payment

WASHINGTON — Late last month, an immigrant seeking asylum in the U.S. came across social media posts urging her to pay a new fee imposed by the Trump administration before Oct. 1, or else risk her case being dismissed.

Paula, a 40-year-old Los Angeles-area immigrant from Mexico, whose full name The Times is withholding because she fears retribution, applied for asylum in 2021 and her case is now on appeal.

But when Paula tried to pay the $100 annual fee, she couldn’t find an option on the immigration court’s website that accepted fees for pending asylum cases. Afraid of deportation — and with just five hours before the payment deadline — she selected the closest approximation she could find, $110 for an appeal filed before July 7.

She knew it was likely incorrect. Still, she felt it was better to pay for something, rather than nothing at all, as a show of good faith. Unable to come up with the money on such short notice, Paula, who works in a warehouse repairing purses, paid the fee with a credit card.

“I hope that money isn’t wasted,” she said.

That remains unclear because of confusion and misinformation surrounding the rollout of a host of new fees or fee increases for a variety of immigration services. The fees are part of the sweeping budget bill President Trump signed into law in July.

Paula was one of thousands of asylum seekers across the country who panicked after seeing messages on social media urging them to pay the new fee before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1.

But government messaging about the fees has sometimes been chaotic and contradictory, immigration attorneys say. Some asylum seekers have received notice about the fees, while others have not. Misinformation surged as immigrants scrambled to figure out whether, and how, to pay.

Advocates worry the confusion serves as a way for immigration officials to dismiss more asylum cases, which would render the applicants deportable.

The fees vary. For those seeking asylum, there is a $100 fee for new applications, as well as a yearly fee of $100 for pending applications. The fee for an initial work permit is $550 and work permit renewals can be as much as $795.

Amy Grenier, associate director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., said that not having a clear way to pay a fee might seem like a small government misstep, but the legal consequences are substantial.

For new asylum applications, she said, some immigration judges set a payment deadline of Sept. 30, even though the Executive Office for Immigration Review only updated the payment portal in the last week of September.

“The lack of coherent guidance and structure to pay the fee only compounded the inefficiency of our immigration courts,” Grenier said. “There are very real consequences for asylum-seekers navigating this completely unnecessary bureaucratic mess.”

Two agencies collect the asylum fees: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the Department of Homeland Security, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), under the Department of Justice, which operates immigration courts.

Both agencies initially released different instructions regarding the fees, and only USCIS has provided an avenue for payment.

The departments of Homeland Security and Justice didn’t respond to a request for comment. The White House deferred to USCIS.

USCIS spokesman Matthew J. Tragesser said the asylum fee is being implemented consistent with the law.

“The real losers in this are the unscrupulous and incompetent immigration attorneys who exploit their clients and bog down the system with baseless asylum claims,” he said.

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), a national membership organization, sued the Trump administration earlier this month after thousands of members shared their confusion over the new fees, arguing that the federal agencies involved “threaten to deprive asylum seekers of full and fair consideration of their claims.”

The organization also argued the fees shouldn’t apply to people whose cases were pending before Trump signed the budget package into law.

In a U.S. district court filing Monday, Justice Department lawyers defended the fees, saying, “Congress made clear that these new asylum fees were long overdue and necessary to recover the growing costs of adjudicating the millions of pending asylum applications.”

Some of the confusion resulted from contradictory information.

A notice by USCIS in the July 22 Federal Register confused immigrants and legal practitioners alike because of a reference to Sept. 30. Anyone who had applied for asylum as of Oct. 1, 2024, and whose application was still pending by Sept. 30, was instructed to pay a fee. Some thought the notice meant that Sept. 30 was the deadline to pay the yearly asylum fee.

By this month, USCIS clarified on its website that it will “issue personal notices” alerting asylum applicants when their annual fee is due, how to pay it and the consequences for failing to do so.

The agency created a payment portal and began sending out notices Oct. 1, instructing recipients to pay within 30 days.

But many asylum seekers are still waiting to be notified by USCIS, according to ASAP, the advocacy organization. Some have received texts or physical mail telling them to check their USCIS account, while others have resorted to checking their accounts daily.

Meanwhile the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) didn’t add a mechanism for paying the $100 fee for pending asylum cases — the one Paula hoped to pay — until Thursday.

In its Oct. 3 complaint, lawyers for ASAP wrote: “Troublingly, ASAP has received reports that some immigration judges at EOIR are already requiring applicants to have paid the annual asylum fee, and in at least one case even rejected an asylum application and ordered an asylum seeker removed for non-payment of the annual asylum fee, despite the agency providing no way to pay this fee.”

An immigration lawyer in San Diego, who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution, said an immigration judge denied his client’s asylum petition because the client had not paid the new fee, even though there was no way to pay it.

The judge issued an order, which was shared with The Times, that read, “Despite this mandatory requirement, to date the respondents have not filed proof of payment for the annual asylum fee.”

The lawyer called the decision a due process violation. He said he now plans to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, though another fee increase under Trump’s spending package raised that cost from $110 to $1,010. He is litigating the case pro bono.

Justice Department lawyers said Monday that EOIR had eliminated the initial inconsistency by revising its position to reflect that of USCIS and will soon send out official notices to applicants, giving them 30 days to make the payment.

“There was no unreasonable delay here in EOIR’s implementation,” the filing said. “…The record shows several steps were required to finalize EOIR’s process, including coordination with USCIS. Regardless, Plaintiff’s request is now moot.”

Immigrants like Paula, who is a member of ASAP, recently got some reassurance. In a court declaration, EOIR Director Daren Margolin wrote that for anyone who made anticipatory or advance payments for the annual asylum fee, “those payments will be applied to the alien’s owed fees, as appropriate.”

I haven’t had a car payment in a decade.

No lease, no financing, no $749 a month disappearing into a lender’s account. Just my old 2007 Honda Element, still rumbling down the road. She’s not the prettiest girl at the bar anymore, but she’s all I need.

At some point, I realized every “small” car payment my friends were making could have been a serious savings engine.

The power of redirecting that $749 a month

The average new car payment today is a jaw-dropping $749 a month. Skip that for 10 years, and you’ve kept nearly $90,000 in your pocket before even earning a cent in interest.

But that money doesn’t have to sit idle. Over the past few years, the first place I’ve been putting what would’ve been my “car payment” is straight into a high-yield savings account. At around 4.50% APY, that’s earned me thousands in interest while staying completely risk-free.

While I don’t want to keep all of my money in an HYSA, I keep my emergency fund with a few months of living expenses there and just make sure it’s always topped off. Beyond that, everything flows into my favorite tax-advantaged retirement accounts.

Why I park my money in a high-yield savings account

I treat my HYSA like a first stop for the money I used to waste on car payments. It’s my emergency and peace-of-mind fund, and here’s what makes high-yield savings accounts so easy to love:

• Safe and FDIC-insured up to $250,000
• Instant access when you need your cash
• Rates still around 4.00%, even as the Fed starts cutting

You can compare today’s top high-yield savings accounts here and find one that’s actually worth your money.

What you could do instead of sending money to a bank

Once I saw how quickly my savings grew, I realized it was really about peace of mind. I never worry about an unexpected bill or repair anymore. My high-yield savings account is my safety net, and every month I go without a car payment, that net gets stronger.

If you want that same feeling, start by opening a high-yield savings account that actually rewards you for saving. Rates around 4.00% APY won’t last forever, but getting started now could give you years of financial breathing room.

THE EXACT amount of money each pensioner will get as their Winter Fuel Payment this year has been confirmed by the Department for Work and Pensions.

More than nine million people are set to receive the payment later this year.

4

4

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed eligible people born before September 22, 1959 will automatically receive the funds.

It comes after the previous £300 payment was axed for millions of pensioners last winter and only those on certain benefits qualified.

The move triggered a massive backlash for Labour as some 10 million pensioners lost their winter fuel allowance in the benefit cut.

It saved the Treasury just £1.4 billion but caused a massive public outcry – and the government was forced to perform a half baked U-turn.

The PM cracked under pressure after a voter backlash.

It’s now been revealed that this year’s payment will be between £100 and £300, to help cover the cost of higher heating bills this winter.

The money will become available to most eligible pensioners in November or December.

The amount is determined by both age and household circumstances of a claimant over the qualifying period, which is the week of September 15 to 21.

Where you were born is also a contributing factor.

Letters can be expected for those who qualify for it in England and Wales in October or November.

The letter will provide details on how much money you will be offered, as well as which bank account the payment will go into – which is usually the same as where you receive State Pensions or other benefits.

DWP guidance states: “You’ll get a letter in October or November telling you how much Winter Fuel Payment you’ll get, if you’re eligible.

“If you do not get a letter but think you’re eligible, check if you need to make a claim.”

People in Scotland will not get Winter Fuel Payment as the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment has replaced it.

This scheme follows similar eligibility criteria as outlined by the DWP, but will be issued automatically by Social Security Scotland from the end of November.

The GOV.UK website provides further guidance on the scheme and how to be a claim.

It also warns people to be wary about scammers who may send out trick messages that provide a link to click on and make a claim.

4

These are not official DWP messages and should be deleted.

So those eligible for the Winter Fuel Payment are people living in England and Wales born before September 22, 1959.

You will not be eligible if:

• you live outside England and Wales
• you were in hospital getting free treatment for the whole of the week of September 15-21, 2025 and the year before
• you need permission to enter the UK and granted leave says you cannot claim public funds
• you were in prison for the whole of the week of September 15-21

It is possible for people living in a care home to get the Winter Fuel Payment.

However, there are two factors that if combined mean you will not be eligible.

This is if you are on Universal Credit, Pension Credit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Alloance (JSA) or income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), whilst having lived in a care home during since June 23, 2025 or earlier.

If you live alone, or none of the people you live with are eligible for Winter Fuel Payment:

• you will get £200, if you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• you will get £300, if you were born before September 22, 1945

If you live with someone else who is eligible for the Winter Fuel Payment:

• £100 if you and the person you live with were both born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £100 if you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959 but the person you live with was born before September 22, 1945
• £200 if you were born before September 22, 1945 but the person you live with was born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £150 if you and the person you live with were born before September 22, 1945

Your payment will also be different if you are receiving other benefits payments.

• £200 if you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £300 if you were born before September 22, 1945

If you and a partner jointly claim any benefits, one of you will get a Winter Fuel Payment of:

• £200 if both of you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £300 if one or both of you were born before September 22, 1945

The money will be paid into the bank account where benefits are usually paid into.

Care home residents that are eligible will get:

• £100 if you were born between September 22, 1945 and September 21, 1959
• £150 if you were born before September 22, 1945

Those with an income of more than £35,000 will have all of their Winter Fuel Payments returned by the HMRC, either through PAYE or submitting a Self Assessment tax return.

The DWP has said: “If you do not get a letter or the money has not been paid into your account by 28 January 2026, contact the Winter Fuel Payment Centre.”

It is also possible to opt out of the Winter Fuel Payment, either by completing an opt out form by September 14, or calling the helpline before 6pm on September 12.

4

HOUSEHOLDS on Universal Credit should be aware of one-off payments worth hundreds that could help cover emergency costs.

A budgeting advance is a type of payment given to those claiming the benefit to help with paying for items such as a broken cooker.

1

The advance is interest free, so you only have to pay back what you borrow. Usually you will be expected to pay the money back within 24 months.

You can apply for a budgeting advance to cover things like:

• A one-off item – for example, replacing a broken fridge
• Work-related expenses – for example, buying uniforms or tools
• Unexpected expenses
• Repairs to your home
• Travel expenses
• Maternity expenses
• Funeral expenses
• Moving costs or rent deposit
• Essential items, like clothes

How much you can get depends on a number of factors, with the lowest you can borrow £100. 

Meanwhile, single people could get up to £348, while those who live with a partner could get up to £464.

The highest reward is only eligible for people with children and that is worth £812.

But it is not always guaranteed that you will be accepted for the payment.

Firstly, you must have been claiming Universal Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance or State Pension Credit for six months or more.

There is an exception if you need the money to help start a new job or stay in employment.

You will not be eligible either if you have earned more than £2,600 in the past six months or £3,600 if you are in a couple.

You will also not qualify if you have not paid off any previous advance loans, as you can only have one at a time.

You can apply for a budgeting advance by calling the Universal Credit helpline on 0800 328 5644.

An advisor will then asses you can pay the loan back – they’ll see if you have any debts and how much you owe to help work this out.

The phone lines are open Monday to Friday, 8am to 6pm, and you’ll normally get a decision on the same day.

Alternatively, you can apply through your online account or speak to your Jobcentre Plus work coach.

Paying the advance back

You have to pay any money you were given back, but you will not be charged interest.

The money will be taken out of your Universal Credit payments, and you will pay it back over two years, starting from your next payment.

So for example, if you get an advance of £240 and you pay this back over 24 months, £10 will be taken out of your payment each month until this is paid back.

If you cannot afford your advance repayments, you can ask for the amount you pay to be lowered.

You can call the Universal Credit helpline or contact the Jobcentre helpline.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

You can also join our new Sun Money Facebook group to share stories and tips and engage with the consumer team and other group members.

President Trump’s demand for a whopping $1-billion payment from UCLA sent shock waves through the UC system. For those of us on the inside, the announcement elicited a range of responses. Some faculty and staff reacted with horror, others voiced increasing fear about the ongoing assault on academic freedom, and some merely muttered in sad resignation to the new reality.

I laughed. The president has decided to poke the bear — and the Bears and the Bruins, too. Whether Trump knows it or not, targeting the University of California is very different from going after private Ivy League institutions with deep historical ties to political power.

Pressuring UC to pay a large sum has another dimension entirely: It’s going after state tax dollars paid by the people of California. This should matter to folks on the left and the right, to those who venerate higher education and those who vote in favor of states’ rights against federal overreach.

Californians across the political spectrum should repurpose one of Trump’s own slogans: “Stop the steal.”

Unlike Columbia and Brown, which have paid off the Trump administration, UC is a public institution. That means, as new UC President James Milliken said, “we are stewards of taxpayer resources.” UC must answer to the people, not just to boards of trustees or senior administrators.

Indeed, as a professor at UC Santa Barbara, I consider myself to be employed by my fellow Californians. My job is to contribute to the fundamental mission laid out in the state’s “Master Plan”: to create new knowledge and educate the people of California. I take my responsibility even more seriously because I am also a product of UC; I earned my PhD at Berkeley and remain a proud Golden Bear. I am fully aware of what a positive effect a UC education can have on students and Californians everywhere.

A $1-billion payment to the federal government would have huge consequences — not only on the people’s university but also on the general welfare of our state, the world’s fourth-largest economy. UC is the second-largest employer in the state. We generate $82 billion in economic activity every year. More than 84% of our students come from California, and their degrees are proven to increase their lifetime earning potential. UC health centers treat millions of people every year, providing essential medical care. According to one striking study, “The economic output generated by UC-related spending is $4.4 billion larger than the economic output of the entire state of Wyoming and $16.1 billion larger than that of Vermont.”

We accomplish that in large part with the people’s money. For every dollar the state invests in us, we generate $21 of economic activity for the state. All of that activity generates $12 billion in tax revenue. We’re a great engine of growth.

You’d think a self-proclaimed genius and “self-made” business tycoon would know a good deal when he sees one.

To be sure, the supposed bases for demanding the extraordinary payment — antisemitism and civil rights abuses — are very serious. College students should expect to confront new ideas they may disagree with, but no one should be targeted for their beliefs. Full stop.

But there are more effective remedies for addressing any failures, as have already been pursued at UCLA. For Trump, though, the accusations are the pretext for punishing institutions that he doesn’t like and, as the Associated Press reports, rebuking political opponents such as Gov. Gavin Newsom. They are not reflective of a genuine concern for student rights.

Many of us have already sounded the alarm about the increasing financial challenges the UC system faces. Even last year, we had reached a critical breaking point — and that was before losing federal grant money.

But we haven’t given up and neither should the people. We all must fight back against this attempted seizure of taxpayer funds. It’s not enough to leave the task to political leaders; the people themselves must send the message.

Californians can continue to resist federal incursions by making it clear to the UC Board of Regents, elected representatives and everyone else that Californians will not tolerate a federal pressure campaign to take our state’s resources.

There are many reasons to be alarmed by Trump’s broader attack on higher education. But this time, Trump has crossed the public-private boundary and set his sights on state taxpayers’ money. Because we fund it, UC and everything it produces belongs to us. That means we all — no matter where we fall on the political spectrum — must stop the steal.

Giuliana Perrone, an associate professor of history at UC Santa Barbara, is the author of “Nothing More than Freedom: The Failure of Abolition in American Law.”

THOUSANDS on Universal Credit and 11 other benefits can expect early payments this month.

Benefits are paid into your bank or building society account earlier if your usual payment date falls on a bank holiday or the weekend.

1

The next bank holiday is on Monday, August 25, meaning if you’re expecting a payment on this date it will be made on August 22.

So, if you check your statement on August 22 and notice a surprise amount of money, it will likely be your benefit being issued earlier.

If you are paid earlier than usual this month, make sure the money stretches further as you will have to wait longer than normal to get your next payment.

Universal Credit and 11 other benefits are paid on the first working day before a bank holiday. The full list is:

Anyone paid one of the above 12 benefits on August 22 instead of August 23, 24 or 25, should receive the same amount as usual.

The only reason the payment amount might change is if you have had a change in your circumstances.

For example, if you are on Universal Credit and your earnings have increased, your payment might go down.

If you are expecting a payment on August 22 and don’t receive it, contact the DWP.

You can also submit a complaint to the Government department to get a problem sorted if your payment is wrong.

After August, there are two more bank holidays before the end of the year which could impact when you receive your benefits.

Here’s when DWP or HMRC will make your payments:

• December 25 – payments will be made on December 24 instead
• December 26 – payments will be made on December 24 instead

Upcoming changes to Universal Credit and PIP

Last month, the Government U-turned on its welfare bill meaning Brits on Universal Credit and PIP will see fewer changes.

Sir Keir Starmer had been hoping to push through reforms that would have seen some benefit claimants receiving less money.

The Government had planned to make major changes to the health element of Universal Credit.

A single person who is aged 25 or over can receive the basic level of the benefit, which comes in at £400.14 every month.

But those getting an incapacity top-up due to a disability or long-term condition can get an extra £423.37.

The new plans mean that anyone up to the age of 22 will not be able to claim the health element.

Ministers had also tried to freeze the payment for the next four years but a commitment was made for it to go up with inflation.

That means people claiming the health element of Universal Credit and new claimants with the most severe conditions will see their incomes protected in real terms.

Meanwhile, PIP claimants would have faced stricter tests to qualify for support. 

The Government had put forward that people would need to score four points in one task such as washing and dressing to qualify for support. 

Currently they can qualify with eight points across multiple activities.

The Government initially partially u-turned, saying the changes would come into effect in November 2026, but anyone claiming the benefit before this date would not be impacted.

However, following a rebellion from 47 MPs, the Government shelved the PIP plans entirely. You can find out more in our guide.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

July 29 (UPI) — Cash App on Tuesday announced a new group payment system that will also allow users to use Apple Pay and Google Pay to contribute for the first time.

The group payment system is only available to certain users currently, but it will roll out to more users in the upcoming months.

“If members of the group use different payment solutions, the organizer has historically needed to download multiple apps to collect the money from each person resulting in confusion, time wasted, and risk for all participants. Now, the organizer can create a shareable link for group members to contribute to a pool in seconds using Apple Pay or Google Pay,” Cash App said in a press release.

The company said it designed the pool for easier payment by separating the payment instead of one person taking the total entire fee.

“Pools were designed for groups to easily plan, collect, and track contributions before the event occurs so that nobody has to front the entire cost.”

The app works by allowing an organizer to set a goal amount and invite members to join the pool and track the group’s contributions.

“Cash App has always made sending money between friends and family feel effortless, and we know that many of our customers already use the platform as a way to collect payments from groups,” said Cameron Worboys, Head of Product Design at Cash App. “With pools, our customers now have a dedicated, easy-to-use solution for group payments: they can start a pool to collect the money in seconds, and then instantly transfer the funds to their Cash App balance when it’s time to pay.”

Cash App also announced it will introduce more features in the upcoming future.

The federal government has paid California dairy farms more than $230 million to subsidize losses in milk production resulting from bird flu, records show, an amount that the dairy industry expects to climb higher as more claims for damages are processed.

The H5N1 bird flu has swept through more than 75% of California’s 1,000 dairy farms since August 2024, sickening cattle and leading to steep dropoffs in milk production.

Farmers were able to get relief under a U.S. Department of Agriculture program known as the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm-Raised Fish Program, or ELAP. The program usually provides assistance for farmers impacted by wildfires, drought and flooding but was opened up for dairy farmers last year as bird flu began ravaging their cows.

U.S. Department of Agriculture records show that 644 payments were made to 359 California dairy farms between November 2024 and June 2025 totaling $231 million. The average per farm payment was about $645,000, and ranged from $2,058 to the Pereira Dairy Farm, in Visalia, to $4.4 million to Channel Islands Dairy Farm, in Corcoran.

Those payments are expected to go much higher, however, as more claims are submitted and processed. Many of the payments issued in May and June were for outbreaks in 2024, suggesting there are more to come.

The relief payments were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by Farm Forward, a nonprofit group that advocates against factory farming. The group asserts that the subsidies help prop up industrial-scale dairy operations that perpetuate the spread of bird flu.

“These are mega industrial operations that are fueling an outbreak,” said Andrew deCoriolis, Farm Forward’s executive director. “Bird flu spreads in exactly the kinds of environments that we’re paying to preserve.”

Anja Raudabaugh, the chief executive of the industry’s largest state trade group, Western United Dairies, said the payments have “ensured our dairy communities and their workers stay employed and healthy. Until we get approval of a dairy cow vaccine, weathering this storm has only been possible with the assistance of the milk loss payments.”

Jonathan Cockroft, managing partner of Channel Islands Dairy Farms, said while the payments helped with the roughly 30% drop in milk production his farm experienced, his losses exceed the $4 million he received.

He said the virus caused cows to abort their pregnancies, and often prevented them from getting pregnant again. A dairy cow that doesn’t give birth doesn’t produce milk. In other cases, he said the udders were so scarred by the disease that the cows were unable to produce milk at levels prior to infection.

“There’s a whole other version I’m not sure the public understands, which is the huge impact on reproduction,” he said.

He also noted many animals died — especially when the outbreak first hit last fall, and the newness of it combined with the blazing heat of the Central Valley felled 10% to 15% of many California herds.

Joey Airoso, a dairy farmer in Tipton, received a $1.45-million subsidy for an outbreak at his farm last October.

He said the outbreak has cost him more than $2 million “just on milk income and that does not include the over $250,000 of extra care costs” required to treat cows with medicines, extra staffing and veterinary consultations.

And it doesn’t cover the cost of the cows that died — which can’t produce milk or be sold for meat. The average dairy cow costs about $3,500, Cockroft said.

Jay Van Rein, a spokesperson for California’s Department of Food and Agriculture, said the loss payments are “the most realistic way for producers to recover and to avoid huge disruptions in the food supply of these products.”

USDA officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, but a former top USDA official who left the agency in January said it was important to provide dairy farmers relief once the agency identified H5N1 bird flu in a handful of Texas herds in March 2024. By then the disease had been spreading for weeks, if not months, making containment to one state impossible.

“This was a once-in-a-lifetime event, and we knew that we were going to need to support producers, and we knew that the quicker we could get some assistance out to them to help them test, the better off we were going to be, and the faster we’d be able to bring the infection under control,” he said.

Farm Forward’s DeCoriolis and others, however, say these programs perpetuate an agricultural industry designed around containing hundreds, if not thousands, of genetically similar animals into confined lots — veritable playgrounds for a novel virus. He also noted the federal relief programs don’t come with any strings attached, such as incentives for disease mitigation and/or biosecurity.

Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan’s Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization in Canada, said handing out subsidies to farms without trying to understand or investigate the practices they are using to quash the disease is a mistake.

“What are they doing on the farms to prevent reinfection?” she said.

The USDA payments were based on a per cow milk production losses over a four-week period. According to Farm Forward’s data, several farms received more than one subsidy. While roughly half received just one payment, 100 farms received two payments, 58 received three, 19 received four and two received six separate payments.

At one farm in Tulare County, four USDA payments were submitted once a month between November 2024 and February 2025. At another, payments stretched from December 2024 to May 2025.

Rasmussen said the multiple payments most likely stemmed depending on specific circumstances at the dairies involved.

Cockroft of the Channel Islands Dairy said he and other farmers have seen waves of reinfection and milk tests that remain positive for months on end. He said he knew of a farm that was in quarantine for nine months.

When herds are quarantined, animals are not allowed to be transferred on or off site. In California, a farm is under quarantine for 60 days after initial virus detection. It can’t move out of quarantine until tests show its milk is virus-free — for three weeks in a row.

Van Rein, the state agriculture spokesperson, said the average time under quarantine is 103 days. He said that of the 1,000 herds in California, 940 are not under quarantine; 715 of those had previously been infected and released from quarantine.

A quarantined farm can still sell milk, however, even if the milk tests positive. Pasteurization has been shown to kill the virus.

The relief payments are another sign of how the U.S. government supports the agricultural industry, which is considered by some to be vital to the national interest.

“We’ve decided politically that this is an industry that we want to support, that was hit by something that obviously wasn’t their fault, and we’re going to help them, because it was a disastrous thing that hit the industry,” said Daniel Sumner, an agricultural economist at UC Davis. “If we thought about these payments as we’re using our tax money to help somebody who’s in need, because their family is poor, that’s not the case.”

President Trump’s future presidential library has a growing list of corporate sponsors, and Democratic lawmakers are sounding alarms.

To settle Trump’s lawsuit over edits to a CBS “60 Minutes” broadcast, Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to help finance the future library and cover the president’s legal fees.

Walt Disney Co. earlier pledged $15 million to Trump’s library to resolve a defamation lawsuit over inaccurate statements about Trump by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos. And this spring, the nation of Qatar donated a $400-million Boeing 747-8 luxury jetliner for Trump’s use — a gift that ultimately will be registered to his library, whatever form it takes.

On Wednesday, a group of progressive lawmakers, led by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), introduced the Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act, a proposed measure that would require transparency and impose restrictions on donations to presidential libraries.

“This new bill will close the loopholes that allow presidential libraries to be used as a tool for corruption and bribery,” Warren told reporters on a Zoom call. “Slamming the door shut on apparent corruption at the highest levels of government is an important step forward and something everyone should get behind.”

For now, the lawmakers — including Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) and Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) — lack support from Republicans in Congress.

Still, the measure is needed, the lawmakers said, because there are no rules that specifically target solicitation of gifts or payments by individuals and companies to try to curry favor with the president.

The bill would create a cap on contributions, prohibit donations from lobbyists and foreign governments and delay fundraising until a president leaves office, with a carve-out for nonprofits.

Violators would risk criminal or civil penalties, which could equal as much as the value of the gift.

The measure also would prohibit the conversion of a donation to personal use, as some have feared will happen with the acceptance of the Qatar plane.

“What is Qatar getting in exchange? … Nobody knows,” Warren said. “All of this shady stuff is happening because there are essentially no rules for presidential library donations.”

Under the legislation, quarterly disclosures would be required.

“People have a right to know who is, in effect, gaining favor with a president in office through donations to a library,” Blumenthal said. “These kinds of requirements ought to apply to both Republican[s] and Democrat[s], because the donation can be problematic no matter which party the president may belong to.”

Critics blasted former President Clinton for pardoning late fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich after his wife donated $450,000 to Clinton’s library.

In addition to the CBS “60 Minutes” and ABC settlements, Facebook parent company Meta donated $22 million to Trump’s library. The payment was part of Meta’s $25-million settlement to a lawsuit brought after Facebook banned Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The Elon Musk-owned social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, donated $10 million.

Contributions to Trump’s inaugural celebrations this year that went beyond money spent are expected to be steered to the library as well as money raised from people who want to dine with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, Warren’s office said.

Warren and others previously raised the notion that Paramount’s settlement with Trump, in particular, could constitute a bribe. It has been widely believed that resolving the legal dispute with Trump was a prerequisite for getting the company’s pending $8-billion merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media cleared by the Federal Communications Commission.

An unnamed woman this week sued prominent British soccer agent Jonathan Barnett, accusing him of raping her and keeping her as a “sex slave.”

The woman alleged in a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles that Barnett coerced her into becoming his “sex slave” and used his company’s resources to aid in his control over her.

The woman, who was referred to in the lawsuit as “Jane Doe,” also sued Hollywood talent firm Creative Artists Agency and sports agency CAA Stellar, where Barnett served as executive chairman.

Barnett denied the allegations.

“The claims made in today’s complaint against me have no basis in reality and are untrue,” Barnett said in a statement. “We will vigorously defend this lawsuit through the appropriate legal process. I am looking forward to being entirely vindicated and exonerated.”

CAA said it first learned of the woman’s allegations through a press inquiry in 2024 and settlement demands from the woman’s attorney.

“While the complaint attempts to connect these allegations to CAA’s business, Ms. Doe has never been an employee, consultant, or contractor of CAA, ICM, or Stellar, nor has she ever had any business connection to CAA, ICM, or Stellar,” CAA said in its statement. “CAA takes any allegations of this nature seriously.”

Barnett exited Stellar in February 2024.

The woman, who currently resides in Australia, said Barnett had initially promised her employment at CAA Stellar and paid for her to move her children from Australia to the United Kingdom as part of the employment package, according to the lawsuit. But after she moved to the U.K., she alleged she was “trafficked, threatened, tortured, and held” in bondage in different locations throughout the world, including L.A., from 2017 to 2023, the lawsuit said.

The woman was introduced to Barnett by a friend in the mid-1990s and then reconnected with Barnett in 2017 after he sent her a message on LinkedIn, the lawsuit said. After the two met for lunch in London in 2017, Barnett offered her an employment package that included payment for moving expenses, sponsorship of her and her two children’s visas, school tuition for her children, housing and a starting salary of 4,000 pounds and a summer bonus, the lawsuit said.

After she moved to London, Barnett asked to meet the woman at a hotel room, where Barnett allegedly told her that he “owned” her and to call him “my Master,” the lawsuit said. Then he ordered her to remove her clothes and later struck her down and raped her, according to the lawsuit.

“Realizing she was powerless against a dangerous predator, Ms. Doe submitted to Barnett in order to avoid being severely beaten or even killed,” the lawsuit said.

The complaint alleged that Barnett referred to the woman as “slave” as well as other demeaning words like “dog” or “whore,” and demanded she send videos of herself doing degrading acts, including drinking her own urine, licking the toilet with her mouth, eating her own feces and whipping herself as “punishment.” The woman said Barnett punched, kicked, stomped on her fingers and whipped her, insisting she send him videos and photos of the wounds he inflicted to his company phone, the lawsuit said.

“To this day, Ms. Doe still has urinary tract infections, skin rashes, mouth ulcers, and bleeds from her vagina in an abnormal way as a result of Barnett’s horrific and barbaric torture and abuse,” the lawsuit said.

Barnett has been a leading figure in the sports representation business. In 2019, he ranked as No. 1 on Forbes’ most powerful sports agent list. A year later, the magazine named him the world’s top soccer agent, negotiating $1.42 billion in active contracts and transfer fees.

He negotiated deals for boxers — clients have included the former heavyweight champion Lennox Lewis — before launching Stellar Sports with co-founder David Manasseh in 1992. The two men represented cricket players and later signed prominent soccer athletes such as Glen Johnson and Peter Crouch.

Stellar eventually became the world’s largest soccer agency, with a roster of more than 800 athletes when it sold to talent agency ICM Partners in 2020. Now owned by CAA, the firm helped make CAA the most valuable sports agency on Forbes’ 2022 list.

Barnett had served as CAA Stellar’s executive chairman until last year.

The lawsuit alleged that CAA, which acquired ICM in June 2022 and other defendants “turned a blind eye” to emails and other communications on company-owned devices and company-monitored accounts where he referred to her as “slave” and told her to “get back to work.”

CAA Stellar’s accounting firm BSG Valentine had guaranteed the apartment leases where he kept the woman and a Stellar assistant assisted Barnett in dropping off payments to the woman, the lawsuit said. During the workday, Stellar drivers would bring Barnett to where the woman was staying and wait for him while he beat and raped her, the lawsuit alleged.

In 2020, Stellar was negotiating its sale to ICM Partners. In January, July and September of that year, Stellar wired payments to the woman worth 20,400 pounds, the lawsuit said.

After Stellar was acquired, the company posted on its website a modern slavery statement that said ICM Stellar Sports is committed “to ensure that modern slavery and human trafficking are not taking place anywhere within either our business,” the lawsuit said.

Reporting from Washington — President Obama and Hillary Clinton both expressed surprise Thursday that a $400-million cash payment to Iran early this year has suddenly become an issue in the presidential campaign.

After all, Obama had publicly disclosed the payment to Iran at a White House news conference in January called to announce implementation of the historic Iran nuclear deal.

At a news conference Thursday at the Pentagon, Obama did little to hide his bemusement at having to answer questions about the payment.

“There wasn’t a secret,” he said. “We announced [it] to all of you.”

He described the money as the return of Iranian funds from a dispute dating back to the 1970s.

The administration could not send the money in dollars or send a wire transfer of funds because of U.S. sanctions, Obama said, so the money was delivered in other currencies

“We couldn’t send them a check,” he said.

The president flatly rejected allegations that the $400 million was a ransom for four Americans who were released from Iranian custody at about the same time.

The idea that the U.S. would have paid ransom “defies logic,” Obama said, and would have betrayed the families of other Americans held unjustly around the world — many of whom he has met with personally.

He took the opportunity to defend the landmark nuclear accord that the U.S.-led international coalition reached with Iran more than a year ago. The agreement has “worked exactly the way we said it was going to work,” he said.

The impetus for renewed questions about a publicly announced settlement was a Wall Street Journal account of the transaction, which revealed that the $400 million was “converted into other currencies, stacked onto the wooden pallets and delivered to Iran on an unmarked cargo plane,” as the paper described it.

The existence of the deal itself was indeed disclosed and reported in real time, covered by the Los Angeles Times and others.

But what’s old can still be news, especially given the pace of the modern news cycle. Put it in the midst of a presidential campaign and all bets are off.

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has questioned the payment for two days.

“I woke up yesterday and I saw $400 million dollars, different currencies, they probably don’t want our currency,” Trump said Thursday in Portland, Maine. “Four hundred million dollars being flown to Iran. I mean, folks what’s going on here? What is going on?”

Trump again cited a video that he said shows an “airplane coming in and the money coming off.”

“That was given to us has to be by the Iranians,” he said. “You know why the tape was given to us? Because they want to embarrass our country. They want to embarrass our country. And they want to embarrass our president.”

But his campaign has acknowledged to CBS News that the video, in fact, shows Americans landing in Geneva, Switzerland, and wasn’t provided by Iran.

Stephen Miller, a senior policy advisor to Trump’s campaign, still insisted that “nothing less than a full investigation is required.”

“This administration has embarrassed our country as no administration has before, going so far as to fund Islamic terror through cash payments to Iran,” he said in a statement.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) raised concerns that the report confirmed suspicions that the money was paid as ransom for the release of several U.S. citizens, including journalist Jason Rezaian, held by Iran.

Iran said it was owed the money from an unfulfilled contract for U.S. fighter jets that the previous, U.S.-backed government had paid to the Pentagon. The aircraft were never delivered after the shah of Iran was deposed in the 1979 revolution.

Ryan said if it were a ransom payment, it would “mark another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people” to sell the international agreement with Iran to limit its nuclear development program.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest denied that the money was paid as ransom.

“The United States does not pay ransoms,” he said. “The only people who are making that suggestion are right-wingers in Iran who don’t like the deal, and Republicans in the United States that don’t like the deal.”

Clinton, who stepped down as secretary of State several years before the payment was made, bluntly described it as “old news” in an interview with a Colorado television station.

“So far as I know, it had nothing to do with any kind of hostage swap or any other tit for tat,” she said.

Republicans were only reviving the issue “because they want to continue to criticize the [nuclear] agreement, and I think they are wrong about that.”

“I have said the agreement has made the world safer, but it has to be enforced. And I’ve spoken out very strongly about how I will enforce this agreement,” she added. “I will hold the Iranians to account for even the smallest violation, and that’s exactly what I think needs to happen.”

[email protected]

For more White House coverage, follow @mikememoli on Twitter.

ALSO

Trump’s latest flare-up stirs an already sizzling Northern California congressional race

How deferments protected Donald Trump from serving in Vietnam

Napster co-founder Sean Parker once vowed to shake up Washington — so how’s that working out?

UPDATES:

3:40 p.m.: This story was updated with comments by President Obama and Donald Trump.

The first version of this post was published at 11 a.m.

Reform UK has said it will fully reinstate winter fuel payments to pensioners and scrap the two-child benefit cap, if the party gets into government.

The commitments – to be unveiled at a press conference next week – come after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced pressure from Labour MPs to change his approach to both policies.

By the time of the next general election there may be no need to reverse either policy.

Sir Keir has already announced plans to ease cuts to winter fuel payments – without saying when or how.

And ministers say he has privately indicated he would like if possible to find a way to scrap the two-child benefit cap – although a formal decision may be many months away.

The intervention by Nigel Farage – first reported in the Sunday Telegraph – will highlight and magnify the increasingly awkward divisions over policy within Labour.

Reform UK said they would pay for their new polices by cutting net zero projects and scrapping hotels for asylum seekers.

A source told the paper it was “already outflanking Labour” on both issues.

Downing Street has been contacted for comment.

More than 10 million pensioners lost out on winter fuel payments, worth up to £300, when the pension top-up became restricted to only people receiving pension credit last year.

But Sir Keir has announced plans to ease the cuts in a U-turn following mounting political pressure in recent weeks.

The prime minster said the policy would be changed at the autumn Budget, adding ministers would only “make decisions we can afford”. He did not lay out exactly what this would entail.

The winter fuel payment is a lump sum of £200 a year for households with a pensioner under 80, or £300 for households with a pensioner over 80.

On the two-child benefit cap, the Observer reported Sir Keir had privately backed plans to scrap it.

The paper’s report that the PM was asking the Treasury to find ways to pay for it came alongside growing unrest and threats of rebellion among backbench Labour MPs.

The policy – which prevents most families from claiming means-tested benefits for any third or additional children born after April 2017 – was introduced in 2017 by the then-Conservative government and is estimated to affect 1.5 million families.

But the government’s child poverty strategy, which had been due for publication in the spring, has been delayed as it is still being worked on and measures including scrapping the cap are being considered.

Labour MPs have long been calling for it to be axed, with seven of them suspended from the parliamentary party for voting against the government on an amendment to do so.

Four were readmitted in February but the remainder continue to sit as independent MPs.

Pressure to remove the limit has remained on the government from senior Labour figures, including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said it was “condemning children to poverty”.

NEW YORK — Christine Farro has cut back on the presents she sends her grandchildren on their birthdays, and she’s put off taking two cats and a dog for their shots. All her clothes come from thrift stores and most of her vegetables come from her garden. At 73, she has cut her costs as much as she can to live on a tight budget.

But it’s about to get far tighter.

As the Trump administration resumes collections on defaulted student loans, a surprising population has been caught in the crosshairs: hundreds of thousands of older Americans whose decades-old debts now put them at risk of having their Social Security checks garnished.

“I worked ridiculous hours. I worked weekends and nights. But I could never pay it off,” says Farro, a retired child welfare worker in Santa Ynez, Calif.

Like millions of debtors with federal student loans, Farro had her payments and interest paused by the government five years ago when the pandemic thrust many into financial hardship. That grace period ended in 2023 and, earlier this month, the Department of Education said it would restart “involuntary collections” by garnishing paychecks, tax refunds and Social Security retirement and disability benefits. Farro previously had her Social Security garnished and expects it to restart.

Farro’s loans date back 40 years. She was a single mother when she got a bachelor’s degree in developmental psychology and when she discovered she couldn’t earn enough to pay off her loans, she went back to school and got a master’s degree. Her salary never caught up. Things only got worse.

Around 2008, when she consolidated her loans, she was paying $1,000 a month, but years of missed payments and piled-on interest meant she was barely putting a dent in a bill that had ballooned to $250,000. When she sought help to resolve her debt, she says the loan company had just one suggestion.

“They said, ‘Move to a cheaper state,’” says Farro, who rents a 400-square-foot casita from a friend. “I realized I was living in a different reality than they were.”

Student loan debt among older people has grown at a staggering rate, in part due to rising tuitions that have forced more people to borrow greater sums. People 60 and older hold an estimated $125 billion in student loans, according to the National Consumer Law Center, a six-fold increase from 20 years ago.

That has led Social Security beneficiaries who have had their payments garnished to balloon by 3,000% — from approximately 6,200 beneficiaries to 192,300 — between 2001 and 2019, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This year, an estimated 452,000 people aged 62 and older had student loans in default and are likely to experience the Department of Education’s renewed forced collections, according to the January report from CFPB.

Debbie McIntyre, a 62-year-old adult education teacher in Georgetown, Ky., is among them. She dreams of retiring and writing more historical fiction, and of boarding a plane for the first time since high school. But her husband has been out of work on disability for two decades and they’ve used credit cards to get by on his meager benefits and her paycheck. Their rent will be hiked $300 when their lease renews. McIntyre doesn’t know what to do if her paycheck is garnished.

She floats the idea of bankruptcy, but that won’t automatically clear her loans, which are held to a different standard than other debt. She figures if she picks up extra jobs babysitting or tutoring, she could put $50 toward her loans here and there. But she sees no real solution.

“I don’t know what more I can do,” says McIntyre, who is too afraid to check what her loan balance is. “I’ll never get out of this hole.”

Braxton Brewington of the Debt Collective debtors union says it’s striking how many older people dial into the organization’s calls and attend its protests. Many of them, he says, should have had their debts canceled but fell victim to a system “riddled with flaws and illegalities and flukes.” Many whose educations have left them in late-life debt have, in fact, paid back the principal on their loans, sometimes several times over, but still owe more due to interest and fees.

For those who are subject to garnishment, Brewington says, the results can be devastating.

“We hear from people who skip meals. We know people who dilute their medication or cut their pills in half. People take drastic measures like pulling all their savings out or dissolving their 401ks,” he says. “We know folks that have been driven into homelessness.”

Collections on defaulted loans may have restarted no matter who was president, though the Biden administration had sought to limit the amount of income that could be garnished. Federal law protects just $750 of Social Security benefits from garnishment, an amount that would put a debtor far below the poverty line.

“We’re basically providing people with federal benefits with one hand and taking them away with another,” says Sarah Sattelmeyer of the New America think tank.

Linda Hilton, a 76-year-old retired office worker from Apache Junction, Ariz., went through garnishment before COVID and says she will survive it again. But flights to see her children, occasional meals at a restaurant and other pleasures of retired life may disappear.

“It’s going to mean restrictions,” says Hilton. “There won’t be any travel. There won’t be any frills.”

Some debtors have already received notice about collections. Many more are living in fear. President Trump has signed an executive order calling for the Department of Education’s dismantling and, for those seeking answers about their loans, mass layoffs have complicated getting calls answered.

While Education Secretary Linda McMahon says restarting collections is a necessary step for debtors “both for the sake of their own financial health and our nation’s economic outlook,” even some of Trump’s most fervent supporters are questioning a move that will make their lives harder.

Randall Countryman, 55, of Bonita, Calif., says a Biden administration proposal to forgive some student debt didn’t strike him as fair, but he’s not sure Trump’s approach is either. He supported Trump but wishes the government made case-by-case decisions on debtors. Countryman thinks Americans don’t realize how many older people are affected by policies on student loans, often thought to be the turf of the young, and how difficult it can be for them to repay.

“What’s a young person’s problem today,” he says, “is an old person’s problem tomorrow.”

Countryman started working on a degree while in prison, then continued it at the University of Phoenix when he was released. He started growing nervous as he racked up loan debt and never finished his degree. He’s worked a host of different jobs, but finding work has often been complicated by his criminal record.

He lives off his wife’s Social Security check and the kindness of his mother-in-law. He doesn’t know how they’d get by if the government demands repayment.

“I kind of wish I never went to school in the first place,” he says.

Sedensky writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has agreed to pay a $329,794 fine to settle an ethics board’s complaint that he misspent public funds on his security detail during his brief, failed run for U.S. president.

The deal, announced Wednesday by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board, is the costliest repayment order in the ethics board’s history. But it allows de Blasio to avoid an even steeper penalty of $475,000 that was previously imposed, a reduction the board said came in light of the former mayor’s “financial situation.”

In exchange, de Blasio agreed to drop his appeal of the board’s finding. And for the first time, he admitted that he received written warning that his out-of-state security expenses could not legally be covered by city taxpayers.

“In contradiction of the written guidance I received from the Board, I did not reimburse the City for these expenses,” de Blasio wrote in the settlement, adding: “I made a mistake and I deeply regret it.”

The payments concern the $319,794.20 in travel-related expenses — including airfare, lodging, meals — that de Blasio’s security detail incurred while accompanying him on trips across the country during his presidential campaign in 2019. He will also pay a $10,000 fine.

The campaign elicited a mix of mockery and grousing by city residents, who accused the Democrat of abandoning his duties as second-term mayor for the national spotlight. It was suspended within four months.

Under the agreement, de Blasio must pay $100,000 immediately, followed by quarterly installments of nearly $15,000 for the next four years. If he misses a payment, he will be deemed in default and ordered to pay the full $475,000.

The funds will eventually make their way back into the city treasury, according to a spokesperson for the Conflicts of Interest Board.

An attorney for de Blasio, Andrew G. Celli Jr., declined to comment on the settlement.

De Blasio had previously argued that forcing him to cover the cost of his security detail’s travel violated his 1st Amendment rights by creating an “unequal burden” between wealthy candidates and career public servants.

Since leaving office in 2021, de Blasio has worked as a lecturer at multiple universities, most recently the University of Michigan, and delivered paid speeches in Italy.

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.