money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

Published on
07/10/2026 – 17:07 GMT+2

The European Parliament has called for tougher action against China’s economic coercion and support for Russia, warning that relations with Beijing have reached a “critical point”.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

MEPs backed the resolution by a landslide on Wednesday, urging the EU to consider deploying its powerful Anti-Coercion Instrument if Beijing weaponises Europe’s dependence on critical raw materials.

The vote came as EU Trade Chief Maroš Šefčovič was flying to Beijing for crunch talks aimed at rebalancing the increasingly strained trade relationship.

October is shaping up to be a crucial month for EU-China relations. EU leaders, whose countries now all run trade deficits with China, are pressing the European Commission to deliver concrete results from negotiations with Beijing.

Tensions also extend well beyond trade. The EU has become increasingly alarmed by Beijing’s close relationship with Moscow and its role in sustaining Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“The relations have now reached a critical point, mostly due to China’s unfair economic practices such as dumping and spying and its position on Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” the resolution adopted by EU lawmakers reads.

The text was backed by 454 MEPs, with 86 voting against and 110 abstaining.

Lawmakers described China’s role in the Ukraine war as that of “a decisive enabler”, pointing to “Chinese diplomatic backing and material assistance that sustains the Russian military-industrial complex”.

Pressure to use anti-coercion tool

They also call on EU countries and the Commission to “urgently” take action on “the weaponisation of critical dependencies by China.”

Europe felt the vulnerability of those dependencies in 2025, when China restricted exports of rare earths, which are vital to the EU’s automotive, defence and clean-tech industries, amid its escalating trade war with the United States.

The MEPs said the EU should consider using the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) when China instrumentalises such EU dependencies.

The ACI is an EU mechanism that allows the bloc to adopt radical measures – up to restrictions on licences and intellectual property rights – against a third country that uses economic coercion against the EU.

China’s dominance of the production and processing of strategic raw materials has become a major sticking point in trade negotiations, giving Beijing considerable leverage as Brussels seeks to curb its dependence on Chinese imports.

A Commission proposal pushing companies to diversify their suppliers in strategic sectors is in the making and should be presented by the end of the year.

The resolution comes two days after Germany and France harden their stancetowards Beijing, calling for a new trade tool that could allow the Commission to impose measures leading to “an immediate cut-off from the internal market if needed”.

WASHINGTON — Republicans are entering the final month of the midterm campaign increasingly anxious that the $1 billion at their disposal may not be enough to fend off sweeping losses as the party reckons with President Trump’s unpopularity, persistent cost concerns and the fallout from the war in Iran.

The cash advantage, spread out across a half-dozen groups, is driven largely by the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc., which had nearly $416 million in cash on hand at the end of August and began stepping up its spending on critical races in September.

But that money may have come too late, forcing the president’s group to pay much higher rates because of the shrinking availability of air time. Four Republican Senate campaign officials said groups that reserved advertising time last spring paid much lower rates than MAGA Inc. and its affiliated groups.

Instead, by waiting until September, Trump-connected organizations are sometimes paying more than five times what they would have spent if they acted earlier.

A representative of MAGA Inc. familiar with the group’s strategy said its spending has allowed Republicans to keep races more competitive than they would have been otherwise. In some cases, the group has been the only one on the air criticizing Democratic candidates.

The MAGA Inc. representative and the Republican Senate campaign officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy.

The challenge is acute in places like Texas, where Trump will travel on Wednesday for the second time in a week to stump for Republican Ken Paxton’s Senate campaign. The state hasn’t elected a Democratic senator since 1988, yet MAGA Inc. has spent more than $22 million in the past month, according to the ad tracking firm AdImpact.

Another group, Texas PAC, which is aligned with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, has spent more than $83 million on advertising in the past month, an extraordinary amount to protect what’s normally a safe Republican seat.

One of those advertisements, which featured Paxton’s estranged wife saying she’s supporting the full Republican ticket, aired across the United States last weekend during a football game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Houston Texans.

Candidates are charged a lower advertising rate than outside groups, so the late infusion of super PAC cash has come at a steep price.

MAGA Inc., which is running ads primarily on streaming services, has been charged roughly $894 per airing, according to AdImpact, while Texas PAC has been charged roughly $809 for a mix of broadcast and streaming. That compares with about $290 for Democratic nominee James Talarico’s campaign, also on broadcast and streaming.

Those averages mask some of the more glaring disparities. For example, during a football game last month, Texas PAC was charged $450,000 to air a single spot in the Austin market. Talarico’s campaign paid $50,000 for a spot during the same game in the same market, according to AdImpact.

Elections are a referendum on the power of money

The 2026 campaign is shaping up as a referendum on the power of money in American politics. Democrats freely acknowledge their disadvantage, relying instead on anti-Trump sentiment among voters and targeted messaging on issues like corruption. Some Republicans, meanwhile, are open about the challenge of trying to spend their way out of a tough campaign at this late stage.

Neil Newhouse, a longtime Republican pollster, echoed concerns that his party was deploying its cash too late.

“After the votes are counted, I think we’re going to find the most effective advertising in terms of communicating message and moving voters and poll numbers, the most effective time was advertising that happened well before Labor Day, not after it,” he said. “A million dollars of advertising in October is a drop in the bucket.”

Thune’s group began pulling back in North Carolina last week, a sign of the party’s challenge in the Senate race there. The state’s outgoing Sen. Thom Tillis has been increasingly vocal about his party’s vulnerabilities and recently said that, even with a strong cash advantage, “in the last month, you pretty much have to place your bets.”

“If we have endless resources, then we should spend endlessly in every state,” he said. “Absent endless resources, you’ve got to make data-driven decisions about where you can win.”

The midterms mark the first national election since the Supreme Court in June erased limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president, injecting even more money into a political system already awash in cash.

Money alone doesn’t translate into victory

There’s plenty of evidence that money alone doesn’t translate into victory.

Democrat Kamala Harris entered the final stretch of the 2024 campaign with significantly more money than Trump but went on to lose every critical swing state and the White House. Elon Musk’s $25 million didn’t lift his preferred candidate to a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat last year. And Tom Steyer didn’t advance to the general election in the California governor’s race despite pumping $216 million of his own money into the campaign.

The $1 billion that Republicans have amassed compares with roughly $579 million held by a comparable collection of major Democratic groups.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said his party is facing an “obscene” amount of spending that could swamp them in the midterms.

“We’re never going to have as much money as them,” he said in an interview. “I sum up the election in this sentence: Can a massive Republican advantage in money beat a massive Democratic advantage in better candidates and political climate? I bet it can’t.”

In addition to Texas, Democrats have mounted competitive Senate campaigns in states like Ohio, Maine, Iowa and Michigan. A similar dynamic has emerged in governors’ races from Florida and Georgia to Wisconsin, Ohio and Nevada.

Former President Barack Obama is stepping up his involvement in the midterms and will headline a fundraiser for Senate candidates on Wednesday.

In the House, Democrats are growing so confident they can retake the majority that they’re expanding their targets deeper into traditionally Republican districts in Arkansas and Tennessee. But a lack of money could limit their gains.

“We absolutely need to spend enough to get our message out,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “And district by district, we are.”

Trump turns to his bond with supporters

From his earliest days as an unlikely political figure, Trump has consistently overcome expectations. Facing daunting prospects heading into the final weeks of his last midterm, he’s betting he can again outwit political gravity, relying in large part on the deep bond he’s built with supporters.

He has stepped up his campaign rallies in recent weeks, traveling to deep red territory to galvanize the party faithful. At events like the one this past weekend in Vandalia, Ohio, the crowd was enthusiastic and cheered at the lines that have become Trump staples over the years, particularly when he dips into profanity. The high school gymnasium that held the event was packed, though crowds began emptying out about halfway through the 90-minute rally.

In the closing minutes of a speech Monday in Grand Island, Nebraska, the president revived his plea that supporters who have stood so fervently by him pretend as if he is on the ballot one more time.

“In a true way, I am running,” he said. “We have to keep it going.”

Sloan and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Iowa. AP writers Seung Min Kim in Vandalia, Ohio, and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

The Venezuelan economic debate has been dominated by headlines over hydrocarbon deals and speculation around the future of the mining sector. The focus is understandable. It’s a petrostate with an abundance of natural resources, capable of propelling us out of the prolonged economic and humanitarian crisis that chavismo inflicted upon us. But as we must continue to discuss the future of the oil, gas and mining sectors, we must not forget the reforms required to allow the non-oil economy to flourish.

Although a large share of the state’s revenues and the country’s GDP is ultimately tied to hydrocarbons, the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans are not oil engineers, geologists or miners. Nor are most Venezuelan companies directly involved in extracting natural resources. The non-oil economy is there, operating under a highly restricted business environment of price controls, extortion, a minefield of a tax system and labour laws hostile to companies. All while facing a contraction in its market due to the migration crisis and severely restricted access to credit.

Venezuela is still among the hardest places to do business in the world. It is time to discuss how to give the sector, which includes formal and informal businesses of all sizes, the breathing space it needs to grow.

Let’s first put the power grid and infrastructure issues aside. The reforms required span virtually every aspect of the business environment, from the institutions that oversee the economy at the macro level, to the banking system and the nitty-gritty of tax and labour law. At the most basic level, the private sector needs confidence that contracts will be respected, property will be protected, and disputes can be resolved through institutions that are predictable and independent. Without these basic reassurances, investing in Venezuela remains a gamble that many businesses and outside investors will simply not be willing to take.

Dollarization without the institutional and financial framework to back it will fail in its mission to stabilize the economy.

As previously explained regarding the macro level, the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV) needs to regain its independence and establish a credible monetary policy based on transparency and clear rules, supported by a board and president who are not subordinate to Miraflores. Burning through the petro-dollar cash pile to curb the Bolivar devaluation won’t cut it. The central bank is estimated to have used 65% of the oil sale proceeds to shore up the Bolivar. This has proven to be futile without a proper macro framework to support such interventions. It is the BCV’s credibility that is fundamental to correcting the distortions in the FX market and preserving confidence in the Bolivar, in order to lower the still extraordinary inflation rate hovering around 500%.

A credible BCV will also be fundamental to back whichever currency policy the State decides to embrace. Debates over dollarization have spread. However, the measure is not a magic wand, and going for it without the institutional and financial framework to back it will fail in its mission to stabilize the economy. Monetary stability with a functioning BCV will not suffice, but it’s a necessary foundation to correct the distortions that pervade the Venezuelan economy.

Surviving without credit

Reforms aimed at stimulating the non-oil private sector must not stop there. 

Venezuela needs its banks to be banks again. The country has by far the region’s lowest credit portfolio relative to GDP thanks to draconian restrictions from regulators, which limit the capacity of banks to function as credit facilitators, and reduce them to mere transactional businesses. A functioning banking system is fundamental for the private sector’s recovery. Venezuelan businesses need the capital, as much as consumers need the credit to finance purchases of the goods and services those businesses produce.

Without a functioning banking sector, the private sector costs of capital increase as businesses either accept higher rates from non-bank lenders or are forced to rely disproportionately on their own cash flow to fuel operations. Ultimately, this leads to firms forgoing investments and lower productivity. The survival-mode resource allocation and corporate planning allowed some firms to surf through the crisis, but still makes it considerably harder for a successful company to scale operations and increase productivity.

Under the right conditions, Venezuela could become fertile ground for a dynamic M&A market.

On the consumer side, there is an important advantage from which to build on. Venezuela has a relatively high degree of financial inclusion and has rapidly adopted digital technologies for payments and money transfers. This provides an infrastructure through which a consumer credit market can develop.

Time for real business-friendly laws

Labour laws and informality must also be addressed. The private sector needs to be able to absorb more workers, particularly those who will eventually transition out of an oversized public sector, without facing excessive legal and financial restrictions associated with hiring. The current system makes formal employment particularly costly for smaller businesses, contributing to informality and limiting the capacity of companies to expand their payrolls and operations.

Venezuelan businesses have performed something close to a miracle by continuing to operate under such dire conditions. But many of the businesses that remain have low productivity and have become costly to scale. The end goal of this debate should be to reduce the cost of capital and frictions that limit businesses from increasing their size and productivity, aiming to allow companies to compete at scale internationally.

We need to keep pushing for reforms across the non-oil economy so that businesses can access credit, hire more workers, invest, consolidate and attract capital.

Under the right conditions, Venezuela could become fertile ground for a dynamic M&A market. Consolidation can allow fragmented industries to achieve economies of scale, invest in technology, professionalize management, employ more people, and eventually compete internationally. Stronger and better equipped companies would become more attractive to foreign investors and better positioned to access global markets.

This is what economic reform should seek to achieve: a private sector made up of larger, more productive, inclusive, and competitive businesses.

The private sector has already demonstrated that it can survive under almost any conditions. The task now is to create the conditions for the windfall from those petro-dollars to run through a private sector that is more efficient, inclusive, and scalable. We need to continue pushing for reforms across the non-oil economy so that Venezuelan businesses can access credit, hire more workers, invest, consolidate, and attract capital. That will allow it to become one of the engines of our economic transformation.

Asian equity markets traded mostly lower on Wednesday, diverging from overnight gains on Wall Street where a pause in bond yield increases provided relief to technology valuations.

US stock futures were little changed, with Dow down 0.10%, S&P 500 up 0.05%, and

NEW YORK — The Russian oligarch who helped bankroll Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding celebration says the president’s eldest son has paid back the money.

“Yes, he did,” Umar Kremlev told an International Boxing Association press conference in Istanbul on Tuesday. “He did repay the money I spent on the present.” Still, he said he felt the repayment was unnecessary.

“Frankly speaking, I do not understand why he decided to do so,” he went on. “There are all kinds of events organized by all kinds of people. It is as if I invite you to come and visit my country house. Would you expect me to issue an invoice to them afterward?” Speaking through an interpreter, he said that would be “ridiculous.”

ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative website, reported last month that Kremlev, who has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, “footed the bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars of wedding expenses” when Trump Jr. married socialite Bettina Anderson in the Bahamas in May. That included paying to rent one of two private islands where the three-day party was held.

In a subsequent post on her Instagram page signed by the couple, Bettina Trump wrote that they had been married “surrounded ONLY by our family,” but that Kremlev, head of the boxing association, was a “dear friend” who “very generously hosted two incredible nights of celebrations for us AFTER our wedding.”

President Trump, who did not attend the nuptials, previously defended the arrangement but told reporters that the money would be paid back.

“It’s totally allowed,” he said. “But, as I understand it, he paid them back.”

“That’s very common,” he added, “I’ve given wedding parties to numerous people.”

Kremlev, who was recently honored with the Order of Friendship by Putin, also played down the significance, saying the celebration was “a shared event” and “people blew it out of proportion.”

“I mean, why can’t we be friends? We are just friends,” he went on. “We are simply friends and what unites us is love for sports.”

The focus on Kremlev comes as Russia remains at war with Ukraine following its invasion in 2022 and as Trump has failed to broker a promised peace deal between the nations.

Trump Jr. has previously been scrutinized over his ties to Russia. During the 2016 campaign, his meeting with a Russian attorney in Trump Tower to discuss potentially incriminating information about his father’s then-Democratic opponent was a critical element of investigations into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to meddle in the election to help Trump win.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press.