dollar

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee on Wednesday sued President Trump’s administration for recent television advertisements that promoted his political message while costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads illegal and stop the use of federal funds to pay for them.

Trump has faced bipartisan backlash for the ads, which glorify him and echo his campaign pitch as voters cast early ballots with the midterm elections less than a month away.

The spots, which began airing in September, already have cost more than $12 million to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact, and a total of $20 million in Homeland Security Department funding has been tapped to pay for them.

Responding Monday to the criticism, Trump defended the ads as “positive promotion for our Great U.S.A.” but said he’d pay for them using his MAGA Inc. super PAC going forward.

But on Tuesday, the fifth ad in the campaign began airing with the notice “paid for by the U.S. Government,” promoting Trump’s military actions in Venezuela earlier this year. The same day, Trump made it clear he hasn’t committed to reimbursing any money that has already been spent, telling reporters “we’ll decide.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement that Trump is misusing taxpayer dollars in “a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November.”

“Americans deserve better than to have their hard-earned tax dollars used for Trump’s illegal schemes,” he added.

Legal experts have suggested the ads run afoul of a federal statute against congressionally appropriated money being used for “publicity or propaganda,” and potentially other federal laws. The Homeland Security money tapped for the ads comes from a $175 million package Congress gave to the department as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have done to promote various policies. Legal experts have said the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

The defendants in the lawsuit — Trump, the White House, DHS and the Office of Management and Budget — didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

Gold hits seven-week low; silver follows suit and records a nearly 5 percent loss.

Gold prices are falling as concerns of rising fuel prices stoke inflation worries on the back of the war between the United States and Iran.

Spot gold prices fell by 3.3 percent to reach a more than seven-week low at $4,146.51 per ounce on Monday.

Rising oil prices, a higher US dollar and Treasury yields stoked inflation concerns, creating further headwinds for the metal.

This is the lowest level for gold values since August 5. US gold futures also fell by 3.3 percent to $4,178.40.

Although gold is traditionally considered an inflation hedge, higher interest rates dent ⁠its appeal as investors prefer yield-bearing assets.

“There might be no notable direct impact on regular people due to that. However, investors who had turned to gold will see a hit, especially under the current high inflation rates,” Sherif Othman, CEO of the Maryland-based Poise Investment Advisors, told Al Jazeera.

“Gold does not yield interest, so when Treasury yields go up, investors turn away from gold, impacting its value”, he added.

The Fed lifted benchmark rates by a quarter ⁠percentage point earlier this month and flagged that at least one more hike is likely in the coming months.

The US dollar was steady near a two-month high, and oil prices spiked about 3 percent as US President Donald Trump rejected an Iranian offer ⁠to resolve the conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Such factors triggered several policymakers to warn that inflation risks remain elevated and that interest rates may need to rise, with Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack among the latest officials to reiterate that view.

Higher Treasury yields and the US dollar are “creating a perfect storm to push the metals prices sharply lower,” according to Jim Wyckoff, a market analyst at American Gold Exchange.

Spot silver also fell by 4.7 percent to $61.27 per ounce, platinum declined 2.9 percent to $1,726.30 and palladium lost 4.4 percent to $1,211.45.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Monday is expected to approve a bipartisan bill that would give the NCAA and its member conferences the authority to enforce uniform national rules on college athletics.

If the bill is passed by the Senate, it would move to the House and, if approved, on to President Trump for his signature to become law.

What the Protect College Sports Act would do

Under the Protect College Sports Act — co-authored by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — the NCAA would be granted a limited antitrust exemption that would allow the organization to create standardized rules around athlete eligibility, limit conference realignment and prevent the creation of a super league — a private-equity model for college sports that would replace NCAA subdivisions.

The bill is also an attempt to codify the $2.8-billion antitrust settlement reached last year in House vs. NCAA, which allowed Division 1 schools to share revenue with their current players and compensate past players. The new bill would increase the revenue sharing cap to around $50 million per school from $21.5 million, albeit with a more strict and enforceable model.

Under Name, Image and Likeness deals, wealthier schools were able to circumvent the “soft” $21.5-million cap by lining up lucrative corporate sponsorships and endorsements for prospective athletes. The bill would allow the NCAA to crack down on attempts to bypass the limit by incorporating booster or affiliated-entity money into total revenue sharing calculations, while also giving schools an additional $27 million in the funding cap to retain current athletes.

Potential boost for smaller schools

A potential consequence of the bill could be that big-name programs lose their ability to draw the best college athletes with promises of massive compensation, allowing smaller programs to compete under NCAA regulations.

The NCAA and its affiliates have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for congressional intervention on its rule-making power over the last seven years. Supporters of the bill, including Cruz, have said the bill would bring order and consistent regulation to college sports.

“If we’re going to be having a national competition … it is only Congress that can establish a clear and enforceable legal rule book,” Cruz said on the Senate floor last week.

Influential figures in college sports, including former Alabama head football coach Nick Saban and ESPN analyst Pat McAfee, have publicly called on Congress to pass the measure. It has also drawn support from 24 of the NCAA’s athletic conferences.

“Congress does need to fix the mess in the courts and create a national framework so the people inside college sports can enforce fair rules,” Saban said during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee hearing in June. “Without that legal certainty, every rule becomes another lawsuit, every standard becomes another risk, and the system keeps drifting toward a professional model.”

What the opponents say

The legislation is not without its opponents. Some players, labor organizations and members of Congress argue that the bill would prevent highly sought-after college athletes from participating in their own negotiation process.

“What this bill does, at its core, is protect a system of exploitation,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an AFL-CIO trade union press release. “This bill protects the billions of dollars that coaches and executives are making by suppressing compensation for some of the most highly valued athletes in the world.”

The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP have also brought forward concerns that the bill does not allow Black athletes — who make up a majority of players in the football and basketball programs — into the collective bargaining process.

The NCAA plans to enforce a five-year eligibility rule, cap agent fees at 5%, put penalties on second transfers and codify student-athlete protections, such as 10-year degree completion assistance and post-eligibility healthcare. If the bill passes, all challenges to these rules would have to be handled in federal court.

Some senior Republican officials in the House, including Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), have expressed some hesitance in passing the legislation without clarity as to whether student-athletes will be considered employees and if further limits should be placed on international student-athletes. If changes are made in the House, the bill would be returned to the Senate for another vote.

Support from Trump

Trump, on the other hand, has expressed strong support for the bill.

“THE PROTECT COLLEGE SPORTS ACT is a great Bill, and the Senate will hopefully stay in D.C. until it passes,” he wrote on Truth Social last month. “Without this Bill, millions of young Athletes will be hurt, programs will be canceled … the fans will be robbed, and Universities will go broke”

At first glance, it looks like a typical Republican campaign advertisement. As images of President Trump flash across the screen, the 30-second spot says, “America will never be a communist country” and boasts about the “largest tax cuts in history.”

But there’s something different near the end — a bit of text at the bottom that says “paid for by the U.S. government.”

According to AdImpact, which tracks media spending, the advertisement cost $14,000 and it ran during conservative shows on Fox News and Newsmax.

The White House said in a statement the ad is “educational and unapologetically patriotic.”

“These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad,” the White House statement said.

Fox News and Newsmax did not immediately return a request for comment.

The White House did not say what agency paid for the spot, which includes background music with singers crooning “love me” over and over.

The advertisement does not say who voters should support in the midterms, but it meshes with campaign messaging from Trump and other Republicans, particularly during the party’s unusual convention in Dallas earlier this month.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is in line to chair the House Judiciary Committee if his party wins the majority in November, said in a social media post that it’s a violation of the Hatch Act for government employees to work on such a video.

“It is blatantly unethical under numerous federal ethics provisions proscribing the use of government resources for political campaigns,” Raskin wrote.

Republicans also criticized the ad.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who is not running for reelection, referenced the former right-wing Hungarian prime minister to critique the advertisement.

“It’s inappropriate. It’s not like they need a GoFundMe page to have the dollars to do that sort of ad and they could do it. But using taxpayer dollars, it feels like Viktor Orban,” he said.

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said he hadn’t seen the ad but questioned whether it was legal.

“I don’t generally like to see politicians use public money to pay for their own campaign ads,” he said.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Joey Cappelletti and Steven Sloan in Washington contributed to this report.

Converse has pulled a controversial ad after it was slammed online by social media users who said it evoked Ku Klux Klan imagery.

Two ads promoting Converse’s global Chuck 70 X campaign came under fire. One featured K-pop star Karina clutching a pair of the brand’s classic high-top black sneakers by her side and wearing a white skirt, with a star spotlight in center frame.

The problem, according to social media users, was that the lighting and cropping created an outline that evoked a white pointed hood, with the shoes dangling against it. The other image showed models climbing a ladder to reach shoes that hung from a tree branch.

“We’re sorry. We understand why this image is deeply upsetting and recognize that we got this wrong,” Converse said in a statement to Footwear News on Friday. “We removed it from our channels and are working to remove it everywhere it appeared. This should not have happened, and we will do better.”

Photographer Stephanie Schwartz posted on Threads that she thought the imagery was no accident.

“Shadow, light, and composition. Every photographer can tell you, whoever did this ad knew EXACTLY what they were doing,” she wrote.

Educator Kendall C. Peacock posted a video on Instagram asking followers whether a boycott of the brand was warranted.

“Converse, converse, converse! You’ve been called to the carpet. Who approved this? … As a Black man and someone who loves Converse shoes, I find this very insensitive and distasteful.”

“How and why did nobody question these visuals?” he continued. “Deliberate racist intent hasn’t been established yet, but that doesn’t erase the impact.”

Peacock acknowledged the sneaker brand’s apology, but added that “must come with accountability.” He asked who approved the ad and what will change after its removal, and further suggested that “withholding our dollars is a reasonable demand for answers … How dare you try to make a dollar off of Black pain, Converse?”

DJ SoulChild AC said on TikTok that even if it wasn’t Converse’s intention, “We can see the symbolism from a mile away.”

“That is a depiction of the triple K right there,” he continued. “Pointed hood, dangling converses, as if someone’s being strung up … Black people ain’t stupid, bro.”

Donald Trump Jr. has a lot more in common with his dad than just a name, sharing the president’s penchant for shady dealings and for kleptocratic Russians. Sometimes the two proclivities go together. That was the case in May, we learned this week from ProPublica, when Don Jr. married his second wife during a three-day Bahamian bacchanal bankrolled partly with hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Putin-allied oligarch the Trump scion met only recently.

I had to wonder — recalling Don Jr.’s response in 2016 on learning Russia helpfully wanted to dump dirt on Hillary Clinton — whether he replied in kind when his new Russian friend, Umar Kremlev, offered the wedding grift, er, gift: “If it’s what you say I love it.”

My second thought was that Don Jr. is just like his dad in wanting to spend other people’s money, even as the Trump family has accrued billions since President Trump has been back in office. (Cue the continued silence from the sleuths of Hunter Biden’s laptop.)

Just days before ProPublica’s exposé, at last week’s midterm Republican convention in Dallas, the elder Trump proffered a gift of $5,000 to every one of the roughly 270 million adult Americans. But the eponymous “Trump dividend” would come only if Republicans keep their House and Senate majorities after the November midterm elections.

The tab? More than $1 trillion, roughly $1.3 trillion. How generous Trump is with the U.S. Treasury, despite the news just last month that rattled bond markets and raised interest rates: The United States’ gross debt has exceeded $40 trillion. As Trump told CNBC in 2016: “I love debt. I love playing with it.” We can’t say he didn’t warn us. Even before his proposed 5K giveaway, Trump was on track to break his first-term record for adding to the unsustainable U.S. debt ($8.4 trillion).

Trump’s unprecedented offer of a post-election payout provoked predictable cries of “bribery” from Democrats and other critics. But legality aside, even the appearance of a bribe isn’t what bothers me most about the proposal.

For one thing, it won’t happen. No one will be receiving a $5,000 Trump dividend, just like no one received the DOGE dividend or $2,000 tariff refund he previously promised. Even if Republicans pull off a miracle and retain control of Congress, those in power show no zeal for his budget-buster, not after their complicity in adding trillions to the debt since last year with tax cuts, war costs and this, that and the other Trump pet project. And Congress indeed would have to act, under the Constitution, despite suggestions from the obsequious Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, that Trump could act alone. (But “I’m not ready to discuss it at present,” Bessent told a House committee on Tuesday.)

No, what bothers me most about Trump’s idea — what outrages me — is the damnable fiscal irresponsibility of it.

Trump has turned much of historical Republican orthodoxy on its head, including on immigration, trade and policy toward Russia. But his utter disregard for annual deficits — a record $2 trillion for this fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 — and his shameful profligacy with taxpayers’ money is something Americans haven’t seen in their lifetimes, in either party. Worse, Trump implies otherwise, that he is fiscally responsible, and he does it with lies that are so easily refuted, so often contradicted by his own words, that it’s a marvel that even such a chronic prevaricator as himself can utter them.

This week Trump is still claiming that the $5,000 dividend will be paid for because “we’re taking in trillions and trillions of dollars” in revenue from his inflationary tariffs on more than half of the goods imported into the country. The actual number isn’t even close to that, and he should know it: The data that nonpartisan analysts are crunching are from the government he supposedly runs.

In 2026, tariff revenue through August was just under $200 billion, but more than half of that already has been spent on refunds to big corporations including Amazon, Walmart and Home Depot, in keeping with a Supreme Court ruling against some of Trump’s tariffs. And as if Trump’s dividend proposal weren’t mendacious enough, in making it he seems to have forgotten his claim in his State of the Union address in February that he would use the tsunami of tariff revenue to abolish the federal income tax.

And one last thing: Even if each adult American got $5,000, subtract from that the nearly $2,000 that each household has paid, on average, because of higher tariffs since Trump took office, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

In this one dumb idea, in sum, the giveaway manifests just about all that is wrong with Trump as president: The lying, of course. Fiscal recklessness. The trashing of commendable Republican doctrines. The Trump bubble of sycophantic yay-sayers. And, in turn, the seat-of-his-pants policy idiocy, from war-making to White House demolishing.

The lack of any actual policy deliberation behind Trump’s $5,000 shocker was clear in his lackeys’ flailing and contradictory reactions — not just Bessent’s specious claim of presidential authority, but also Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s inane insistence the administration could somehow “earn the money that Donald Trump wants to pay out” and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comment, contrary to Bessent’s, that the White House is indeed looking to Congress for funds.

The good news? Americans get it. Recent polls have the percentage approving of Trump’s handling of the economy as low as 28%. Significant majorities say they are worse off since he became president again.

Such numbers portend an election result that isn’t likely to be changed by a promise of $5,000. Especially from a serial promise-breaker.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Published on 17/09/2026 – 9:55 GMT+2•Updated
10:03

Investors in Europe took the Federal Reserve rate hike in their stride.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Both the Euro Stoxx 50 and the broader pan-European Stoxx 600 traded over 0.6% higher at the start of Thursday’s session.

France’s CAC 40, Germany’s DAX 30, Italy’s FTSE MIB, Spain’s IBEX 35, the Netherlands’ AEX and Switzerland’s CH20, all traded between 0.2% and 0.7% higher than their Wednesday close.

The UK’s FTSE 100 led the pack and rose more than 1%.

Carmakers and industrials led the Paris index, with Renault gaining more than 2%, Stellantis 1.6% and Schneider Electric 1.3%. Technology went the other way, with Dassault Systèmes falling 2.4%.

The calm followed a rougher session in New York, where the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed 1.2% lower on Wednesday and the S&P 500 fell 0.4%, while the Nasdaq was broadly flat.

Asian markets were mixed overnight with Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 rising 0.2%, Seoul’s Kospi gaining 0.9%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng lost 0.7% and the Shanghai Composite 0.4%.

Reactions were “pretty much expected since the rate hike was also in line with market expectations”, said Lorraine Tan, director of equity research for Asia at Morningstar, adding that the Iran war is likely to keep pressure on inflation.

A stronger US dollar and higher yields

The more consequential moves were in currencies and bonds.

The US dollar climbed to its highest in seven weeks against a basket of major currencies, lifted by the jump in short-dated Treasury yields that followed the decision.

The euro was trading around $1.146, down 0.5% from Wednesday’s open.

A stronger US dollar makes European exports more competitive in American markets, but it also raises the cost of anything priced in dollars, which includes oil and gas, which compounds Europe’s energy bill at a difficult moment.

In bond markets, the two-year Treasury yield, the maturity most sensitive to rate expectations, jumped to around 4.72% from 4.67% before the decision, holding near that level on Thursday.

The 10-year sat close to 5%, reflecting both the war-driven energy shock and mounting investor concern about American government debt.

Traders now fully expect another rate hike by December and put the odds of a move as soon as October at around 50%. Goldman Sachs became one of the first major Wall Street banks to forecast consecutive hikes, reversing its previous view that this month’s move would be the only one.

Attention turns next to the Bank of England, which announces its decision later on Thursday and is expected to hold rates steady, and to the Bank of Japan on Friday, where a hike is anticipated.

Additional sources • AP