taxpayer

WASHINGTON — The entire White House East Wing has been demolished as President Trump moves forward with a ballroom construction, Associated Press photos on Thursday showed.

The East Wing, where first ladies created history, planned state dinners and promoted causes, is now history itself. The two-story structure of drawing rooms and offices, including workspace for first ladies and their staffs, has been turned into rubble, demolished as part of the Republican president’s plan to build what he said is now a $300-million ballroom nearly twice the size of the White House.

Trump said Wednesday that keeping the East Wing would have “hurt a very, very expensive, beautiful building” that he said presidents have wanted for years.

He said “me and some friends of mine” will pay for the ballroom at no cost to taxpayers.

Trump allowed the demolition to begin this week despite not yet having approval from the relevant government agencies with jurisdiction over construction on federal property.

Preservationists have also urged the Trump administration to halt the demolition until plans for the 90,000-square-foot ballroom can go through the required public review process.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Los Angeles County is poised to pay out an additional $828 million to victims who say they were sexually abused in county facilities as children, months after agreeing to the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

The award, posted on the county claims board agenda Friday, would resolve an additional 414 cases that were not included in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement approved this spring. Both the supervisors and the county claims board will need to vote on the payout before it is finalized.

The record $4-billion settlement covered more than 11,000 people, who say they were abused inside county-run juvenile facilities and foster homes as children. The individual payouts will range from $100,000 to $3 million.

The newest payout would break down to an average of roughly $2 million per person. It involves cases from three prominent law firms: Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, and Panish Shea Ravipudi.

The firms declined to comment on the potential settlement until the vote by the Board of Supervisors.

The announcement follows reporting by The Times that found nine plaintiffs who say they were paid by recruiters to sue the county over sex abuse. Four of them have said they were explicitly told to make up claims. All had lawsuits filed by Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA.

The firm has denied any involvement with recruiters who allegedly paid plaintiffs to sue. DTLA said previously it would never “encourage or tolerate anyone lying about being abused” and is conducting new screenings to remove “false or exaggerated claims” from its caseload.

The county said any claims brought by DTLA will undergo an additional level of review before payments are made, citing reporting by The Times. The extra screening “may require plaintiff interviews and additional proof of allegations,” the county said.

DTLA did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The exterior of Downtown LA Law Group’s offices in Los Angeles.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who recently launched an investigation into the $4-billion settlement following The Times’ reporting, said the vetting will ensure “money goes only to the true victims of abuse.”

“Our settlements balance our obligation to compensate victims and treat their experiences with compassion with the need to put strong protections in place to protect taxpayers from fraud,” she said.

County Counsel Dawyn Harrison says she wants to see the law changed so “unscrupulous lawyers don’t get windfalls at the expense of survivors of abuse.”

“The conduct alleged to have occurred by the DTLA firm is absolutely outrageous and must be investigated by the appropriate authorities,” said Harrison. “Not only does it undermine our justice system, it also deprives legitimate claimants of just compensation.”

All cases will be reviewed by retired judges before the money is allocated, the county said.

If a judge believes a claim is fraudulent, the plaintiff will not get any money, the county said Friday. The county’s original plan stated that if the county found a fraudulent claim, the plaintiff could be offered $50,000 to resolve it or remove the case from the settlement so that it could be litigated separately.

The flood of claims was unleashed with the passage of Assembly Bill 218 in 2020, which changed the statute of limitations and gave survivors a new window to sue their abusers. Since then, school districts and governments have faced many decades-old claims, for which they say there are no longer records kept on file to allow for vetting.

Dominique Anderson, pictured above around age 11, is among the plaintiffs who sued the county for alleged sexual abuse and would stand to receive payouts as part of a new settlement announced Friday.

(Courtesy of Dominique Anderson)

County supervisors have been increasingly critical of the law, which they argue has left them defenseless against claims dating back to the 1950s. If the supervisors approve the new settlement, the county will have paid out nearly $5 billion in child sex abuse lawsuits this year — with more to come.

The county is still facing an additional 2,500 cases, which they say will further strain the region’s social safety net. The county recently required most departments trim their budgets to pay for the $4-billion settlement.

“L.A. County and other local governments must balance their obligations to past victims with the need to avoid ruinous financial impacts,” said acting Chief Executive Joe Nicchitta.

GERRY Adams will be blocked from claiming taxpayer-funded compensation under changes to the law today.

The former Sinn Féin leader was on track to receive a government payout for his detention in the 1970s.

1

But a new Troubles Bill will now ban him and around 400 other largely republican former-detainees from receiving public cash.

It comes after an unexpected Supreme Court ruling in 2020 on historical detentions in Northern Ireland risked forcing ministers to splurge vast sums of money on individuals who claimed they were wrongfully detained during the Troubles.

The landmark case, brought by Adams, found his initial detention under an Interim Custody Order (ICO) was unlawful because a junior minister signed the order, not the Secretary of State.

This pivotal decision opened the floodgates for thousands of compensation claims for imprisonment and quashed convictions.
Later, Mr. Adams won a court battle in 2023 that ruled he was wrongly denied compensation after his convictions for trying to escape jail in the 1970s were quashed.

Today, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn will introduce new legislation to Parliament to clarify that the relevant law always permitted junior ministers to sign the ICOs and, therefore, ensure no compensation will be paid.

A government source told The Sun: “The last government completely failed to successfully address this issue.

“Today we are making it clear in the law that detentions were legitimate and lawful.

“A result of this will be that those previously eligible will not get a single penny of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday that President Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles amounted to costly political theater, saddling taxpayers with a nearly $120-million bill.

Newsom’s office said the newly revealed price tag was tallied from estimates provided by the California National Guard about costs incurred since June, when Trump sent more than 4,200 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. That included $71 million for food and other basic necessities, $37 million in payroll, $4 million in logistic supplies, $3.5 million in travel and $1.5 million in demobilization costs, Newsom’s office said.

Most of the soldiers were sent home in August, although 300 remain in Los Angeles.

On Tuesday, a federal judge in San Francisco barred soldiers from aiding immigration arrests in a scathing opinion that amounted to a major win for California and other states critical of the Trump administration’s deployments. Newsom filed a preliminary injunction after the ruling asking that the court block a new order from the U.S. Secretary of Defense that extended the deployment of 300 National Guard members in Los Angeles until after the election in November.

“Let us not forget what this political theater is costing us all — millions of taxpayer dollars down the drain and an atrophy to the readiness of guardsmembers across the nation and unnecessary hardships to the families supporting those troops,” Newsom said in a statement. “Talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. We ask other states to do the math themselves.”

In Washington, D.C., where Trump has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital, city leaders filed a lawsuit earlier this week. That lawsuit said more than 2,200 National Guard troops are in Washington D.C., where they are seen dressed in military fatigues and carrying rifles around national monuments. Soldiers are seen picking up trash, laying down mulch and chatting aimlessly as they patrol.

Trump has warned that he intends to expand his use of military forces in other cities.

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.”

WASHINGTON,, July 16 (UPI) — A fiery House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday exposed deep partisan divisions over the role of non-governmental organizations in aiding migrants.

Republicans accused faith-based and humanitarian groups of enabling illegal immigration, while Democrats sharply criticized holding the session as a political stunt that targeted religious freedom.

The hearing marked an escalation in the Republican-led effort to scrutinize the role of non-governmental organizations in federal immigration policy.

GOP lawmakers argued that groups receiving taxpayer dollars are contributing to what they called a historic border crisis by providing services to undocumented migrants who are not being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Conversely, Democrats vehemently argued that the purpose of the hearing was a politically motivated attempt to discredit humanitarian organizations.

Led by Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., the hearing centered on claims that the former Biden administration created the “worst border crisis in history,” and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with other organizations supported by tax dollars, are paying for hotels for immigrants’ stays instead of utilizing detention centers.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sternly pushed back, accusing the majority of vilifying groups that serve vulnerable populations and abusing congressional power to intimidate those driven by missions to assist immigrants. He also criticized the majority’s witnesses, whom he said represented only one side of the issue.

“Today’s hearing are shameful abuses of congressional power to bully people for how they choose to exercise their religion and help their own name, ” said Thompson, who entered into the record a letter from more than 600 nonprofits opposed to the hearing.

In addition, a staffer showed a chart showing the committee’s Republicans who have voted in favor of NGO funding, including Reps. Clay Higgins, R-La., Michael McCaul, R-Texas, August Pfluger, R-Texas and the committee chairman, Mark Green, R-Tenn.

Thompson criticized Green for not being present at his final full committee hearing. He announced his retirement announcement in June, effective Sunday.

To support their arguments, Republicans invited three witnesses critical of the Biden administration’s immigration approach and the role of non-governmental organizations. Their testimony, at times emotional and combative, prompted sharp responses from Democrats on the panel.

Mike Howell, president of The Oversight Project at the Heritage Foundation, opened with an ardent statement related to violence against ICE officers.

The Oversight Project “works to expose and root out corruption in government, among elected officials, and in our most influential organizations to ensure power resides with the American people,” according to the Heritage Foundation’s website.

“The violence is getting out of control, and it is fueled by demagoguery of politicians, whether it is one of your members telling Axios that there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the public,” Howell said. “Another saying stability is important to prepare for violence, or even a member of this committee being arrested for forcibly impeding or interfering with federal officials.”

Thompson said he interpreted Howell’s statement to be outside of the scope of the hearing, and the issue was put to a vote. The committee decided 9-8 in favor of Howell’s continued testimony.

The other two witnesses were Ali Hopper, founder and president of GUARD Against Trafficking, an organization whose mission is to combat human trafficking, and Julio Rosas, a national correspondent for Blaze Media, a U.S. conservative media company.

Hopper focused on the harms to children within the immigration system and questioned the accountability of nonprofit organizations, while Rosas echoed Republican concerns, arguing that while NGOs aim to help, they may unintentionally worsen situations.

The hearing took an unexpected turn late in the session when Thompson criticized Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for her recent online presence, referencing her controversial personal posts and past statements. He drew a sharp comparison between Noem’s actions and the deportation of vulnerable migrants, including a child with cancer.

Thompson, in a motion, wanted to subpoena Noem given the committee’s broader oversight efforts. Republicans quickly moved to table the motion in a non-debatable vote, which passed by a narrow margin.

Summing up the session, Guest said, “I am offended when people from the other side say we’re not being Christian. we’re not saying that all nonprofits are bad. Many of us support and give money and volunteer.”

“But, this hearing today is focused on those nonprofits which were government funded, which were used by the Biden-Harris administration to continue to move people across the border against the will of the public and without the authorization of Congress.”

The movie “The Big Short” — dramatizing the reckless behavior in the banking and mortgage industries that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis — captures much of Wall Street’s misconduct but overlooks a central player in the collapse: the federal government, specifically through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These two government-created and government-sponsored enterprises encouraged lenders to issue risky home loans by effectively making taxpayers co-sign the mortgages. This setup incentivized dangerous lending practices that inflated the housing bubble, eventually leading to catastrophic economic consequences.

Another critical but overlooked factor in the collapse was the Community Reinvestment Act. This federal law was intended to combat discriminatory lending practices but instead created substantial market distortions by pressuring banks to extend loans to borrowers who might otherwise have been deemed too risky. Under threat of regulatory penalties, banks significantly loosened lending standards — again, inflating the housing bubble.

After the bubble inevitably burst, Fannie and Freddie were placed under conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The conservatorship imposed rules aimed at preventing future taxpayer-funded bailouts and protecting the economy from government-fueled market distortions.

Now, President Trump’s appointee to lead that agency, Bill Pulte, is considering ending this conservatorship without addressing the core structural flaw that fueled the problem in the first place: implicit government guarantees backing all Fannie and Freddie mortgages. If Pulte proceeds without implementing real reform, taxpayers on Main Street are once again likely to be exposed to significant financial risks as they are conscripted into subsidizing lucrative deals for Wall Street.

Without genuine reform, the incentives and practices that led to the crisis remain unchanged, setting the stage for a repeat disaster.

Pulte’s proposal isn’t likely to unleash free-market policies. Instead, it could further rig the market in favor of hedge funds holding substantial stakes in Fannie and Freddie, allowing them to profit enormously from the potential upside, while leaving taxpayers to bear all the downside risks.

A meaningful solution requires Fannie and Freddie to significantly strengthen their capital reserves. The two government-sponsored enterprises still remain dangerously undercapitalized. A report from JP Morgan Chase describes it this way: “Despite steady growth in [their net worth], the GSEs remain well below the minimum regulatory capital framework requirements set by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2020.” Imposing robust capital requirements similar to those that govern private banks would oblige the two enterprises to internalize their risks, promoting genuine market discipline and accountability.

Further reforms should address transparency and oversight. Enhanced disclosure standards would allow investors, regulators and the public to better assess risks. Additionally, limiting the types of mortgages these entities can guarantee could reduce exposure to the riskiest loans, further protecting taxpayers. Implementing clear rules that prevent Fannie and Freddie from venturing into speculative financial products would also mitigate potential market distortions.

Critically, the federal government must clearly communicate that future bailouts are not an option. Explicitly removing government guarantees would compel Fannie and Freddie to operate responsibly, knowing that reckless behavior will lead to their insolvency, not to another taxpayer rescue. Clear legal separation from government backing is essential to prevent moral hazard.

The combination of government guarantees, regulatory pressure from policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act and inadequate capital standards created the perfect storm for the 2008 financial crisis. Ignoring these lessons and repeating past mistakes would inevitably lead to a similar disaster.

Proponents of prematurely releasing Fannie and Freddie argue that market conditions have changed and risk management has improved. Yet, history repeatedly demonstrates that without structural changes, financial entities — particularly those shielded by government guarantees — inevitably revert to risky behavior when market pressures and profit incentives align. Markets function best when participants bear the full consequences of their decisions, something impossible under the current structure of these government-sponsored enterprises.

Ultimately, the only responsible approach is removing taxpayers from the equation entirely. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should participate in the mortgage market only as fully private entities, without any implicit government guarantees.

The American public doesn’t need a sequel to “The Big Short.” The painful lessons of the 2008 crisis are too recent and too severe to be ignored or forgotten. Market discipline, fiscal responsibility and genuine reform — not government-backed risk-taking — must guide our approach going forward. We can only hope that the Trump administration chooses fiscal responsibility over risky experiments that history has already shown end in disaster.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.