income

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife, documentary filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom, have earned at least $11 million since he took office, with most of their income coming from wineries, restaurants and other investments, according to tax returns from 2019 through their most recent filings for 2024.

The tax records show the couple has earned between $1.4 million and $3.5 million per year, putting them in the upper echelon of Americans when it comes to annual income.

Newsom allowed reporters on Thursday to view four years of the couple’s jointly filed tax returns after receiving criticism for not disclosing his filings since he last released the information for the tax year 2020.

The release of the tax records comes just weeks after Newsom accused the Department of Justice of launching — at President Trump’s request — a baseless and politically motivated investigation into him and his wife, including her business interests and charity work. The governor said the probes, which federal officials have not confirmed, were a personal vendetta launched because he’s considering a run for president in 2028.

Siebel Newsom leads the Representation Project, a nonprofit that advocates for gender equity through film and education programs, and Girls Club Entertainment, a for-profit production company she owns that holds the copyrights to her documentaries. The nonprofit has faced criticism for accepting donations from companies that lobby the governor, including Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and AT&T.

The tax records released Thursday showed that her salary from the Representation Project was $145,000 to $150,000 annually from 2021 though 2024, similar to prior years. While Girls Club paid her $100,000 in 2021, and $11,700 in 2022, she did not report any income from the production company in the two years that followed.

The governor’s office, in a summary of the tax returns provided to reporters, stated that financial documents contradict “the FALSE right-wing claims that the Newsoms ‘enriched themselves’ through new ventures and nonprofit organizations.”

The memo stated that their income has declined since Newsom became governor. The tax records also show that Girls Club Entertainment has been losing money in recent years.

The governor signed a law during his first year in office to require presidential and gubernatorial candidates to release five years of tax returns to appear on the primary ballot. Democrats passed the law in response to Trump’s refusal to make the information public.

Less than six months later, the California Supreme Court struck down the portion that required presidential candidates to comply with the law. Gubernatorial candidates are still required to disclose their tax filings during election season.

Though tax returns became a flash point in the California vs. Trump political saga, Democrats have for decades demanded that candidates for governor and president release their income tax filings.

Presidential candidates dating back to the Nixon administration routinely shared their filings, with only President Ford and Trump refusing to do so. Former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and his Republican opponents also declined to share their tax returns before the 2010 and 2014 California gubernatorial elections.

Newsom released his tax returns during his campaigns for governor in 2018 and 2022, again in 2020 and before he beat a recall election in 2021. California candidates, elected officials, judges and some public employees also file annual economic interest statements.

“In the interest of transparency, he’s now voluntarily making all remaining filed tax returns available — going beyond what the law requires — as part of his longstanding commitment to transparency,” said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for the governor, in a statement.

The governor and his wife put their investments in a blind trust when he took office. Their earnings, which have totaled more than $1 million per year since at least 2011, stem from investments in wineries, restaurants, bars, hotels and hospitality management companies based in San Francisco, Napa Valley, and Lake Tahoe, according to economic interest disclosures filed with the state.

The latest batch of tax returns covers 2021 through 2024. Reporters were allowed to view, but not copy, more than 700 pages of tax records at the governor’s office in Sacramento on Thursday. Their 2025 tax returns were not available because, as he has done most years, the governor filed for an extension with the Internal Revenue Service and he doesn’t expect to file until October.

The couple’s reported income was the highest in 2021, when they sold their home in Kentfield, a wealthy enclave in Marin County, for $5.9 million. The Newsoms reported receiving more than $55,000 in rent for leasing out the home that same year, but declared an overall loss for tax purposes of $70,000 due to their mortgage payments, taxes, legal fees and depreciation.

The family previously moved to a mansion in Fair Oaks that they purchased for $3.7 million in 2019 following a brief residence at the Governor’s Mansion in downtown Sacramento.

The family kept the Fair Oaks home and purchased another $9.1-million estate in Marin County in 2024, where they primarily live and their four children attend school. Newsom and his wife also spend time in Fair Oaks while working at the state Capitol.

During those four years, Newsom and Siebel Newsom paid a high of $1,253,187 in federal income taxes in 2021, and a low of $488,821 in 2023. Their state tax income bill ranged from $34,307 to $213,331 during that time. The annual property tax bills hovered between $48,000 and $64,300 over that span.

The governor’s income included his government salary, which ranged from $167,647 in 2021 to $192,087 in 2024.

Newsom also was paid more than $150,000 during that period as an author. In recent years, Newsom has published a book for children with dyslexia and a memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry.”

The tax returns showed the family paid from $154,000 to almost $200,000 each year for household employees from 2021 through 2024. The returns showed that they paid for Social Security coverage, Medicare and the state’s unemployment benefits fund as part of those expenses.

The governor and his family donated more than $200,000 to charity from 2021 to 2024. While most of those donations were in cash, they also gave $4,900 in “Armani Business Wear” to the Oakland nonprofit organization Restorative Justice, and toys, furniture, appliances, books and other goods to Goodwill in Sacramento.

Among their listed expenses in 2021 was $3,542 in storage costs for silver and platinum holdings. Previously, the couple made nearly a half-million dollars trading silver bars in 2011 alone.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham will give all mayors of city regions in England a share of income tax revenue for the first time, as part of his drive to transfer power from Westminster to local leaders.

Burnham will also allow mayors of English strategic authorities to keep some cash from business rates collected in their areas, and gain greater control over services such as housing, transport, skills.

The government has not yet decided the exact portion of taxes mayors will get, with more details to be announced when Chancellor John Healey delivers his first budget in the autumn.

The Conservatives said the plans lacked detail and could lead to areas with weaker economies losing out on funding.

But Burnham said the move would “make good” on his pledge to “bring power home” to “every postcode in the country”.

“Under our plans, more of the taxes raised in a community will stay in that community,” the prime minister added.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, First Secretary of State Louise Haigh said areas would not need mayors to benefit from investment.

She said: “We won’t be imposing mayors to areas that don’t want it but we will be creating strategic authorities in every area of England and they will be able to hold these powers and resources as well.

“They don’t need to have mayors in order to control them or in order to retain a share of their income tax and business rates.”

Strategic authorities bring together local councils to control regional issues such as transport and economic development, with decisions taken collectively by council leaders rather than a single elected mayor.

For example, the Lancashire strategic authority will take in Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, Blackpool Council and Lancashire County Council, which form the Lancashire Combined County Authority area, despite the area not having a mayor.

Haigh added: “Vast swathes of England don’t have strategic authorities or mayors and today’s blueprint will set out that roadmap for every area of England to be covered by strategic authorities that will ultimately be able to retain a proportion of their income tax, business rates and set an overnight visitor levy should they wish, so they can generate revenue and really reinvest it in their local area.”

The power to raise and control tax revenues is highly centralised in the UK, making the country an outlier by international standards.

The share of national taxes collected at a local level in the UK is 5.8%, the lowest in the G7, according to the OECD, external, a global policy forum.

That share is far below that of other countries with large economies such as France (20.4%), Japan (36%), and the US (45.7%).

As it stands, mayors of strategic authorities in England receive most of their funding from central government grants.

During his time as Greater Manchester mayor, Burnham pushed for greater control over tax revenue, rather than having to rely on government grants.

The UK government had already been exploring whether a share of revenue from national taxes could be distributed to metro mayors, before Burnham became prime minister earlier this month.

But in a major speech on devolution in June, Burnham said he would “oversee the biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen” if he became prime minister.

Burnham has put devolution at the heart of his plan for government, arguing that metro mayors are best placed to boost economic growth across the country.

Ethics experts sounded the alarm Wednesday after new financial disclosure reports revealed that President Trump’s income ballooned to $2.2 billion in 2025, with $1.4 billion coming from various new cryptocurrency-related businesses.

“It’s bribery. It’s graft. It’s exploitation of public power for private financial gain,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and an expert in government ethics. “Trump has — with the acquiescence of a somnolent, GOP-controlled Congress and the active assistance of John Roberts’ Supreme Court — transformed the presidency into a massive corruption racket.”

Trump reported income of over $600 million in 2024. But after he entered the White House in 2025, he reported that his income had soared to more than $2.2 billion.

The 2025 annual disclosure report filed with the Office of Government Ethics shows that Trump ramped up his real estate business in countries across the globe, particularly in the Middle East, at a time when his government was negotiating over vital issues of military aid and economic tariffs. The president also expanded his dealings in the relatively new realm of cryptocurrency.

According to the 927-page report, Trump made $635 million in royalties from Celebration Coins and more than $500 million from his World Liberty Financial crypto firm. He drew in millions from a raft of Trump-branded merchandise including God Bless the USA Bibles and sneakers depicting him with his hand raised in a fist. He also brought in $10.4 million from a property in the United Arab Emirates and $9 million from a property in Saudi Arabia.

Noah Bookbinder, an ethics expert and former president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington, described Trump’s business dealings while in the White House as “entirely unprecedented, certainly in modern history, but I think by most ways of measuring, in all of American history.”

“This is corruption,” Bookbinder said. “You have a president who has been quite transparently using the presidency in ways that benefit his business interests and intertwining the presidency and business interests.”

But the president and the White House brushed aside ethics concerns about the money Trump is making.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that he made a lot of money before he came to the White House, he had “big institutions” run his money, and that he had benefited, like every other American, as the stock market went up.

“We’re all profiting,” he said. “I’m profiting because I have a lot of money and a lot of cash.”

In a statement, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “Neither the President nor his family has ever engaged — or will ever engage — in conflicts of interest. … All actions by President Trump and his administration are taken in the best interest of the American people.”

Although the report does not show exactly how much Trump is earning — it provides details of revenue, rather than profit — the scale of the president’s cryptocurrency dealings elevated ethics watchdogs’ long-standing concerns.

Jordan Libowitz, a vice president at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, said the most concerning detail of the new report is the hundreds of millions of dollars coming in from various crypto ventures partnered with companies that the American public knows little about.

“At a time when his own administration itself is setting regulation for these types of companies,” Libowitz said, “there’s just this massive opportunity for corruption when foreign governments and foreign nationals can pour tens of millions of dollars into the president’s pocket.”

As a real estate mogul, Trump has long invested in hotels, condominiums and golf courses. But cryptocurrency, Libowitz said, offers vastly more potential for corruption.

“There’s only so many hotel rooms you can book, so many rounds of golf, but there’s no limit with crypto,” Libowitz said. “You can just buy his meme coin and he gets a cut, so you kind of take out the middleman, but also the cap or the amount of money you can funnel to the president.”

Libowitz said it was also problematic for Trump to expand his real estate empire in foreign countries, particularly the Middle East.

“Now it seems that almost all his new developments are in foreign countries, and that opens up, if you’re building this giant resort, you’re going to need help from the local government, whether it’s tax breaks or utility issues, or building a road, or speeding up permits,” Libowitz said. “These are ways that foreign governments can do favors for the American president.”

In the half a century before Trump was elected, ethics experts say, presidents from Nixon to Obama publicly released their tax returns, sold properties or put the proceeds in a blind trust managed by someone they did not know.

“They weren’t doing it because they legally had to, but because they thought it was the right thing to do,” Libowitz said.

Ever since Trump was first elected in 2016 and opted to not sell his businesses or put them in blind trusts, ethics experts have urged Congress to impose more aggressive financial oversight over money in politics.

“Congress needs to update the law, and basically, mandate blind trusts and sale of assets and disclosure of tax returns,” Libowitz said.

Noting that the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause explicitly states that the president cannot accept things of value from foreign or domestic governments, ethics experts say Trump is flouting the law and Congress has chosen to not enforce it.

Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said Congress needed to close loopholes that exempt presidents from federal conflict of interest laws as well as enforce the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

“Nobody holding a position of trust with the United States government can accept emoluments, profits and benefits from foreign governments, and that is flatly prohibited under the United States Constitution,” Painter said. “Now, if the United Arab Emirates put money into Liberty Financial, as I understand they did … and then Trump makes money off Liberty Financial, that’s a Foreign Emoluments Clause problem.”

Congress, he said, should empower an independent prosecutor to investigate such conflicts.

“The problem with the Foreign Emoluments Clause is how do we enforce it?” Painter said. “The founders and head of the Congress enforced it by impeaching anybody who took a bunch of foreign government money, but I guess that system’s not working. That’s a serious problem.”

June 30 (UPI) — President Donald Trump reported billions of dollars in income, revenue and other proceeds during his first year back in the White House, much of it tied to cryptocurrency ventures, according to his annual financial disclosure released Tuesday.

Trump reported at least $2.1 billion in income, revenue and other proceeds last year, according to his financial disclosure made public by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, with more than half tied to cryptocurrency.

Though Trump was initially skeptical about cryptocurrencies,, he embraced the digital currencies — and their supporters — during his third campaign for the White House. After being elected, he created what some analysts have called a crypto-friendly administration.

During his first year in office, he took several actions in support of the crypto industry, including signing a digital-assets executive order during his first week in office and creating a strategic Bitcoin reserve and U.S. digital asset stockpile.

The 927-page financial disclosure states the president reported more than $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency income and proceeds, including $635 million from his $TRUMP meme coin and nearly $800 million from World Liberty Financial, a Trump family-linked cryptocurrency venture.

The $TRUMP memecoin was a cryptocurrency Trump announced days before his inauguration. He announced the $MELANIA memecoin the day before he was inaugurated.

Memecoins are cryptocurrencies with little to no intrinsic utility, often derived from Internet memes and supported by online communities or fans.

After Trump announced the coins, critics accused him of attempting to profit from the presidency.

The disclosure also shows that Trump reported tens of millions in revenue from golf, resort and real estate-related holdings, including $121.9 million from Trump Doral, $77.5 million from Mar-a-Lago, $37.6 million from his Lamington Farm Club, $36.9 million from Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach and $31.6 million from his Jupiter Golf Club, among others.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed off on a 100% state tax on money any Californians receive from Trump’s $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization” fund for his political allies.

Newsom unveiled his proposal in May, after Trump’s Justice Department said it would create a fund to compensate Trump’s allies who claim they have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” under Biden’s Justice Department.

The settlement fund was criticized by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who described it as a “slush fund to pay people who assault cops.”

The fund remains in legal limbo. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Virginia extended a court-ordered block on the plan, which critics warned could be used to pay pardoned Jan. 6 rioters.

Fast-tracked into law as part of Senate Bill 122, Newsom’s plan imposes “a tax on any settlement fund payment from the federal Anti-Weaponization Fund, or any subsequent fund, settlement, or agreement, as provided, at a rate of 100%,” according to the bill text. The tax applies to all tax years between 2026 and 2030.

Newsom signed the bill Tuesday. In a statement, his office said the tax is meant to ensure that, should Trump’s fund proceed, California recipients won’t “receive favorable state treatment on those payments.”

“We believe democracy is worth defending, the rule of law matters, and public dollars should support victims—not those who attacked the very institutions that protect our freedoms,” Newsom said in the statement.

University of Southern California law professor Ariel Jurow Kleiman, an expert on tax law and policy, said that while Newsom’s tax is a “novel legal strategy,” she believes there is “no categorical legal restriction” preventing California from implementing it.

States have a “wide degree of discretion” to design their tax systems — including how they define income — so long as they do not violate their constitutions, Jurow Kleiman said.

If a California resident wanted to challenge the tax in court, they would need to show they were harmed by it to have standing to sue, according to Jurow Kleiman. That would mean receiving a payment from Trump’s settlement fund and then paying the 100% California tax. Unless the settlement fund is established and distributes payments, that scenario is unlikely.

While there have been proposals to levy a 100% tax on income above certain thresholds — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2023 said he supports a 100% tax on income exceeding $1 billion — Jurow Kleiman said she is not aware of any governments that have adopted such a policy.

Trump has launched a slate of crypto-friendly policies since returning to the White House for a second term.

A new government report has shown that United States President Donald Trump made millions from cryptocurrency and settlements with media companies last year, raising questions about possible conflicts of interest.

On Tuesday, the US Office of Government Ethics released annual financial disclosure forms for both Trump and his vice president, JD Vance.

One 927-page document itemises all of Trump’s reported assets and income for 2025. They include more than $1.4bn from his family’s cryptocurrency ventures.

Trump received more than $500m from World Liberty Financial, a crypto venture he and his sons co-founded. The president also reported another $635m from the sale of his $TRUMP meme coins.

The report suggests that investments in digital assets now generate one of the largest tranches of Trump’s income, overtaking even the real estate empire he inherited from his father.

The revelation is likely to intensify scrutiny of Trump’s policies.

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has launched a slate of crypto-friendly policies as he seeks to make the US the “crypto capital of the world”.

Early in his second term, for instance, the president announced that his government would create a national strategic cryptocurrency reserve to help ensure the stability of certain digital assets.

He also hosted the first-ever White House cryptocurrency summit.

The forum included several technology leaders that had been under investigation during the administration of Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden.

But Trump reversed those actions. In February 2025, for instance, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced it would drop charges against Coinbase, the largest US-based cryptocurrency exchange, after it was accused of acting as an unregistered broker.

Other digital currency firms came under suspicion for fraudulent transactions.

Trump has coupled the shift away from government oversight with efforts to champion new legislation, including the GENIUS Act.

The law, passed in Congress in July 2025, created a general regulatory framework that required stablecoin, a type of cryptocurrency, to be backed one-to-one by US dollars. Advocates said the law would help to make cryptocurrency more mainstream.

“The entire crypto community: For years, you were mocked and dismissed and counted out,” Trump said during the law’s signing ceremony. “You were counted out as little as a year and a half ago, but this signing is a massive validation.”

But Trump’s increasingly close ties to the cryptocurrency industry have drawn criticism for its potential for corruption.

Last week, five Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal, called on their Republican colleagues to join them in forcing Trump administration officials to testify under oath about their cryptocurrency dealings.

They pointed to investments from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in World Liberty Financial, the company the Trump family co-owns with government envoy Steve Witkoff’s sons.

Those investments, they argued, “raise questions about what more the UAE may receive — or may have already received – at the expense of U.S. national security after investing in the Trump family crypto company”.

The five Democrats urged immediate hearings on the matter.

June 11 (Asia Today) — South Korea is facing widening gaps in both wealth and income, with young people and those without homes losing ground economically, Bank of Korea researchers said Wednesday.

The central bank’s research department made the assessment in a report titled “Household Polarization in the Korean Economy and Its Spillover Effects.” The report said South Korea is confronting a form of dual polarization as asset and income inequality expand at the same time.

According to the report, South Korea’s net wealth Gini coefficient fell to 0.584 in 2017 but has since risen, reaching 0.625 last year. A Gini coefficient closer to zero indicates greater equality, while a figure closer to one indicates greater inequality.

The report identified rising real estate prices as a key factor behind the widening asset gap. It said higher property prices have played a central role in explaining movements in wealth inequality.

The Bank of Korea researchers also said real estate assets are concentrated among older generations, making wealth inequality between generations more structural.

The conditions for young people to build assets have deteriorated, the report said. An increasing number of young people earn relatively high incomes but cannot enter the upper wealth bracket because they do not own real estate.

The report said the mobility that once allowed people with middle- to upper-level incomes to move into the top wealth group has weakened, undercutting the asset-building ladder for younger households.

Income inequality also shows signs of widening again. The disposable income Gini coefficient fell from 0.353 in 2016 to 0.323 in 2023 but rose slightly to 0.325 in 2024.

The report said income inequality, which had improved through redistribution policies, could widen again because of K-shaped growth across industries.

Researchers identified the gap between the information technology sector and non-IT industries as a driver of income polarization. In the IT sector, wages have risen sharply, led in part by bonuses, while wage growth has been limited in other industries.

The spread of artificial intelligence could further deepen income gaps, the report said. Researchers said AI technology, combined with advances in robotics, could replace jobs held by low-income workers and young people in the early stages of their careers.

A Bank of Korea survey on AI also found that people in lower income brackets were more likely to believe their jobs could be replaced by AI.

The impact of dual polarization is especially visible among young people. The share of people in their 20s and 30s among households in the bottom quintile for both net wealth and income rose from 7.9% in 2020 to 15.2% in 2025.

The report said this suggests young people without homes are increasingly being pushed into lower economic groups.

The Bank of Korea researchers warned that dual polarization could weaken productivity and consumer vitality across the economy.

An analysis using data from 120 countries found that when the share of wealth held by the top 10% rises by 1 percentage point, total factor productivity falls by 0.16% two years later.

In South Korea, the share of net wealth held by the top 10% increased from 43.0% in 2022 to 46.1% in 2025, up 3.1 percentage points. Researchers said widening wealth inequality could become a constraint on economic growth and productivity improvement.

The social costs could also increase. The report said widening wealth and income gaps may lower expectations for upward mobility, weaken work incentives and reduce social trust.

It also warned that high housing costs for young people could become a barrier to marriage and childbirth.

The researchers said redistribution policies focused mainly on income support are not enough to respond to dual polarization. They said South Korea needs to guide household assets, which are heavily concentrated in real estate, toward more productive sectors and expand opportunities to build productive assets.

The report also called for a more stable tax base in response to economic changes driven by technological development. It said institutions should be reviewed to ensure that the path from labor income to asset formation does not deteriorate further.

Researchers also said South Korea must strengthen new growth industries so the benefits of economic growth can spread more widely across the economy.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260611010004200

Monduli, Tanzania – When drought wiped out most of her family’s livestock, 30-year-old Nesirkar Loongidong’i, a Maasai mother of four from Selela village in northern Tanzania, found herself with very few options. The dry season had already killed most of their animals.

Today, she makes a living growing and selling drought-resistant livestock fodder.

“Before I planted fodder, I lost most of our goats. Now, people come from other villages to buy grass, and I can support my children. I don’t fear drought anymore,” Loongidong’i told Al Jazeera.

With the income, she has built a house and bought five goats.

Loongidong’i’s story is part of a much larger and fast-growing shift. Across northern Tanzania, Maasai women, part of a community of about 430,000 people, are turning fodder production from a survival tactic into a climate-adaptation business. The work is coordinated by the Pastoral Women’s Council (PWC) and is spreading across pastoral districts.

The PWC is a women-led membership organisation working across three northeastern districts, covering more than 28,000 square kilometres (10,810 square miles) and serving about 456,000 people, most of them Maasai pastoralists. Founded in 1997, it now counts around 6,500 members in 90 villages, with years of work focused on land rights, economic empowerment, and girls’ education.

For Loongidong’i, it all comes down to growing pasture grass without irrigation. Because demand remains steady, so does her income, and with it, her household’s stability. Today, she lives in a home with a metal roof, and nearby, her goats graze in a fenced area as their numbers slowly grow again.

According to Tanzania’s Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, at least 306,358 animals, including cattle, goats, sheep, and donkeys, died between September 2021 and January 2022 due to prolonged drought. In Simanjiro district alone, 92,047 livestock were lost, wiping out livelihoods across pastoral communities.

In response, the PWC established 10 major grass seed banks across eight villages in Monduli and Longido districts. Today, about 75 hectares (185 acres) are under fodder production, with another 37 hectares (90 acres) expected to be added in the 2025-2026 season. Around 250 women directly manage these farms, while thousands of herders now depend on them for feed during dry seasons.

The impact is already visible. In 2025, a single seed bank earned 6.6 million Tanzanian shillings (about $2,500) from seed sales, along with 1,111 hay bales sold at 6,000 shillings ($2.30) each. For many women, this has shifted their role from dependents to economic providers.

Backed by organisations such as the Global Fund for Women and Oxfam, the PWC is now seen as offering a replicable model for protecting a livestock economy worth millions of dollars.

This shift is no longer limited to survival. Across northern Tanzania, it is becoming a quiet but steady form of enterprise, reshaping daily life in pastoral communities.

From survival to business

In Longido and Monduli, deep in northern Tanzania, Maasai life has been slowly changing. As traditional grazing patterns weaken under worsening droughts, women are increasingly taking on roles once tied only to herding, now growing pasture for income on open communal land.

Loongidong’i explains that what began as a way to survive dry years has now become a reliable source of income for many women. In the past, planting hardy grasses such as Cenchrus ciliaris was simply about keeping livestock alive. Today, it is also a business.

To respond to declining rainfall, women grow resilient species such as Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and Masai love grass (Eragrostis superba) on designated community plots. These grasses stay green longer than natural pasture during dry periods. Once harvested, they are bundled and sold to local herders as animal feed.

“Seeds are also saved and traded later when demand rises,” Loongidong’i says, adding that this cycle now supports many households across arid areas.

Herding families also benefit during drought periods, when natural grazing disappears and these managed plots become a lifeline for livestock.

The seed bank project, managed by Naisho, the group Loongidong’i works with under the PWC, generated about 6.6 million Tanzanian shillings ($2,514) from seed sales, alongside more than 1,000 bales of grass. Small in scale, but steady in output, it has proven what organised local production can achieve.

For the Maasai, cattle are more than livestock; they are the centre of daily life, economy, and identity. When rains fail, the impact is immediate: animals weaken, and families struggle.

As in many pastoral communities, women carry much of the responsibility for daily survival, from food preparation to fetching water and caring for children. Now, alongside those roles, they are also becoming earners.

“Women who once depended entirely on their husbands now have their own income,” says Rachel Letiety, a founding member of the PWC. “Families are becoming more stable. Men are beginning to value women’s contributions, especially during droughts.”

Ongoing challenges

Still, the progress comes with challenges.

Loongidong’i says some farms are affected when weeds take over and when fences break, allowing livestock, and sometimes wild animals, to destroy carefully cultivated plots.

“I have seen invasive plants ruin large parts of our farms,” she says. “And sometimes animals enter and destroy what we have worked on for months. It is not easy to guard these fields every day.”

She also points to tensions within groups, where disagreements sometimes arise over responsibilities and how income is shared.

At present, with support from organisations such as Justdiggit, Trees for the Future, and Swissaid, around 200 women are directly involved in the project. Many more benefit indirectly, especially during drought periods when pasture becomes scarce.

“This work prevents our cattle from dying and keeps them healthy,” says Nairiyamu Laizer, a mother of three and secretary of the Naisho group. “It also helps sustain the bulls we raise.”

“If all women take up this opportunity, these projects can lift our economy,” she adds.

“We harvest the grass and sell it; some buyers use it for cattle feed, others for thatching houses. We also grind some of it into animal feed,” she says.

For Loongidong’i and many Maasai women, growing fodder is no longer just about surviving difficult seasons. It has become a new beginning, reshaping livelihoods and the place of women in pastoral life.

“Now women help bring money into their homes,” she says, “and families are becoming more stable.”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.

June 5 (UPI) — Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, was taking in undisclosed rental income by subletting cottages on royal property, the National Audit Office reported Friday.

Mountbatten-Windsor sublet three cottages on the Royal Lodge estate while the king paid rent for royal palaces for him and his daughters. The report by the National Audit Office, a public spending oversight organization, is the first on royal residences in 20 years.

Mountbatten-Windsor did not pay rent at the Royal Lodge because he paid $10 million, or about $8.67 million, for repairs in 2005. He also paid about $1.35 million when he took over the least in 2003.

The report said Mountbatten-Windsor was allowed to sublet property at the Royal Lodge due to a provision in the lease. Other royal properties allow sublets to generate income with the permission of the Crown Estate.

His daughters, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, have properties in Kensington Palace and St. James’s Palace, respectively. Neither pays rent for their properties, as it is paid by the king’s “privy purse,” the monarchy’s personal money. Their palaces are maintained with public money.

Mountbatten-Windsor’s home at Royal Lodge spanned 30 rooms. He lived there until February when he was stripped of his title and removed over his connection with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“In the case of the Royal Lodge, three cottages on the estate were sublet with income generated payable to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor,” the National Audit Office report said. “We do not know what rent was charged.”