fund

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to find the money to fully fund SNAP benefits for November.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. gave President Trump’s administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though it’s unlikely the 42 million Americans — about 1 in 8, most of them in poverty — will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries nearly that quickly.

The order was in response to a challenge from cities and nonprofits complaining that the administration was only offering to cover 65% of the maximum benefit, a decision that would have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said in a ruling from the bench after a brief hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

McConnell was one of two judges who ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the federal shutdown.

The Trump administration chose partial payments this week

Last month, the administration said that it would halt SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown wasn’t resolved.

A coalition of cities and nonprofits sued in federal court in Rhode Island and Democratic state officials from across the country did so in Massachusetts.

The judges in both cases ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

The partial funding brought on complications

McConnell harshly criticized the Trump administration for making that choice.

“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he said. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.”

Tyler Becker, the attorney for the government, unsuccessfully argued that the Trump administration had followed the court’s order in issuing the partial payments. “This all comes down to Congress not having appropriated funds because of the government shutdown,” he said.

Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.

“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.

McConnell said last week’s order required that those payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” — and by Wednesday — or a full payment would be required. “Nothing was done consistent with the court’s order to clear the way to expeditiously resolve it,” McConnell said.

There were other twists and turns this week

The administration said in a court filing on Monday that it could take weeks or even months for some states to make calculations and system changes to load the debit cards used in the SNAP program. At the time, it said it would fund 50% of the maximum benefits.

The next day, Trump appeared to threaten not to pay the benefits at all unless Democrats in Congress agreed to reopen the government. His press secretary later said that the partial benefits were being paid for November — and that it is future payments that are at risk if the shutdown continues.

And Wednesday night, it recalculated, telling states that there was enough money to pay for 65% of the maximum benefits.

Under a decades-old formula in federal regulations, everyone who received less than the maximum benefit would get a larger percentage reduction. Some families would have received nothing and some single people and two-person households could have gotten as little as $16.

Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner in Milwaukee who hasn’t been able to work since receiving multiple severe injuries in a car accident seven years ago, said she normally receives $130 a month from SNAP. She said that despite bargain hunting, that is not nearly enough for a month’s worth of groceries.

Scaife, 56, said that any cuts to her benefit will mean she will need to further tap her Social Security income for groceries. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”

The next legal step is unclear

This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged other rulings like it before.

An organization whose lawyers filed the challenge signaled it would continue the battle if needed.

“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, “but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”

It often takes SNAP benefits a week or more to be loaded onto debit cards once states initiate the process.

Mulvihill and Casey write for the Associated Press. AP writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, La.; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; and Gary Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

Nov. 4 (UPI) — Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits will not be distributed until the federal government is funded and reopened, despite federal court orders to do so.

Two federal judges on Friday ordered the Trump administration to access contingency funds and distribute SNAP benefits despite the lack of funding for the federal government.

President Donald Trump on Saturday said his administration would do so, but he changed course and said SNAP benefits will not be distributed until the federal government is funded again.

“SNAP benefits, which increased by billions and billions of dollars during crooked Joe Biden‘s disastrous term in office, will be given only when radical-left Democrats open up the government and not before!” Trump said Tuesday in a Truth Social post.

U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge John McConnell Jr. on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to fund SNAP benefits no later than Wednesday, which the president initially agreed to do.

McConnell ordered the Trump administration to apprise him of efforts to fund SNAP, but White House officials on Monday said doing so would create an “unacceptable risk,” The Hill reported.

A contingency fund for SNAP benefits has about $4.65 billion, which is slightly more than half of the $9 billion spent monthly to provide SNAP benefits for about 42 million recipients.

Administration officials on Monday told McConnell that half of the cost of SNAP benefits would be covered for November, but the president on Tuesday changed course, according to CNBC.

Holding up the matter is an insistence by Congressional Democrats that a continuing resolution also include an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits that expire at the end of the year, plus expanded Medicaid funding.

Congressional Republicans say they are willing to negotiate with Democrats on those matters, but only in the fiscal year 2026 budget.

The Senate on Tuesday again failed to gain the 60 votes needed to overcome the Senate’s filibuster rule and approve the funding resolution.

Instead, the measure was supported by a simple majority, 54-44, which was the 14th vote on the bill.

Senate Democrats John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, along with independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, for the 14th time, were the only members of the Senate Democratic Party Caucus to support passage of the funding measure.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only dissenting vote among Senate Republicans for the 14th time.

Congressional leaders did not immediately respond to questions from UPI as to whether House and Senate members are continuing to negotiate a Fiscal Year 2026 budget or if all efforts are focused only on trying to pass a continuing resolution.

The House-approved continuing resolution favored by most GOP members of Congress would fund the federal government through Nov. 21, which is a little more than two weeks from Tuesday.

A continuing resolution introduced by Senate Democrats would have funded the federal government through Oct. 31 and no longer would be in effect.

President Donald Trump’s razing of the White House’s East Wing to build a ballroom has put some news organizations following the story in an awkward position, with corporate owners among the contributors to the project — and their reporters covering it vigorously.

Comcast, which owns NBC News and MSNBC, has faced on-air criticism from some of the liberal cable channel’s personalities for its donation. Amazon, whose founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, is another donor. The newspaper editorialized in favor of Trump’s project, pointing out the Bezos connection a day later after critics noted its omission.

It’s not the first time since Trump regained the presidency that interests of journalists at outlets that are a small part of a corporate titan’s portfolio have clashed with owners. Both the Walt Disney Co. and Paramount have settled lawsuits with Trump rather than defend ABC News and CBS News in court.

“This is Trump’s Washington,” said Chuck Todd, former NBC “Meet the Press” host. “None of this helps the reputations of the news organizations that these companies own, because it compromises everybody.”

Companies haven’t said how much they donated, or why

None of the individuals and corporations identified by the White House as donors has publicly said how much was given, although a $22 million Google donation was revealed in a court filing. Comcast would not say Friday why it gave, although some MSNBC commentators have sought to fill in the blanks.

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle said the donations should be a concern to Americans, “because there ain’t no company out there writing a check just for good will.”

“Those public-facing companies should know that there’s a cost in terms of their reputations with the American people,” Rachel Maddow said on her show this week, specifically citing Comcast. “There may be a cost to their bottom line when they do things against American values, against the public interest because they want to please Trump or buy him off or profit somehow from his authoritarian overthrow of our democracy.”

NBC’s “Nightly News” led its Oct. 22 broadcast with a story on the East Wing demolition, which reporter Gabe Gutierrez said was paid for by private donors, “among them Comcast, NBC’s parent company.”

“Nightly News” spent a total of five minutes on the story that week, half the time of ABC’s “World News Tonight,” though NBC pre-empted its Tuesday newscast for NBA coverage, said Andrew Tyndall, head of ADT Research. There’s no evidence that Comcast tried to influence NBC’s coverage in any way; Todd said the corporation’s leaders have no history of doing that. A Comcast spokeswoman had no comment.

Todd spoke out against his bosses at NBC News in the past, but said he doubted he would have done so in this case, in part because Comcast hasn’t said why the contribution was made. “You could make the defense that it is contributing to the United States” by renovating the White House, he said.

More troubling, he said, is the perception that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts had to do it to curry favor with the Trump administration. Trump, in a Truth Social post in April, called Comcast and Roberts “a disgrace to the integrity of Broadcasting!!!” The president cited the company’s ownership of MSNBC and NBC News.

Roberts may need their help. Stories this week suggested Comcast might be interested in buying all or part of Warner Bros. Discovery, a deal that would require government approval.

White House cannot be ‘a museum to the past’

The Post’s editorial last weekend was eye-opening, even for a section that has taken a conservative turn following Bezos’ direction that it concentrate on defending personal liberties and the free market. The Oct. 25 editorial was unsigned, which indicates that it is the newspaper’s official position, and was titled “In Defense of the White House ballroom.”

The Post said the ballroom is a necessary addition and although Trump is pursuing it “in the most jarring manner possible,” it would not have gotten done in his term if he went through a traditional approval process.

“The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past,” the Post wrote. “Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”

In sharing a copy of the editorial on social media, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote that it was the “first dose of common sense I’ve seen from the legacy media on this story.”

The New York Times, by contrast, has not taken an editorial stand either for or against the project. It has run a handful of opinion columns: Ross Douthat called Trump’s move necessary considering potential red tape, while Maureen Dowd said it was an “unsanctioned, ahistoric, abominable destruction of the East Wing.”

In a social media post later Saturday, Columbia University journalism professor Bill Grueskin noted the absence of any mention of Bezos in the Post editorial” and said he wrote to a Post spokeswoman about it. In a “stealth edit” that Grueskin said didn’t include any explanation, a paragraph was added the next day about the private donors, including Amazon. “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post,” the newspaper said.

The Post had no comment on the issue, spokeswoman Olivia Petersen said on Sunday.

In a story this past week, NPR reported that the ballroom editorial was one of three that the Post had written in the previous two weeks on a matter in which Bezos had a financial or corporate interest without noting his personal stakes.

In a public appearance last December, Bezos acknowledged that he was a “terrible owner” for the Post from the point of view of appearances of conflict. “A pure newspaper owner who only owned a newspaper and did nothing else would probably be, from that point of view, a much better owner,” the Amazon founder said.

Grueskin, in an interview, said Bezos had every right as an owner to influence the Post’s editorial policy. But he said it was important for readers to know his involvement in the East Wing story. They may reject the editorial because of the conflict, he said, or conclude that “the editorial is so well-argued, I put a lot of credibility into what I just read.”

Bauder writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 1 (UPI) — The nation’s 42 million recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits will have to wait for them to be restored after losing them on Saturday, which might take weeks.

The ongoing federal government shutdown has shut off funding for the SNAP program that enables recipients to buy food, but two federal judges on Friday ordered the Trump administration to continue it.

President Donald Trump on Friday night announced he is seeking ways to access funds to keep the program going as the federal government shutdown continues at least through Monday.

“I do not want Americans to go hungry just because the radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and reopen the government,” Trump said Friday in a Truth Social post.

Trump said the two federal judges issued conflicting rulingsand he does not think the federal government legally can access available funds to cover SNAP costs.

“I have instructed our lawyers to ask the court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible,” he said.

“Even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while states get the money out.”

U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge John McConnell Jr.was one of the two judges who ordered the SNAP benefits to continue despite the shutdown.

On Saturday, he responded to the president’s post by ordering the Trump administration to access $6 billion in contingency funds for SNAP benefits.

“There is no question that the congressionally approved contingency funds must be used now because of the shutdown,” McConnell wrote Saturday in a seven-page order.

The contingency fund is too little to cover the full $9 billion monthly cost of providing SNAP benefits, but SNAP is an entitlement that the federal government must provide to all eligible households, he said.

“To ensure the quick, orderly and efficient implementation of the court’s order … and to alleviate the irreparable harm that the court found exists without timely payment of SNAP benefits, the government should … find the additional funds necessary to fully fund the November SNAP payments,” McConnell ruled.

He ordered the Trump administration to make at least a partial payment of SNAP benefits by Wednesday and to report how it intends to do so by noon EST on Monday.

The Trump administration said it will take several days and possibly longer to get funds to the respective states and cover the benefits for those who don’t receive them this month.

If the government shutdown continues into December, the problem starts over again with no contingency funds available.

SELENA Gomez showed off her sweet side at the 2025 Rare Impact Fund Benefit.

The US singer and actress, 33, looked effortless in a purple satin mini dress at the the third annual event in Los Angeles.

The former Disney star, who recently celebrated one month of marriage to music producer and songwritter Benny Blanco, launched the Rare Impact Fund in 2020 to raise funds and awareness for youth mental health globally.

According to Vogue, the event, hosted by US talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, raised more than $600,000.

Earlier in the week, Selena’s ‘unnecessarily cruel’ comments landed her in hot water.

The star came under fire for boasting that her billion-dollar brand doesn’t “use real models” for its beauty campaigns. 

READ MORE ON SELENA GOMEZ

EYE OUT FOR SELENA

Hailey Bieber and Selena Gomez risk awkward run at glam Hollywood gala

While Selena, was attempting to deliver a positive message about how Rare Beauty highlights real, natural features, many took offence to the comments. 

The company had used hundreds of different models since it launched in September 2020 – making many feel Selena’s comments disregard their talents and professions. 

Her remarks caught the eye of one Rare Beauty model who spoke exclusively to The U.S. Sun about hearing Selena’s comments. 

The model, who did not wish to be named due to fear of not being hired for future campaigns, has been working with the brand since 2024. 

“I actually cried when I heard Selena’s comments,” the model claimed, who then added: “I was already having a bad day and was feeling really sensitive and emotional.”

She continued: “I was feeling nervous about some career stuff, and then I saw that video of her saying I’m not even a real model. 

“It hit me at the worst time because now I’m like… ‘what am I even doing?’ 

“I thought this would be a big break for me, and to be told by the founder of the company that I look up to that I am not ‘real’ at my job? 

“It’s degrading and embarrassing. The number of family and friends who sent me that clip after was mortifying.” 

In the world of international peacekeeping, a quiet revolution is underway—one that moves beyond counting women to fundamentally transforming how security institutions operate. At the heart of this change is the Elsie Initiative Fund (EIF) at UN Women, whose holistic approach addresses not just recruitment numbers but the very systems that have historically prevented women from thriving in peacekeeping roles.

In an exclusive interview with Modern Diplomacy, Deborah Warren Smith, Manager of the Elsie Initiative Fund, explained why this shift is critical. “If you just focus on numbers alone, you are treating the symptoms and not the cause,” she noted. “We look at systems, the laws, institutional policies, leadership cultures, social expectations, all of which can either enable or prevent women from deploying and becoming valued members of security institutions.”

The Root Cause: Why Culture Trumps Quotas

The most entrenched challenge, according to Ms. Smith, is institutional culture. Military and police organizations often operate within masculine norms that value toughness and maintain informal gatekeeping by senior leadership. Women who challenge these norms by questioning or leading may face resistance, isolation, or harassment.

To address this, the EIF employs a scientific, evidence-based methodology called the Measuring Opportunities for Women in Peace Operations (MOIP). This diagnostic tool assesses barriers across ten key areas, interviewing both women and men within security institutions to build a comprehensive picture of the challenges. Countries like Liberia have used these insights to design targeted interventions, such as physical training support for women, resulting in increased recruitment and retention.

This focus on systemic barriers represents a fundamental departure from traditional approaches. Where many initiatives see the lack of women as a recruitment problem to be solved, the Elsie Initiative identifies it as a symptom of institutional failure. By shifting the focus from individual women to the structures that hold them back, the EIF is not just asking for a seat at the table, it is helping to rebuild the table itself, creating a foundation where women can not only enter but truly lead and thrive.

The process is deliberately collaborative, not prescriptive. After a Barrier Assessment is complete, the EIF works with nations to co-design interventions—from reforming parental leave policies in armed forces to ensuring women have access to specialized training and equipment. This ensures that solutions are not imposed from the outside but are owned and sustained by the institutions themselves, turning policy into lasting practice and political will into operational reality.

The Ripple Effect: Creating Institutional Change

The EIF’s “Gender Strong Unit” concept offers a powerful example of their approach in action. These are units where the percentage of women is at least five points above UN parity targets, with women in leadership and technical roles. Senegal, for instance, has deployed a Gender Strong Unit commanded by a woman for the first time, not once, but three times.

The impact is tangible. “The men in those units have reported that the culture is less competitive and more collaborative,” Smith shared. “It enables them to work better together during patrols and engage more effectively with local communities.”

This institutional rewiring creates a virtuous cycle. As more women deploy into leadership roles, they become visible proof of change, directly challenging entrenched stereotypes and inspiring the next generation. This shifts the internal culture from within, making security institutions more attractive and accessible to women not as an exception, but as the norm. The result is a self-reinforcing system where policy, representation, and culture evolve together to create a more professional and effective force.

Beyond culture, the EIF helps countries institutionalize change. In Zambia, the police service is developing and implementing an anti-sexual harassment and abuse policy, moving beyond creating documents to ensuring real accountability and safety.

A Campaign for the Future: “When Women Lead”

This tangible progress sets the stage for the most human element of the Elsie Initiative’s work: spotlighting the leaders who are living this change. Coinciding with the 25th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, the EIF will launch When Women Lead—a digital campaign featuring a mini-series of interviews with groundbreaking uniformed women from around the world.

Launching in November, the series will include:

• Lieutenant General Cheryl Pearce, Acting UN Military Adviser
• Commissioner Binetou Guisse, Senegal National Police
• Major General Anita Asmah, Ghana Armed Forces

These stories represent the culmination of the EIF’s work, proof that when women lead, peacekeeping becomes more effective, responsive, and grounded in the communities it serves.

The New Peacekeeping: Where Inclusion Means Effectiveness

As we look toward the future of global security, the Elsie Initiative Fund offers more than just a blueprint for gender equality, it presents a compelling case for why inclusive peacekeeping is smarter peacekeeping. The work transcends quotas and tick-box exercises, aiming instead for a fundamental rewiring of how security institutions operate.

“What we would really like to see in five to ten years,” Smith concluded, “is countries embedding women, peace and security into their operational frameworks. The conversation would shift from ‘how many women’ to ‘how effective is our force because it is inclusive.’”

This vision where diverse teams create more collaborative environments, where different perspectives lead to better community engagement, where institutional cultures foster rather than hinder potential, represents the ultimate goal. It’s not about women succeeding in a man’s world, but about building a better, more effective peacekeeping environment for everyone.

As the EIF continues to partner with nations and showcase stories of women leaders, it becomes increasingly clear: the future of global peacekeeping isn’t just about having more women in the room—it’s about ensuring everyone in that room can lead, contribute, and transform what peacekeeping can achieve.

To follow these inspiring stories and learn more about the Elsie Initiative Fund’s work, follow their “When Women Lead” campaign launching this November on their website and social media channels.

Exactly a year after the Eaton fire broke out, musicians are banding together once more for an upcoming benefit show, called A Concert for Altadena.

As a way to both raise funds and bring the community together, the night is set to include performances from musicians like Jackson Browne, Dawes & Friends, Aloe Blacc, Jenny Lewis, Everclear, Stephen Stills, Mandy Moore, Judith Hill, Brad Paisley, Ozomatli, Brandon Flowers of the Killers and more.

Many of the featured acts have ties to Los Angeles and Altadena specifically, like Dawes, an indie band from Altadena who notably sang a lively rendition of “I Love L.A.” at this year’s Grammys ceremony. Moore, who is also performing, similarly lost their homes in the fire.

“I’ve seen firsthand how music can mobilize people for good. This concert brings together artists, fans, and neighbors for something bigger than all of us — recovery, hope, and rebuilding lives,” said Grammy winner Eric Krasno. The guitarist, who also lived in Altadena, helped organize the event and is set to perform.

Even behind the scenes, people like Kevin Lyman, who founded the Vans Warped Tour and is a longtime Altadena resident, is working as the event’s lead producer.

“Music has always been a force for community. With this event, we’re not just putting on a show — we’re helping Altadena rebuild homes, restore businesses, and heal hearts. This night is about unity and purpose,” said Lyman.

All of the proceeds from the show will go to the Pasadena Community Foundation’s Eaton Fire Relief & Recovery Fund, which helps provide resources to families impacted, and the Altadena Builds Back Foundation, which focuses on the long-term recovery of housing in the neighborhood.

The Eaton fire is the second most destructive wildfire in California’s history, destroying more than 9,000 structures in an area of nearly 22 square miles. It is also one of the state’s deadliest fires, with 19 people killed. Since the January fire, rebuilding efforts have proved to be slow-moving in the face of bureaucracy and high overhead costs.

The benefit show will take place Jan. 7 at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium. Tickets go sale Nov. 7.

Life-changing mental health walking and running groups are set to open all over the country in honour of Pride of Britain winner Marcus Skeet

The Mirror’s Pride of Britain Awards 2025 were a night to remember as ordinary people – who have done extraordinary things – were applauded for their hard work by a host of famous faces.

And when Marcus Skeet, the record-breaking charity runner and mental health champion received his Special Recognition Award, he got an extra surprise. After handing Marcus his trophy, pop star Anne-Marie, and podcast duo Pete Wicks and Sam Thompson revealed Pride of Britain had launched a special GoFundMe for mental health charity Mind in Marcus’s honour.

Money raised will pay for special mental health walking and running groups all over the country called Marcus’s Movers. The groups, which include mental health practitioners, cost £2,500 to set up.

READ MORE: Lydia Bright’s poignant foster care connection as she celebrates Pride of Britain kids

Sam and Pete kicked things off with a £5,000 donation on stage, and then Pub Landlord Al Murray took to the floor to persuade some other famous faces to chip in too.

Dragons Den tycoon Duncan Bannatyne donated £20,000, bringing the total raised on the night to £50,000, enough to fund 20 potentially lifesaving Marcus’s Movers groups. A stunned Marcus told Ashley Banjo: “From the bottom of my heart, that means the absolute world. I’m lost for words.”

Now you can help by donating to the GoFundMe to help Mind set up even more Marcus’s Movers groups in communities all over Britain. The Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards with P&O Cruises celebrate unsung heroes like Marcus. His own life was transformed by walking and running – the teenager went from the lowest possible ebb to becoming a record-breaking charity fundraiser and Pride of Britain winner.

He was 12 when his dad was diagnosed with early-onset dementia. Marcus’s physical and mental health rapidly declined and he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder and intrusive thoughts which dramatically impacted his life.

At 15 he was in “one of the darkest places”, and attempted suicide after spending months alone in his room with no contact with the outside world. Desperate to turn his life around, Marcus, now 17, started walking short distances at first, before building up distance and speed until he was jogging longer routes. He says: “My mental health was at an all time low so I decided to run, not just for mental health but to raise awareness. Running pushed my body and mind and the feeling after a run was like nothing else.”

Since then, Marcus has raised more than £200,000 for Mind through running, including a run from Land’s End to John O’Groats. The gruelling 874 mile challenge saw him become the youngest person ever – and the first under 18 – to run the entire length of the UK.

Marcus has documented his journey on social media in the hopes of inspiring others who are struggling with their mental health. He says: “Life is brutal, sometimes you feel like you’re in a place you can’t get out of. But I promise you, every road may have speed bumps but you’ll get over them. Mental health is such a big thing, everyone is different but I find running helps mine.”

Find out more about Marcus’s Movers and donate at gofundme.com/f/marcus-movers

What happened

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated October 17, 2025, investment management company Capricorn Fund Managers Ltd established a new position in Waystar (WAY 0.46%), acquiring 505,122 shares. The estimated transaction value, based on the average closing price during the third quarter of 2025, was approximately $19.15 million. This addition brings the fund’s total reported positions to 59 at quarter-end.

What else to know

The new position in Waystar accounts for 6.4% of Capricorn Fund Managers’ 13F reportable assets under management. The stock is now the fund’s largest holding by reported market value.

The fund’s top holdings after the filing are:

• WAY: $19.15 million (6.4% of AUM)
• TARS: $14.26 million (4.8% of AUM)
• MSFT: $14.15 million (4.8% of AUM)
• VERA: $13.10 million (4.4% of AUM)
• REAL: $12.64 million (4.2% of AUM)

As of October 16, 2025, shares of Waystar were priced at $36.81, up 34% over the one-year period, outperforming the S&P 500 by 20 percentage points during the same timeframe.

Company overview

Company snapshot

Waystar provides a cloud-based software platform for healthcare payments, including solutions for financial clearance, patient financial care, claims and payment management, denial prevention and recovery, revenue capture, and analytics.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

The company serves healthcare organizations as its primary customers, targeting providers seeking to optimize revenue cycle management and payment processes.

Waystar was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah, working in the technology sector with approximately 1,500 employees. The company operates at scale in the healthcare technology industry, focusing on streamlining payment processes for healthcare providers through its cloud-based platform.

Foolish take

Capricorn Fund Managers’ new position in Waystar stock merits attention for a few reasons. The investment management company not only deemed Waystar a valuable addition to its portfolio, but the purchase was so big, the stock catapulted to the top of its holdings.

Investing in Waystar makes sense. The business boasts some compelling qualities. It has grown revenue every quarter for the past two years, and the trend continues in 2025.

In Q2, Waystar’s sales rose 15% year over year to $270.7 million. The company expects to hit $1 billion in revenue this year, up from $944 million in 2024.

Waystar also had a solid balance sheet exiting Q2. Total assets were $4.7 billion compared to total liabilities of $1.5 billion. It does have over $1 billion in debt, but the company is slowly paying this down.

The consistent sales growth Waystar is experiencing, and its forward price-to-earnings ratio of about 25, which is reasonable for a fast-growing tech company, explains Capricorn Fund Managers’ big buy of Waystar stock. These factors make the stock a worthwhile investment for the long haul.

Glossary

13F reportable assets under management: The total value of securities a fund must disclose quarterly to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Form 13F.

Stake: The ownership interest or investment a fund or individual holds in a company.

Initiated position: When an investor or fund purchases shares of a company for the first time.

Assets under management (AUM): The total market value of investments managed by a fund or investment firm.

Quarter-end: The last day of a fiscal quarter, used for financial reporting and portfolio snapshots.

Outperforming: Achieving a higher return or growth rate compared to a benchmark or index.

Cloud-based platform: Software and services delivered over the internet rather than installed locally on computers.

Revenue cycle management: The process healthcare providers use to track patient care revenue from appointment to final payment.

Denial prevention and recovery: Strategies to reduce and resolve rejected insurance claims in healthcare billing.

Market value: The current worth of an asset or holding based on the latest market price.

Healthcare payments: Financial transactions related to medical services, including billing, claims, and reimbursements.

TTM: The 12-month period ending with the most recent quarterly report.

The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures held its fifth annual star-studded fundraising gala Saturday at its Wilshire Boulevard campus.

An unrecognizable Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez, Demi Moore and Elle and Dakota Fanning were among the celebrity guests at the event, which debuted in 2021 upon the film museum’s long-awaited opening. The gala raises funds for museum exhibitions, education initiatives and public programming.

The Academy Museum collected more than $11 million in donations at last year’s gala, which honored Quentin Tarantino, Paul Mescal and Rita Moreno.

This year’s gala honorees included actor Penélope Cruz, director Walter Salles, comedian Bowen Yang and musician Bruce Springsteen, who was presented with the inaugural Legacy Award and performed live at the ceremony. A biopic about the rock legend, starring “The Bear’s” Jeremy Allen White, hits theaters Oct. 24.

Springsteen and Cruz, the recipient of this year’s Icon Award, are both Academy Award winners, the former for his original song “Streets of Philadelphia” — which he wrote for Tom Hanks’ 1993 legal drama “Philadelphia” — and the latter for her role in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” (2008).

Salles, presented with the Luminary Award for innovative filmmaking, last year gave Brazil its first Academy Award for international film with his moving family drama “I’m Still Here.” Fernanda Torres was also nominated for her role as the Paiva family matriarch in the 2024 movie.

Yang received the Vantage Award, “honoring an artist or scholar who has helped to contextualize and challenge dominant narratives around cinema.” The “SNL” darling and “Las Culturistas” podcast host will return as Glinda’s sidekick Pfannee in “Wicked: For Good,” hitting theaters Nov. 21.

Gala attendees spared no expense with their donations or their ensembles, with Jenna Ortega wearing a futuristic Grace Ling halter top, Rachel Zegler channeling Old Hollywood in Tamara Ralph Couture, Olivia Rodrigo sporting vintage Giorgio Armani Privé and Eva Longoria rocking Elie Saab.

Here are the best looks, captured by Times photographer Eric Thayer.

Jeremy Allen White

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Jenna Ortega

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Amanda Seyfried

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Zoe Kravitz

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Kendall Jenner and Hailey Bieber

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Penelope Cruz

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

George Clooney

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Kirsten Dunst

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Eddie Redmayne

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Bruce Springsteen and Martin Scorsese

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Selena Gomez and Benny Blanco

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Zoey Deutch

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Demi Moore

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Charli XCX

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Michelle Monaghan

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Elle Fanning

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Addison Rae

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Channing Tatum

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Jon Hamm and Anna Osceola

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times )

Rachel Zegler

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Cara Delevingne

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Jeremy Strong

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Dakota Fanning

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Mikey Madison

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Laura Dern

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Sydney Sweeney

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Joey King

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Alison Brie and Dave Franco

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Kate Hudson

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Billy Crudup and Naomi Watts

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Jennifer Hudson

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Leslie Bibb

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Eva Longoria

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

On October 17, 2025, hedge fund TB Alternative Assets Ltd. disclosed a new position in Strategy (MSTR 2.12%), formerly known as MicroStrategy, acquiring 126,000 shares for an estimated $40.6 million.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

What happened

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated October 17, 2025, TB Alternative Assets Ltd. disclosed a new position in Strategy during the third quarter ended September 30, 2025. The fund reported owning 126,000 shares worth $40.6 million. The purchase corresponds to an estimated $40.6 million transaction value, calculated using average prices for the reporting period ended September 30, 2025.

What else to know

This new position represents 6.1% of TB Alternative Assets Ltd.’s reportable U.S. equity AUM as of September 30, 2025.

TB Alternative Assets’ top holdings after the filing are:

• META: $76.97 million (11.5% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025
• GOOG: $58.56 million (8.8% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025
• INTC: $51.26 million (7.7% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025
• PDD: $45.72 million (6.8% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025
• MSTR: $40.60 million (6.1% of AUM) as of September 30, 2025

As of October 16, 2025, shares were priced at $283.84, up 34.3% over the past year and outperforming the S&P 500 by 32.8 percentage points during the same period.

Company Overview

Company Snapshot

Strategy provides enterprise analytics solutions, enabling organizations to derive insights from data at scale. The company leverages its robust software platform and specialized services to address complex business intelligence needs for large enterprises.

Strategy offers enterprise analytics software, including a software platform with features such as hyperintelligence, data visualization, reporting, and mobile analytics.

The company generates revenue primarily through software licensing, support services, consulting, and education offerings for enterprise clients. It serves a diversified customer base across industries such as retail, finance, technology, healthcare, and the public sector.

Foolish take

Hedge fund TB Alternative Assets’ investment in Strategy shares is noteworthy for a few reasons. The buy represents an initial position in the stock. Moreover, the hedge fund went big with the purchase, putting Strategy shares into its top five holdings. Lastly, those top holdings are dominated by tech stocks, and although Strategy began as a data analytics software platform, it’s now more of a cryptocurrency play.

Strategy became the first publicly-traded company to buy Bitcoin as part of its capital allocation strategy back in 2020. Since then, it has transformed into “the world’s first and largest Bitcoin Treasury Company,” according to Strategy.

As of July 29, the company holds 3% of all Bitcoin in existence. This brought its Q2 total assets to $64.8 billion with $64.4 billion of that in digital assets. As a result, Strategy’s fortunes rise and fall with the value of the cryptocurrency rather than its software products.

So far, the gamble has paid off. As Bitcoin’s value has risen, so has Strategy’s stock. And now, the company is leveraging its cryptocurrency holdings to offer various Bitcoin-related investment vehicles.

TB Alternative Assets may have found this new direction for the former MicroStrategy a compelling case for investing in the stock. If you’re seeking exposure to Bitcoin, Strategy offers a unique take, and with the stock down from its 52-week high of $543 reached last November, now may be a good time to buy.

Glossary

13F AUM: The total market value of U.S. equity securities reported by an institutional investment manager in quarterly SEC filings.
Position: The amount of a particular security or asset held by an investor or fund.
Stake: The ownership interest or share held in a company by an investor or fund.
Holding: A security or asset owned by an investor or fund, often listed in portfolio disclosures.
Outperforming: Achieving a higher return compared to a specific benchmark or index over a given period.
Enterprise analytics: Software and tools that help organizations analyze large-scale data to support business decision-making.
Business intelligence: Technologies and strategies used to analyze business data and support better decision-making.
Software licensing: The practice of granting customers the right to use software under specific terms and conditions.
Support services: Assistance provided to customers for software maintenance, troubleshooting, and technical issues.
Consulting: Professional advisory services that help organizations implement and optimize software or business processes.
TTM: The 12-month period ending with the most recent quarterly report.
Reportable U.S. equity AUM: The portion of assets under management invested in U.S. stocks that must be disclosed in regulatory filings.

WASHINGTON — Republican Speaker Mike Johnson predicted Monday the federal government shutdown may become the longest in history, saying he “won’t negotiate” with Democrats until they hit pause on their health care demands and reopen.

Standing alone at the Capitol on the 13th day of the shutdown, the speaker said he was unaware of the details of the thousands of federal workers being fired by the Trump administration. It’s a highly unusual mass layoff widely seen as way to seize on the shutdown to reduce the scope of government. Vice President JD Vance has warned of “painful” cuts ahead, even as employee unions sue.

“We’re barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history,” Johnson of Louisiana said.

With no endgame in sight, the shutdown is expected to roll on for the unforeseeable future. The closure has halted routine government operations, shuttered Smithsonian museums and other landmark cultural institutions and left airports scrambling with flight disruptions, all injecting more uncertainty into an already precarious economy.

The House is out of legislative session, with Johnson refusing to recall lawmakers back to Washington, while the Senate, closed Monday for the federal holiday, will return to work Tuesday. But senators are stuck in a cul-de-sac of failed votes as Democrats refuse to relent on their health care demands.

Johnson thanked President Trump for ensuring military personnel are paid this week, which removed one main pressure point that may have pushed the parties to the negotiating table.

At its core, the shutdown is a debate over health care policy — and particularly the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are expiring for millions of Americans who rely on government aid to purchase their own health insurance policies on the Obamacare exchanges. Democrats demand the subsidies be extended, Republicans argue the issue can be dealt with later.

With Congress and the White House stalemated, some are eyeing the end of the month as the next potential deadline to reopen government.

That’s when open enrollment begins, Nov. 1, for the health program at issue, and Americans will face the prospect of skyrocketing insurance premiums. The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that monthly costs would double if Congress fails to renew the subsidy payments that expire Dec. 31.

It’s also when government workers on monthly pay schedules, including thousands of House aides, will go without paychecks.

The health care debate has dogged Congress ever since the Affordable Care Act became law under then-President Barak Obama in 2010.

The country went through a 16-day government shutdown during the Obama presidency when Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act 2013.

Trump tried to “repeal and replace” the law, commonly known as Obamacare, during his first term, in 2017, with a Republican majority in the House and Senate. That effort failed when then-Sen. John McCain memorably voted a thumbs down on the plan.

With 24 million now enrolled in Obamacare, a record, Johnson said Monday that Republicans are unlikely to go that route again, noting he still has “PTSD” from that botched moment.

“Can we completely repeal and replace Obamacare? Many of us are skeptical about that now because the roots are so deep,” Johnson said.

The Republican speaker insists his party has been willing to discuss the health care issue with Democrats this fall, before the subsidies expire at the end of the year. But first, he said, Democrats have to agree to reopen the government.

The longest shutdown, during Trump’s first term over his demands for funds to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall, ended in 2019 after 35 days.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is exercising vast leeway both to fire workers — drawing complaints from fellow Republicans and lawsuits from employee unions — and to determine who is paid.

That means not only military troops but other Trump administration priorities don’t necessarily have to go without pay, thanks to the various other funding sources as well as the billions made available in what’s commonly called Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act that’s now law.

The Pentagon said over the weekend it was able to tap $8 billion in unused research and development funds to pay the military personnel. They had risked missed paychecks on Wednesday. But the Education Department is among those being hard hit, disrupting special education, after-school programs and others.

“The Administration also could decide to use mandatory funding provided in the 2025 reconciliation act or other sources of mandatory funding to continue activities financed by those direct appropriations at various agencies,” according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO had cited the Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget as among those that received specific funds under the law.

“Some of the funds in DoD’s direct appropriation under the 2025 reconciliation act could be used to pay active-duty personnel during a shutdown, thus reducing the number of excepted workers who would receive delayed compensation,” CBO wrote in a letter responding to questions raised by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Warren Buffett is well known for being perhaps the greatest stock picker of all time, and for good reasons. Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A -0.88%) (BRK.B -1.03%), the conglomerate Buffett has led since the mid-1960s, has delivered unbelievable returns for investors over the years, and a big reason is Buffett’s success with using Berkshire’s capital to invest in stocks.

What makes Buffett’s investing style so extraordinary is how simple it is. Buffett invests in great businesses (mostly ‘boring’ ones) that he believes trade for significantly less than their intrinsic value and holds them for as long as they remain great businesses.

He doesn’t chase technology stocks or try to get in on the ground floor of the ‘next big thing.’ He doesn’t trade short-term. And he uses fairly basic investment principles, which he often shares with everyday investors. In addition to being the most successful investor, he is also the most quotable.

Image source: Getty Images.

Buffett’s advice to the average investor

Yes, Warren Buffett has an extraordinary track record when it comes to choosing individual stocks to invest in. But it’s also important to know that he spends many hours (usually over 10 per day) researching and reading.

Of course, you don’t need to spend that much time, but the point is that being a successful individual stock investor requires time and knowledge. As Buffett says, “If you like spending six to eight hours per week working on investments, do it. If you don’t, then dollar-cost average into index funds.”

To be perfectly clear, Buffett doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with this option. In fact, he has directed that his own wife’s inheritance be invested in this way after he’s gone.

Buffett has specifically mentioned the S&P 500 as a great way to bet on American business. And he says that “American business — and consequently a basket of stocks — is virtually certain to be worth far more in the years ahead.”

Buffett is a big fan of this S&P 500 ETF

There are several excellent S&P 500 index funds in the market, but one that Buffett has owned in Berkshire Hathaway‘s portfolio is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO -1.28%). This fund simply tracks the 500 stocks in the index, in their respective weights, and should mimic the performance of the benchmark index over time.

Buffett is a big fan of Vanguard, which pioneered the low-cost index fund years ago. The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF has a rock-bottom 0.03% expense ratio, which means that you’ll pay just $0.30 in annual investment fees for every $1,000 in assets. To be clear, this isn’t a fee you physically have to pay — it will just be reflected in the fund’s performance over time. But it’s so low that it will barely have any impact on your long-term results.

You might be surprised at the potential

One final Buffett quote I’ll leave you with is “it isn’t necessary to do extraordinary things to get extraordinary results.” And it certainly applies to index fund investing.

Over the long run, the S&P 500 has produced annualized returns of about 10% over long periods of time. Let’s say that you invest just $200 per month in the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF and that you achieve 10% returns going forward.

• In 10 years, you’d have about $38,250.
• In 20 years, you’d have $137,460.
• In 30 years, you’d have nearly $395,000.
• In 40 years, you’d have about $1.06 million.

The key is to invest consistently and hold for a long time. The magic of long-term compounding will do the heavy lifting for you. As you can see, if you’re not comfortable with picking individual stocks, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t use the stock market to build extraordinary wealth over time.

Crusaders and Derry City will join forces to commence legal proceedings over their omission from Stage Two of the Northern Ireland Football Fund.

In September, the Department of Communities announced 20 clubs from across Northern Ireland would progress to the next round of the process with three different tiers of funding available.

Of the 41 clubs eligible to apply, 38 submitted bids, leaving those who missed out bitterly disappointed.

Both Crusaders and Derry City were two to miss out and having considered the decision, jointly confirmed on Wednesday evening they will now lodge legal proceedings against the decision to omit them.

In a statement, Crusaders said: “Following an extra-ordinary general meeting of Crusaders Football Club members on Wednesday, 8 October 2025, Crusaders FC have determined to join Derry City FC to commence legal proceedings to challenge the exclusion of both clubs from Stage 2 of the Northern Ireland Football Fund.”

The League of Ireland club expressed similar sentiments.

“Derry City FC have made the decision to join with Crusaders FC to commence legal proceedings to challenge the exclusion of both clubs from Stage 2 of the Northern Ireland Football Fund process,” they said in a statement.

“We believe we were left with no other option.”

The Stormont Executive has set £36.2m aside, but Communities Minister Gordon Lyons estimated the departmental cost of the 20 projects would come to “just over £82m”, while the “estimated total project costs” are £98m.

The big winners were NIFL Premiership clubs Glentoran and Cliftonville who progressed in the third and most expensive tier of over £6m.

The middle bracket of applications between £1.5m to £6m saw 13 successful applications, while five of of less than £1.5m also progressed.

On a blue-sky afternoon, kayakers paddle past dozens of sea lions lolling in the sun and make a beeline toward the sea otters lounging on beds of eel grass at Elkhorn Slough on California’s central coast. The playful predators not only generate millions of dollars in tourism revenue, but their voracious appetite for destructive species has revived this sprawling estuary while making the region’s carbon-sequestering kelp forests more resistant to climate change.

The U.S. government determined in 2022 that reintroducing sea otters to their historic range on the West Coast would be a boon to biodiversity and climate resilience, laying out a road map to restoration that would cost up to $43 million.

But as the Trump administration moves to slash funding for wildlife programs, a nonprofit co-founded by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur is stepping in to raise nearly that amount to finance and coordinate what would be a complicated, years-long effort to connect isolated populations of sea otters. So far it’s raised more than $1.4 million of its $40-million target.

“We are coming in at a time when we’ve seen these dramatic cuts from the federal government and conservationists are facing major funding gaps,” says Paul Thomson, chief programs officer at the Wildlife Conservation Network, the San Francisco nonprofit that launched the Sea Otter Fund earlier this year. In August, a veteran U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official, Jen Miller, left the government to run the fund.

Sea otters prey on invasive green crabs, which fostered the return of eel grass at Elkhorn Slough.

(Rachel Bujalski/Bloomberg)

The initiative could be a harbinger of a future where private donors assume a more prominent role in financing and advancing wildlife restoration as climate impacts multiply.

While philanthropies have helped fund sea otter work, the Fish and Wildlife Service, which listed the Southern sea otter in California as threatened in 1977, assumes the cost of the species’ recovery as well as funding state and private research. “Sea otter recovery and supporting healthy coastlines go hand in hand, including finding ways to support the needs of our local fisheries,” a Wildlife Service spokesperson said in a statement, noting the agency has funded ongoing research.

Future support is uncertain, though, as the Trump administration proposes eliminating programs that underwrite sea otter science, including grants for state endangered species programs.

Understanding otter networks

Sea otters once inhabited the Pacific Rim from Japan to Mexico. By the turn of the 20th century, hunters had wiped out 99% of the population to satisfy demand for the animal’s pelt, known as “soft gold” for its luxurious warmth.

Since then, scientists successfully reintroduced otters to Alaska, British Columbia and Washington State, but that leaves a nearly thousand-mile stretch of coast from central California through Oregon without the animals.

“Adding sea otters completely changes the configuration of the food web and that has profound consequences for the structure of the nearshore ecosystem,” says Tim Tinker, an independent sea otter scientist who does research for the University of California at Santa Cruz.

He’s developing computer models to simulate the myriad factors that will determine where and which animals should be reintroduced, as well as risks and survival rates. Future versions of the model could also project the potential impact on fisheries.

The Sea Otter Fund is financing Tinker’s work, recruiting him to model restoration scenarios, the kind of research he previously has conducted with government funding. It’s the latest animal fund from the Wildlife Conservation Network, co-founded in 2002 by former software entrepreneur Charles Knowles. Ongoing campaigns fund the recovery of African elephants, lions, pangolins and other animals.

Michelle Staedler studies sea otters at Elkhorn Slough.

(Rachel Bujalski/Bloomberg)

The fund also underwrites marine biologist Michelle Staedler’s position on an Elkhorn Slough research team run out of UC Santa Cruz. “We’re really trying to understand the sea otters’ social networks,” she says.

Charting otters’ social graph is key to future restoration efforts. Past reintroductions have involved capturing random sea otters in the wild and relocating up to hundreds at a time, which resulted in high mortality of resettled animals. Of the 140 otters relocated off Southern California’s San Nicolas Island between 1987 and 1990 in a federally funded project, only about 15 animals initially survived. More than a quarter of the transported otters swam more than 150 miles back home.

Scientists say any future reintroductions will be highly targeted, selecting sea otters that are part of social groups whose bonds make them more likely to stay put and thrive. To lay that groundwork, Staedler spends a day on Elkhorn Slough twice a week, motoring through the estuary on an electric skiff to record the genders, locations, relationships, interactions, diets and caloric intake of tagged otters.

“Elkhorn Slough serves as a petri dish and the research work there will be critical for doing restoration,” says Knowles. State funding for that project has expired, however, and the Sea Otter Fund is considering replacing the loss.

Staedler keeps records of the sea otters on Elkhorn Slough.

(Rachel Bujalski/Bloomberg)

“This wave has been building”

Elkhorn Slough is California’s second-largest estuary, and the 7-mile-long outlet to Monterey Bay also serves as a real-time laboratory for how sea otters can rehabilitate degraded coastal ecosystems and benefit local economies.

In the early 1990s, invasive green crabs that made their way there destroyed eel grass meadows that serve as habitats for fish, shellfish, sea turtles and birds. Then a few sea otters began to venture in just as the Monterey Bay Aquarium began to release rehabilitated orphaned otters there. They feasted on the green crabs, consuming an estimated 120,000 of them a year, according to a 2024 paper.

As crab numbers plummeted, the eel grass returned and spawned an aquatic Serengeti. Today, there’s more than 120 sea otters at the estuary, which has fostered local ecotourism businesses that rent kayaks to visitors and take them on otter-spotting excursions, generating $5 million in revenues annually and creating more than 300 jobs, according to a 2023 study.

Kayakers approach a sea otter in Elkhorn Slough.

(Rachel Bujalski/Bloomberg)

Sea otters also have kept kelp-eating purple urchins in check on the central California coast when one of its other predators, the sunflower sea star, died off during a marine heat wave a decade ago. On California’s otter-less North Coast, the loss of sunflower sea stars wiped out more than 90% of the region’s kelp forests, triggering the collapse of fisheries.

But the competition that relocated otters’ prodigious appetites could pose to Northern California and Oregon commercial shellfish fishers worries Lori Steele, executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Assn. “It’s very difficult to really fully understand and account for the potential damage to a shellfish population that a very small number of sea otters could do,” she says.

The Wildlife Service found that impacts on fishing communities pose the biggest risk of sea otter introduction. If relocation moves forward, the agency will conduct an extensive review and consultations with state and federal agencies and tribal groups.

Until then, Jen Miller, the senior manager of the Sea Otter Fund, aims to keep the money for the work flowing. “It feels like this wave has been building and building and with just the right resources could crest to surf sea otter restoration to success,” she says.

Woody writes for Bloomberg.

The federal Office for Victims of Crime announced in the summer that millions of dollars approved for domestic violence survivors and other crime victims would be withheld from states that don’t comply with the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

California, 19 other states and the District of Columbia sued, alleging that such preconditions are illegal and would undermine public safety.

The administration then took a different tack, announcing that community organizations that receive such funding from the states — and use it to help people escape violence, access shelter and file for restraining orders against their abusers — generally may not use it to provide services to undocumented immigrants.

California and other states sued again, arguing that the requirements — which the administration says the states must enforce — are similarly illegal and dangerous. Advocates agreed, saying screening immigrant women out of such programs would be cruel.

The repeated lawsuits reflect an increasingly familiar pattern in the growing mountain of litigation between the Trump administration, California and other blue states.

Since President Trump took office in January, his administration has tried to force the states into submission on a host of policy fronts by cutting off federal funding, part of a drive to bypass Congress and vastly expand executive power. Repeatedly when those cuts have been challenged in court, the administration has shifted its approach to go after the same or similar funding from a slightly different angle — prompting more litigation.

The repeated lawsuits have added complexity and volume to an already monumental legal war between the administration and states such as California, one that began almost immediately after Trump took office and is ongoing, as the administration once again threatens major cuts amid the government shutdown.

The White House has previously dismissed California’s lawsuits as baseless and defended Trump’s right to enact his policy agenda, including by withholding funds. Asked about its shifting strategies in some of those cases, Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration “has won numerous cases regarding spending cuts at the Supreme Court and will continue to cut wasteful spending across the government in a lawful manner.”

Other administration officials have also defended its legal tactics. During a fight over frozen federal funding earlier this year, for instance, Vice President JD Vance wrote on social media that judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” — sparking concerns about a constitutional crisis.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the pattern is a result of Trump overstating his power to control federal funding and use it as a weapon against his political opponents, but also of his dangerous disregard for the rule of law and the authority of both Congress and federal judges. His office has sued the administration more than 40 times since January, many times over funding.

“It is not something that you should have to see, that a federal government, a president of the United States, is so contemptuous of the rule of law and is willing to break it and break it again, get told by a court that they’re violating the law, and then have to be told by a court again,” Bonta said.

And yet, such examples abound, he said. For example, the Justice Department’s repeated attempts to strip California of crime victim funding echoed the Department of Homeland Security’s repeated attempts recently to deny the state disaster relief and anti-terrorism funding, Bonta said.

Homeland Security officials first told states that such funding would be conditioned on their complying with immigration enforcement efforts. California and other states sued, and a federal judge rejected such preconditions as unconstitutional.

The administration then notified the states that refused to comply, including California, that they would simply receive less money — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars — while states that cooperate with immigration enforcement would receive more.

California and other Democratic-led states sued again, arguing this week that the shifting of funds was nothing more than the administration circumventing the court’s earlier ruling against the conditioning of funds outright.

Bonta’s office cited a similar pattern in announcing Thursday that the Trump administration had backed off major cuts to AmeriCorps funding. The win came only after successive rounds of litigation by the state and others, Bonta’s office noted, including an amended complaint accusing the administration of continuing to withhold the funding despite an earlier court order barring it from doing so.

Bonta said such shifting strategies were the work of a “consistently and brazenly lawless and lawbreaking federal administration,” and that his office was “duty-bound” to fight back and will — as many times as it takes.

“It can’t be that you take an action, are held accountable, a court finds that you’ve acted unlawfully, and then you just take another unlawful action to try to restrict or withhold that same funding,” he said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law, said he agreed with Bonta that there is “a pattern of ignoring court orders or trying to circumvent them” on the part of the Trump administration.

And he provided another example: a case in which he represents University of California faculty and researchers challenging Trump administration cuts to National Science Foundation funding.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought talks to reporters outside the White House on Monday, accompanied by House Speaker Mike Johnson, left, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Vice President JD Vance.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

After a judge blocked the administration from terminating that funding, the Trump administration responded by declaring that the funds were “suspended” instead, Chemerinsky said.

The judge then ruled the administration was violating her order against termination, he said, as “calling them suspensions rather than terminations changed nothing.”

Mitchel Sollenberger, a political science professor at University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of several books on executive powers, said Trump aggressively flexing those powers was expected. Conservative leaders have been trying to restore executive authority ever since Congress reined in the presidency after Watergate, and Trump took an aggressive approach in his first term, too, Sollenberger said.

However, what Trump has done this term has nonetheless been stunning, Sollenberger said — the result of a sophisticated and well-planned strategy that has been given a clear runway by a Supreme Court that clearly shares a belief in an empowered executive branch.

“It’s like watching water run down, and it tries to find cracks,” Sollenberger said. “That’s what the Trump administration is doing. It’s trying to find those cracks where it can widen the gap and exercise more and more executive power.”

Bonta noted that the administration’s targeting of blue state funding began almost immediately after Trump took office, when the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo asserting that vast sums of federal funding for all sorts of programs were being frozen as the administration assessed whether the spending aligned with Trump’s policy goals.

California and other states sued to block that move and won, but the administration wasn’t swayed from the strategy, Bonta said — as evidenced by more recent events.

On Wednesday, as the government shutdown over Congress’ inability to pass a funding measure set in, Russell Vought — head of the Office of Management and Budget and architect of the Trump administration’s purse-string policies — announced on X that $8 billion in funding “to fuel the Left’s climate agenda” was being canceled. He then listed 16 blue states where projects will be cut.

Vought had broadly outlined his ideas for slashing government in Project 2025, the right-wing playbook for Trump’s second term, which Trump vigorously denied any connection to during his campaign but has since broadly implemented.

On Thursday, Trump seemed to relish the opportunity, amid the shutdown, to implement more of the plan.

“I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent,” Trump posted online. “I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.”

Bonta said Wednesday that his office had no plans to get involved in the shutdown, which he said was caused by Trump and “for Trump to figure out.” But he said he was watching the battle closely.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) chalked Vought’s latest cuts up to more illegal targeting of blue states such as California that oppose Trump politically, writing, “Our democracy is badly broken when a president can illegally suspend projects for Blue states in order to punish his political enemies.”

Cities and towns have also been pushing back against Trump’s use of federal funding as political leverage. On Wednesday, Los Angeles and other cities announced a lawsuit challenging the cuts to disaster funding.

L.A. City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto said the cuts were part of an “unprecedented weaponization” of federal funding by the Trump administration, and that she was proud to be fighting to “preserve constitutional limits on executive overreach.”

European Union leaders are considering a “reparations plan” that would use frozen Russian state assets to provide Ukraine with a $164bn loan to help fund its reconstruction after the war with Russia ends.

Leaders expressed a mixture of support and caution for the plan on Wednesday as they met in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, days after drones were spotted in Denmark’s airspace, prompting airport closures. While the drones in Denmark were not formally identified as Russian, other European countries, including Poland, Romania and Estonia, have accused Russia of drone incursions into their airspace in September.

“I strongly support the idea,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also said he was “very much in favour” of the plan. Others said there could be legal complications, however.

Here is what we know about Europe’s “reparations plan”, how it may work and what the response from Russia is likely to be.

What is Europe’s ‘reparations plan’?

The reparations plan was first outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in mid-September, and backing for it has grown as United States financial support for Ukraine wanes.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, US President Donald Trump promised voters he would pull the US back from providing high levels of financial and military aid to Ukraine.

Since the beginning of his term in January, Trump has made it clear the US will take a back seat in terms of providing financial support and security guarantees to Ukraine, indicating Europe should fill the gap instead.

Europe’s plan would use Russian assets frozen in European banks as collateral for a 140-billion-euro ($164.4bn) loan to Ukraine. Repayments for the loan would be recouped via war reparations from Russia, but the loan would also be guaranteed either in the EU’s next long-term budget or by individual EU member states.

“We need a more structural solution for military support,” von der Leyen said on Tuesday. “This is why I have put forward the idea of a reparations loan that is based on the immobilised Russian assets.”

How much in frozen Russian assets does Europe hold?

About $300bn in Russian Central Bank assets have been frozen by the US and European countries since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Most of this – $246.9bn – is held in Europe, of which $217.5bn – the vast majority in cash – is held by Euroclear, a Belgium-based capital markets company.

On June 30, Euroclear reported the Russian sanctioned assets on its balance sheet generated $3.2bn in interest during the first half of 2025, a drop from the $4bn in interest earned over the same period last year.

What are the challenges to this plan?

Under international law, a sovereign country’s assets cannot simply be confiscated. Hence, loaning this money to Ukraine would be an infringement of Moscow’s sovereign claim over its central bank assets.

Since most of the assets are held in Belgium, the country has asked for the plan to be fleshed out in case it is required to return the assets to Russia.

“I explained to my colleagues yesterday that I want their signature saying, ‘If we take Putin’s money, we use it, we’re all going to be responsible if it goes wrong,’” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told reporters in Copenhagen on Thursday.

On Wednesday, von der Leyen said: “It’s absolutely clear that Belgium cannot be the one who is the only member state that is carrying the risk. The risk has to be put on broader shoulders.”

Are any European leaders hesitant about this plan?

Yes. Besides De Wever, other European leaders have expressed hesitation or have asked their fellow leaders to work out more details of the plan before they agree to it.

Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said the proposal should be considered very carefully, given the legal and financial risks that could arise.

Others also signalled caution. “I think that’s a difficult legal question,” Luxembourg Prime Minister Luc Frieden told reporters. “You can’t just take over assets that belong to another state so easily.”

Frieden added: “There are now other proposals on the table, but these also raise a whole host of questions. I would like to have answers to these questions first. Among other things, how would such a loan be repaid? What would happen if Russia did not repay these reparations in a peace treaty?”

Is the plan likely to go ahead?

Experts said European leaders would likely have to find a way to make the plan viable as the prospects of further US aid for Ukraine dry up.

“It is going to happen because with the US walking away, Europe is left with $100bn-plus annual funding needs for Ukraine,” Timothy Ash, an associate fellow in the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

Ash explained that the bigger challenge for Europe would be to not go ahead with the plan if it means leaving Ukraine underfunded generally and placing it at higher risk of losing the war with Russia. “Risks to Europe would then be catastrophic,” he said, including the prospect of tens of millions of Ukrainians migrating west into Europe.

If a Ukrainian loss in the war becomes more likely, European nations would be forced to ramp up defence spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic products (GDPs) much faster than expected.

In June, members of NATO pledged to increase their defence spending to 5 percent of their GDPs by 2035.

Such an acceleration “would mean higher budget deficits, higher borrowing costs, more debt, less growth and a weaker Europe and euro”, Ash said.

How has Russia responded?

Moscow has rebuked the EU plan, calling it a “theft” of Russian money.

“We are talking about plans for the illegal seizure of Russian property. In Russia, we call that simply theft,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Wednesday.

Peskov said anyone involved in seizing Russian assets “will be prosecuted in one way or another. They will all be called to account.”

He added: “The boomerang will very seriously hit those who are the main depositories, countries that are interested in investment attractiveness.”

Ash said Russia could take legal action against European countries if the plan goes ahead. However, “it would have to lift its own sovereign immunity to be able to launch any such legal action. And a legal action by Russia would take years – decades to conclude.”

Russia is protected by sovereign immunity, which is a legal principle shielding foreign governments from being sued in courts outside their own country. If Russia wants to legally pursue this, it would need to waive this immunity, which, in turn, would mean Russia could also be sued or tried in a foreign country.

Ash added that another course of action Russia could take would be to seize Western assets under its jurisdiction, but this also does not come without challenges. “Russia has 10 times more assets in the West than vice versa,” Ash said. “It’s just more vulnerable through this channel.”

How much in Western assets does Russia hold?

Moscow said the value of all foreign assets it holds is comparable to the frozen Russian reserves held in the West. Citing data from January 2022, Russia’s state-run RIA news agency reported there were about $288bn of assets in Russia that could potentially be seized by Moscow.

However, Russian Central Bank records from 2022 show there were $289bn in “derivative and other foreign investments” in Russia. By the end of 2023, these foreign assets had dropped in value to $215bn.

Ash explained: “Those assets are all foreign assets – not just Western. [They include] Chinese, Indian, Middle East assets. And most of those assets are private – not state.”

Sept. 29 (UPI) — Electronic Arts has been sold to private investors in the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, Silver Lake and Affinity Partners in an all-cash deal worth $55 billion.

Stockholders will be paid $210 per share.

EA stock rose about 15% Friday, closing at $193.35, after the Wall Street Journal said the company was about to go private. This morning, the stock was at $202.80.

The all-cash purchase is valued at about $55 billion.

“The transaction positions EA to accelerate innovation and growth to build the future of entertainment,” a press release said.

“Electronic Arts ​is ​an ​extraordinary ​company with a ​world-class ​management ​team and a bold vision ​for ​the ​future. ​I’ve admired their ​ability to create iconic, lasting experiences, ​and ​as ​someone ​who ​grew up playing their ​games — and now enjoys them with his ​kids — I couldn’t be ​more ​excited about ​what’s ​ahead,” said Jared Kushner, Affinity Partners CEO and son-in-law of President Donald Trump, in a statement.

Under the terms of the agreement, the consortium of investors will acquire EA, with PIF rolling over its existing 9.9% stake in the company. The $210 per share purchase price represents a 25% premium to EA’s unaffected share price of $168.32 at market close on Friday, the last fully unaffected trading day, and a premium to EA’s unaffected all-time high of $179.01 at market close on Aug. 14, the press release said.

EA will remain headquartered in Redwood City, Calif., and Andrew Wilson will stay on as CEO. The deal is set to close in the first quarter of fiscal year 2027.

EA makes games such as Battlefield, The Sims and Madden NFL games. It will be the largest leveraged buyout in Wall Street history, CNBC reported

In a note to employees, Wilson said he is “excited to continue as CEO.”

“Our new partners bring deep experience across sports, gaming, and entertainment,” CNBC reported he wrote. “They are committed with conviction to EA — they believe in our people, our leadership, and the long-term vision we are now building together.”

The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF (VTI 0.21%) is one of the most popular exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the planet. The fund has net assets of nearly $2 trillion.

With stock indexes hovering near all-time highs, many investors are worried that this historically successful ETF will struggle in the years to come. But there’s one critical piece of data that suggests otherwise.

This ETF remains a data-backed investment

The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF is a classic pick for savvy long-term investors. That’s because the ETF tracks the holdings of the CRSP US Total Market Index, which includes almost every type of company imaginable — everything from small-caps and large-caps to value stocks and growth stocks.

The ETF is incredibly diversified with more than 3,000 holdings, but investors should note that only U.S. companies are included. Many of those U.S. companies, however, have global operations, providing some level of international diversification.

Image source: Getty Images.

With an expense ratio of just 0.03%, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF is one of the cheapest ways investors can get broad access to nearly the entire stock market. But with the indexes already at all-time highs, is this ETF still a smart pick? If your holding period is 20 years or more, the answer is absolutely. That’s because there has never been a 20-year period where the U.S. stock market has posted a negative return.

Of course, returns for any given 20-year period vary widely. But here’s a good example of how buying market indexes like this, even at their peaks, is a wise long-term decision. If you purchased shares of VTI in 2007 at their pre-cash peak, you still would have accumulated a 338% return over the next 18 years. So long-term investors can rejoice: The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF remains a solid pick for the decades ahead.