card

    10loipippi 1
    Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and Rupert Murdoch in New York County Supreme edit. © Alan Woodward/The NewYorkBudgets

    Donald Trump has never shied away from a fight. In fact, it’s practically his brand. But in launching a $10 billion libel lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, and two Wall Street Journal reporters over a birthday card allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump may have walked into a legal minefield of his own making.

    The lawsuit centers around a Journal story detailing a bizarre 2003 birthday card supposedly authored by Trump to Epstein. According to the article, the note contained several typed lines framed by the outline of a naked woman, hand-drawn in thick marker. The letter reportedly included a third-person conversation between “Trump” and Epstein, with enigmatic phrases such as “enigmas never age” and the cryptic sign-off: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

    Trump has vehemently denied authorship of the card. In a furious social media post, he declared: “These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures.” He further asserted the note was a forgery fabricated by “unnamed Democrats,” and called the Journal a “useless rag,” promising “a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved.”

    For Murdoch, 93, and Trump, 78, this isn’t their first confrontation. The media mogul’s outlets — most prominently Fox News and the Journal — were skeptical of Trump during the 2016 primaries before eventually aiding his path to the presidency. Their relationship has since oscillated between strategic alliance and mutual contempt. But this lawsuit could mark a definitive rupture.

    The legal hurdles Trump faces are towering. The landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) still stands — despite Justice Clarence Thomas’s wish to revisit it. Under Sullivan, public figures suing for libel must prove “actual malice” — that the publisher knowingly printed falsehoods or acted in reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a near-impossible standard to meet when the defendant is The Wall Street Journal, not a tabloid like the National Enquirer.

    Moreover, reports suggest the card came from Department of Justice archives. If so, the Journal’s sourcing may have been both legitimate and well-documented. Dow Jones has vowed to “vigorously defend” its reporting, stating, “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our journalism.”

    If Trump hoped to intimidate Murdoch into silence or submission, he may have miscalculated. Libel suits, historically, are double-edged swords — especially for the plaintiff. They often invite forensic dissection of the very allegations the plaintiff seeks to bury. Legal legend Roy Cohn, Trump’s onetime mentor, famously advised clients: “Never sue for libel.” The reasons are obvious. Oscar Wilde, Alger Hiss, Gen. William Westmoreland, and Ariel Sharon all sued — and saw their reputations battered further. Some even ended up in prison.

    Trump’s reputation is already uniquely impervious to additional tarnish. A New York jury found him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll. He’s been convicted of 34 felony counts related to hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. His boasts about women and his own sexuality — including in the notorious Access Hollywood tape — are publicly etched in American memory.

    So what’s the damage here, really?

    Legal analysts suspect Trump’s motivations may have more to do with uncovering sources through discovery than restoring his name. His lawyers have already requested that Murdoch be deposed quickly, citing his advanced age and reported health concerns. “I hope Rupert and his ‘friends’ are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies,” Trump posted. That may sound like bravado, but it betrays an ulterior aim: flushing out who leaked the card and what else they may know.

    But discovery cuts both ways. Murdoch’s attorneys will be free to interrogate the origins and nature of Trump’s long, checkered relationship with Epstein — one that spanned at least 15 years. How close were they? Did Trump know about Epstein’s illegal activities? Did he ever participate, enable, or turn a blind eye? Why did their relationship allegedly sour in 2004 over a Palm Beach mansion? Was that really the end?

    Those depositions may expose far more than Trump bargained for — not just about his ties to Epstein, but about his broader conduct and associations.

    Trump has filed and settled media lawsuits before. He reportedly reached a $15 million agreement with ABC after George Stephanopoulos mistakenly said he had been “convicted of rape.” A recent $16 million CBS settlement over a 60 Minutes segment seemed more about easing Paramount’s merger path than Trump’s legal merit. But those cases were relatively tame compared to what this Journal suit could unleash.

    Murdoch’s legal team is not likely to blink. While The Wall Street Journal ran a curious follow-up story on Epstein’s “Birthday Book” that included letters from Bill Clinton and billionaire Leon Black, it offered little new insight — possibly a strategic nod or an effort to show editorial balance. But sources close to the matter insist Murdoch has no intention of settling.

    im 76720638?width=1280&size=1
    Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein with President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993. © THE WILLIAM J. CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY/MEGA

    And perhaps he shouldn’t. Trump is often at his most reckless when wounded. Peggy Noonan aptly observed that “he fights even when he will hurt himself, because the fight is all.” But in this case, the fight may well invite ruin. Trump could inadvertently open the floodgates to evidence, testimony, and revelations far more damaging than a birthday card.

    He may soon learn what every good trial lawyer knows: In libel litigation, the courtroom is often the last place you want your secrets to surface.

  • The continuing saga of the Hunter Biden cover-up

    The continuing saga of the Hunter Biden cover-up

    Screenshot 2025 07 30 at 1.38.37 PM
    Hunter Biden in U.S. News Papers. © The NewYorkBudgets

    In Washington, the worst-kept secrets are often the most dangerous ones. And in the case of Hunter Biden, the attempt to keep those secrets buried has created a scandal less about personal misconduct and more about how deeply politicized our justice system has become. The more we learn, the more it becomes clear: the cover-up is still very much underway — and it reaches the highest levels of American power.

    This month, Hunter Biden reemerged on the national stage not to answer questions, but to posture as a victim — blaming Republicans, the media, and even some Democrats for his legal troubles. But far more revealing than his public statements was the quiet release of explosive congressional testimony from special counsel David Weiss, the man who has overseen the increasingly murky, five-year federal investigation into Hunter’s business dealings.

    Weiss told the House Judiciary Committee that investigators lacked the evidence to charge Hunter under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a claim that flies in the face of years of frustration expressed by IRS agents on the case. Those agents — Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler — risked their careers and reputations to blow the whistle on what they saw as a systemic campaign of obstruction by senior DOJ officials, particularly when leads brought them close to Joe Biden.

    According to their forthcoming book The Whistleblowers vs. the Big Guy, the IRS team had compelling evidence that Hunter Biden’s business model revolved around foreign lobbying while his father was Vice President — including for Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian energy giant that paid him up to $1 million a year; Chinese government-linked firms like BHR and CEFC; and clients in Romania and Kazakhstan. All roads, they say, led to “Political Figure 1” — DOJ’s euphemism for then–Vice President Joe Biden.

    In fact, the very first email revealed from Hunter’s now-infamous laptop was from a Burisma executive thanking him for arranging a meeting with his father the previous night. That wasn’t just a casual hello. Hunter had reportedly invited his dad to a private dinner at Café Milano in 2015, attended by businessmen from Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan, as confirmed by his former associate Devon Archer in congressional testimony.

    Emails showed that Hunter’s lobbying firm, Blue Star Strategies, was retained to influence U.S. officials — a textbook FARA violation. When IRS agents tried to include references to Joe Biden in search warrant requests, they were explicitly told to remove them. Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf reportedly wrote in August 2020, “There should be nothing about Political Figure 1 in here.”

    Why? Optics.

    Wolf also blocked a warrant for a guesthouse on Joe Biden’s Delaware property where Hunter had been living. Even after agents found a July 30, 2017 WhatsApp message in which Hunter demanded $10 million from a Chinese executive — while claiming his father was physically present with him — they weren’t allowed to confirm Joe’s location at the time using geolocation data.

    “I am sitting here with my father,” Hunter wrote. “We would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled… I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows… you will regret not following my direction.”

    To most, this message was not only a glaring contradiction of Joe Biden’s repeated claim that he “never discussed business” with his son, but also strong circumstantial evidence of his involvement in influence-peddling. Yet investigators were denied the ability to pursue it.

    “The message was clear,” wrote Shapley and Ziegler. “Although we were investigating Joe Biden’s son — who, it seemed, had often involved his father in his shady overseas business dealings — none of our materials were supposed to mention Joe Biden.”

    When warrants were denied, when lines of inquiry were shut down, when Hunter’s attorneys were tipped off — it wasn’t incompetence. It was protection. And it was political.

    Compare this with how the FBI handled investigations of Donald Trump. The bureau treated the unverified Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign — as legitimate evidence, using it to launch a full-blown surveillance operation. They raided Trump’s home in Florida over classified documents. They indicted his associates for FARA violations, including Paul Manafort. And when whistleblower Gal Luft provided DOJ officials with early evidence implicating Hunter and Jim Biden in Chinese influence schemes, not only was his information buried, but Luft himself was later charged with FARA violations and now sits jailed in Cyprus.

    The selective enforcement is staggering. It seems FARA is used as a sword against political enemies — but becomes invisible when it implicates the sitting President’s son.

    Even when Weiss finally brought felony tax and gun charges against Hunter, it was only after the sweetheart plea deal unraveled under scrutiny. That original deal would have immunized Hunter from further prosecution — even over future FARA violations. Weiss stripped Shapley and Ziegler from the investigation after suspecting whistleblowing activity. The Office of Special Counsel has since found that the IRS illegally retaliated against them for protected disclosures to Congress.

    Meanwhile, the mainstream press has continued to downplay or ignore the core allegations: that Hunter Biden monetized his father’s position — and that Joe Biden, despite repeated denials, may have known, enabled, or directly participated in the scheme.

    In the closing days of his presidency, Joe Biden reportedly considered — and may still pursue — a broad, retroactive pardon for his son that could sweep away lingering legal risks, including those stemming from the CEFC deal, Romanian payments, and other offshore transactions dating back over a decade.

    At every stage — from laptop censorship, to law enforcement interference, to media disinterest — the effort to protect the Bidens has been unmistakable. And the result is not just the slow death of this investigation. It’s a chilling message to every future whistleblower and investigator: some people, and some families, are simply untouchable.

    The Hunter Biden saga is no longer just about one man’s poor choices. It’s about the institutional corruption that has metastasized around him — a rot so deep that even the truth struggles to survive.

    Until that changes, the cover-up continues.

  • Democrats Receive Lowest Rating in 35 Years, Wall Street Journal Poll Shows

    Democrats Receive Lowest Rating in 35 Years, Wall Street Journal Poll Shows

    Democrats Receive Lowest Rating in 35 Years

    Democrats Receive Lowest Rating in 35 Years

    The Democratic Party’s Brand Is Cooked

    25% 20 15 10 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 1990 2000 ’10 ’20 -30
    Republican
    Democratic

    In a striking shift heading into the 2026 midterms, a new Wall Street Journal poll finds that the Democratic Party’s standing among voters has plunged to its lowest level in more than three decades, with Republicans gaining the edge on nearly all key policy issues, including the economy, border security, and education.

    The poll, conducted this month among 1,500 registered voters, shows only 36% of respondents hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party—its lowest rating since 1990. In contrast, 48% view the Republican Party favorably, with a growing number of independents citing disillusionment with progressive social policies and concerns over the economy.

    Democrats Lose Ground on Pocketbook & Cultural Issues

    Although former President Donald Trump continues to face skepticism over his rhetoric, legal battles, and past policy missteps, Republicans are still seen by voters as stronger on critical issues:

    • Economy: 52% trust Republicans vs. 38% for Democrats
    • Inflation/Cost of Living: 54% Republican, 36% Democrat
    • Immigration/Border: 61% Republican, 28% Democrat
    • Education: 48% Republican, 41% Democrat
    • Foreign Policy: 45% Republican, 40% Democrat

    Notably, younger, college-educated voters—long considered Democratic-leaning—are now more divided. Some cite discomfort with what they describe as “cultural overreach” on gender identity, race-based equity programs, and campus speech restrictions.

    “The messaging has veered too far from the kitchen table,” said James Wells, a 42-year-old independent from Ohio. “I care about wages, debt, jobs—not whether someone’s pronouns are being respected on a college campus.”

    Cultural Backlash and Media Trust Gaps

    Critics say the Democratic Party has alienated working- and middle-class voters, particularly white and Hispanic men, by appearing out of step on issues such as family values, public safety, and freedom of speech.

    A plurality of voters now say they believe the mainstream media favors Democrats, with growing support for alternative voices and platforms. Podcasts hosted by Joe Rogan, Patrick Bet-David, Candace Owens, and Russell Brand have gained millions of followers disillusioned with traditional outlets.

    “You can’t trust CNN or MSNBC anymore. But you also can’t trust some of these Republicans either,” said Danica Monroe, 29, in Arizona. “That’s why I listen to long-form podcasts now. It feels more honest.”

    America First Rhetoric Gains Steam

    The poll also shows rising support for policies once deemed radical:

    • Tariffs on Chinese goods: 63% support tariffs, with 37% saying they’d back even a 400% tariff on key imports to protect U.S. industries.
    • Strict immigration controls: 71% say the border crisis is out of control.
    • Gender and sports policies: A majority supports banning biological males from participating in women’s sports.

    The Republican agenda of “America First” economics, immigration crackdowns, and cultural conservatism is increasingly resonating—even among former Democrats.

    Democrats’ Support Falters Among Key Voter Groups

    While Democrats still dominate among Black voters and some liberal suburban women, they’ve seen erosion among:

    • Latino men: Support dropped from 58% (2020) to 44% (2025)
    • Young white working-class voters: Dropped from 49% to 33%
    • Independent women: Now evenly split, 45% each for GOP and Dems

    Political analysts say that while the Democrats’ messaging appeals to educated elites and urban activists, it is failing to connect with voters in swing states and small towns.

    👀 Trump’s Legal Woes Continue – But MAGA Army Stands Firm

    Despite ongoing legal scrutiny—including his handling of classified documents and associations with controversial figures like Jeffrey Epstein—Donald Trump’s political base remains energized.

    In a recent campaign stop, Trump vowed to “release all Epstein files” if re-elected in 2026, drawing cheers from his supporters. Critics say this is a political stunt, but it has reignited interest in transparency surrounding elite misconduct.

    “If Trump exposes the truth, even some liberals will vote for him,” said one voter in Georgia.

    What It Means for 2026 and Beyond

    With just over a year before the midterms, the numbers paint a challenging landscape for Democrats. Economic anxiety, culture wars, and distrust of institutions appear to be tipping momentum toward Republicans.

    Unless Democrats can recalibrate their message and reconnect with everyday concerns, 2026 may deliver a wave election that reshapes the political map—again.

  • Why the Federal Reserve’s Building Renovation Is Costing $2.5 Billion

    Why the Federal Reserve’s Building Renovation Is Costing $2.5 Billion

    Allies of President Donald Trump are pressing for an investigation into the ongoing restoration of the Federal Reserve’s headquarters, costs for which have ballooned to $2.5 billion.

    Any evidence of mismanagement or fraud, as White House officials have suggested, could prove a useful pretext for removing Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whose resistance to cutting interest rates this year has angered the president.

    But the price tag has less to do with “ostentatious” features than the challenges of building — particularly underground — in what was once a swamp near the Tidal Basin along the Potomac River.

    Foundation work for the Fed expansion was so difficult that contractors responsible for the job received a 2025 award for “excellence in the face of adversity” from the Washington Building Congress, a building trades association.

    1x 1
    The Washington Monument behind construction on the Federal Reserve Board East Building, formerly known as the US Public Health Service building. (Al Drago/Bloomberg)

    The ongoing renovation and expansion of the historic 1937 building that houses the Fed, plus an adjacent 1931 federal building, has faced setbacks, with costs for the long-overdue rehab climbing more than 30% since 2023.

    Officials from the Trump administration blame wasteful spending for the cost overruns. In a July 10 letter to Powell, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought described the project as an “ostentatious overhaul” featuring “rooftop terrace gardens,” “VIP dining rooms and elevators” and other luxury amenities. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, a frequent Powell critic, said he’s confident Congress will open an investigation.

    Powell has defended the renovation work as transparent. He responded to Vought’s claims in a letter on July 17, explaining that the gardens are merely green roofs, for example, and the elevator is being extended to accommodate disabled users.

    The project was always going to be tricky, with initial cost estimates pinned at $1.9 billion. Construction on the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building and the adjacent Federal Reserve East Building involves adding new office space, removing asbestos and lead and replacing antiquated mechanical systems. Neither the Eccles Building — an austere edifice designed by Paul Cret and dedicated by Franklin D. Roosevelt — nor the East Building has ever been fully renovated since they were built nearly a century ago.

    1x 1
    A worker at the reconstruction site of Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, where estimated costs have gone from $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion. (Samuel Corum/Bloomberg)

    Some of the bigger cost factors for the Fed are largely invisible. The price of structural steel exploded in 2021, just before construction began. Any building project in Washington’s so-called monumental core is covered by a bevy of design oversight boards, which can, and did, slow down the work. And the renovation of structures built during the New Deal has to account for federal security standards adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

    The most challenging parts of the renovation, however, are underground.

    Parts of the job call for deep excavation. Expanding the Fed’s campus involves converting a parking garage underneath the Eccles Building into additional office space. A five-story addition on the north side of the Fed’s East Building also boasts four extra floors below grade — a common trick in Washington, where heights are capped and historic vistas are protected. Below the south lawn of the East Building, a 318-space parking garage is being added. According to an FAQ put out by the Fed, the water table was higher underground than builders had predicted.

    Building a new basement below an existing structure is a huge undertaking. Berkel and Company Contractors, a specialty foundation contractor, had to physically lower the slab on which the building stands, supporting the structure while excavating the ground beneath it. The company declined to comment, but a video posted on YouTube explains that Berkel built a bracing system above the slab in order to demolish it and lower the basement level more than 20 feet. The work required 1,000 micropiles — deep foundation steel elements used in ground conditions that don’t allow for traditional piles.

    The Federal Reserve Board Building, designed by Paul Philippe Cret, in Washington circa 1935. (Keystone View Company/FPG/Getty Images)

    Excavating underneath historic structures is expensive work. A proposal to shore up the Smithsonian Institution’s 19th-century Castle against seismic rumbling with an expansion below ground totaled $2 billion before the plans were shelved. Building along the National Mall is tough as well. Much of the land didn’t exist a century ago.

    As landscape architect Phia Sennett wrote on the website of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Tidal Basin and surrounding area were filled from sediment dredged from the Potomac River and built over a series of creeks. To complete the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture — more than 60% of which is below grade on the National Mall — architects had to design an enormous “bathtub” to keep the water table out. 

    Construction costs for that building, which opened in 2016, reached $540 million, 50% more than an initial estimate. The price tag for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, another project with daunting underground requirements and multiple stakeholders, rose to $1 billion before construction was halted in 2011. Its final costs were reported at $700 million.

    In testimony before Congress in June, Powell acknowledged the project was a daunting one.

    “No one in office wants to do a major renovation of a historic building during their term in office,” he said. “We decided to take it on because, honestly, when I was the administrative governor, before I became chair, I came to understand how badly the Eccles Building really needed a serious renovation. It never had one. It was not really safe and it was not waterproof.”

    1x 1
    An artist’s rendering of the completed Federal Reserve buildings is shown on barriers along Constitution Avenue in Washington. (Al Drago/Bloomberg)

    The Fed renovation is being performed by Fortus, a joint venture between the Dutch design consultancy Arcadis and the Washington, DC–based architecture firm Quinn Evans. Arcadis specializes in engineering and resilience, including water infrastructure. Quinn Evans has led complex restoration jobs, among them Michigan Central Station in Detroit and the National Academy of Sciences headquarters. Both firms referred a reporter from Bloomberg to the Fed, which didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    Design plans for the Eccles Building changed significantly since they were first introduced. During the first Trump administration, architects at the request of the Fed proposed using more glass, but Trump appointees to the US Commission of Fine Arts asked for more white marble to align with a proposed mandate from the president requiring all new federal buildings to be classical in style. The demand to use more marble was first reported by the Associated Press.

    During a 2021 review by the National Capital Planning Commission, a General Services Administration official said that the Fed had withstood a “tumultuous” oversight process. 

    “They’ve been really put through their paces,” Mina Wright, founding director of the GSA’s Office of Planning and Design Quality, said at the time. “They’ve had some hostile criticism at one point that was unjustified.”

  • CBS canceled ‘The Late Show’ due to tens of millions in annual financial losses — not because of Stephen Colbert’s politics, sources say

    CBS canceled ‘The Late Show’ due to tens of millions in annual financial losses — not because of Stephen Colbert’s politics, sources say

    CBS brass say they pulled the plug on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” because of its punishing losses — pegged between $40 million and $50 million a year — and claim politics had nothing to do with it, The Post has learned.

    The 61-year-old host got canned just days after he took a dig at the Tiffany Network over its $16 million settlement with Donald Trump over a controversial “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris as the network’s parent Paramount negotiates with the Trump administration regulatory approval for its $8 billion sale to independent studio Skydance.

    “I am offended, and I don’t know if anything will ever repair my trust in this company,” Colbert said of the truce in his Monday night monologue.

    “But just taking a stab at it, I’d say $16 million would help.”

    ‘Gets no advertising’

    But scathing jokes at the expense of CBS brass wasn’t the problem, according to insiders. 

    Instead, the network’s bosses could no longer stomach the fact that Colbert has been plagued with an increasingly dire shortage of advertisers.

    That’s despite Colbert’s No, 1 ratings in his time slot and his status as a key face for the Tiffany Network. 

    In the end, Paramount’s co-CEO George Cheeks decided to kill the show, sources said.

    “Colbert gets no advertising and late night is a tough spot,” said a person with direct knowledge of CBS’s decision. 

    “Colbert might be No. 1, but who watches late night TV anymore?”

    Some Democrats voiced suspicion, citing the host’s left-wing leanings and CBS owner Paramount’s urgent need to gain an OK from the Trump administration for the merger with Skydance, the Hollywood studio behind the “Mission: Impossible” franchise.

    LSCBS
    People walk past the Ed Sullivan Theater, where “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” is taped, in New York. (AP)

    “CBS canceled Colbert’s show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump — a deal that looks like bribery,” lefty Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote on X.

    “America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons.”

    Skydance CEO David Ellison is the son of Donald Trump pal and tech billionaire Larry Ellison. 

    As The Post first reported, CBS just paid $16 million to Trump and has agreed to run millions of dollars more in MAGA-friendly ads to settle the president’s lawsuit alleging that “60 Minutes” deceptively edited its 2024 interview with Kamala Harris to make her look better.

    Trump, meanwhile, celebrated Colbert’s canning in a Friday morning post on Truth Social.

    “I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,” the president wrote.

    “His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert!”

    Fervent denials

    But despite Ellison’s Trump ties, sources said Skydance and its partners at Redbird Capital — the private equity firm that will help run CBS once the deal is cleared — only heard the news of the show’s impending cancellation just before it was announced late Thursday.

    “Skydance had nothing to do with this,” one person close to the decision said. 

    “Colbert loses $40 million to $50 million a year, so George Cheeks just decided to pull the plug.”

    The show’s dominance in its time slot belies sharp declines in viewership as younger viewers move away from traditional TV.

    “The Late Show” boasts nearly 2 million total viewers and 200,000 viewers in the key 25-24 “demo” — making it No. 1 in its time slot.

    Nevertheless, that’s a sharp decline versus the numbers it racked up in its heyday. 

    The ad data firm Guideline estimates that CBS’s late-night shows together drew $220 million in ad revenue in 2024 — just half the $439 million they drew in 2018.

    RedBird’s Jeff Shell, the former head of NBCUniversal who will run the network once the deal is done, has been crunching the numbers and finding that CBS is a “melting ice cube” with its losses and cost overruns, a source said.

    ‘Truth-based’ turn

    The plan is to enhance CBS Sports and invest in “truth-based” news at a network that conservatives have long ripped for its alleged liberal bias.

    A Paramount spokesman declined to comment and would not deny that massive losses were tied to the show’s cancellation.

    Trump’s lawsuit was impeding the approval of the deal by the Trump Federal Communications Commission. 

    The Post has learned that Ellison is now telling people that with the lawsuit settled the Skydance-Paramount deal will get FCC approval by mid-August.

    While Ellison is predicting imminent regulatory approval, it will come at a cost: FCC chairman Brendan Carr is likely to demand conditions to remedy what he believes is left-wing news bias in programming that violates agency “public interest” rules that govern local broadcasting as opposed to cable.