
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
New Orleans Mayor Helena Moreno credited first responders, who she said "literally jumped right in to help," with saving victims' lives.
A large asphalt tanker struck a river cruise boat in New Orleans on Friday afternoon, causing the paddleboat carrying more than 120 passengers and crew to capsize and partially submerge in the Mississippi River.
Thirty-two people were injured and taken to local hospitals after the 520-foot asphalt and bitumen tanker Atlantic Asphalt lost control and perpendicularly struck the American Heritage, a docked paddlewheel riverboat operated by American Cruise Lines, at approximately 12:30 pm local time, according to Nola.com.
The cruise vessel was in the process of disembarking passengers when it was hit. Video posted on social media showed passengers swimming away from the listing boat.
One witness, Jamie Holford, told WDSU that the American Heritage took approximately 15 minutes to overturn after the initial impact.
Holford described the scene as "surreal."
New Orleans Mayor Helena Moreno, a Democrat, said the tanker had apparently lost control before striking the riverboat, sending passengers and crew members into the Mississippi River.
"At this moment, the information that we have, we have zero people unaccounted for, which truly is a miracle on the Mississippi," Moreno said at a news conference. She credited local, state, and federal emergency personnel who "literally jumped right in to help."
The injuries suffered by the 32 passengers were described by officials as noncritical. Two New Orleans Harbor Police officers were also hospitalized after helping with rescue efforts.
The US Coast Guard temporarily closed a three-mile stretch of the Mississippi River to commercial and recreational vessel traffic while emergency crews conducted rescue operations and assessed the damage.
The National Transportation Safety Board said it would dispatch an investigative team to New Orleans on Saturday to determine the circumstances surrounding the crash.
The incident raised questions about maritime safety along one of the nation's busiest commercial waterways.
Maritime law expert Martin Davies of Tulane University told WVUE that the tanker could have caused an even greater catastrophe had it struck the nearby Crescent City Connection bridge, which carries an estimated 160,000 vehicles daily.
In March 2024, the Maersk-chartered Dali, a Singapore-flagged container ship with a history of problems, lost power and steering before crashing into a support pier of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, triggering a catastrophic collapse. Six highway maintenance workers were killed and a seventh was seriously injured.
“New Yorkers’ personal data should never be used as a weapon against their own pocketbooks,” said Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
The New York City Council on Thursday approved landmark legislation banning businesses from using consumers’ personal data and algorithms to charge different people different prices for the same goods and services, an increasingly common—and controversial—corporate practice known as surveillance pricing.
In a 44-5 vote, city lawmakers passed Introduction 891-A, sponsored by Council Speaker Julie Menin, which prohibits businesses from using personal data—including browsing histories, shopping habits, demographics, location information, and other identifying characteristics—to determine individualized prices for consumers.
The legislation gives the city's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) authority to investigate complaints and impose civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. Qualifying small businesses would have an opportunity to correct their violations before facing penalties.
“The City Council is putting consumers first by ending the deceptive and insidious practice of surveillance pricing,” said Menin, a Democrat. “When corporations use algorithms and personal data to charge different people different prices for the same products, it’s unethical and worsens our affordability crisis."
"We take consumer protection extremely seriously, and we will continue fighting to lower prices and stop predatory corporate tactics," she added.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamadani, also a Democrat, supports the measure, and called surveillance pricing a way for corporations to "squeeze working people."
“New Yorkers’ personal data should never be used as a weapon against their own pocketbooks,” he said. “Our administration will continue working with the Council to protect workers, tenants, and consumers, and put an end to the scam economy.”
Mamdani has 30 days to sign the bill. If he does not, it automatically becomes law unless he vetoes it, a highly unlikely move that city council members could override with a two-thirds majority.
As the City Council explained:
Surveillance pricing is invisible to consumers, making it difficult to identify, but reports suggest the practice is occurring in a variety of industries. One investigation found that a major grocery delivery platform was engaging in algorithmic pricing experiments that resulted in individualized price differences as high as 23%. Another investigation found that the price of a television at one retailer increased from $499.99 to $599.99 when the consumer pulled into the store’s parking lot. A behavioral economist who worked for a major ride-share company revealed that the application increases prices when a consumer’s phone battery is low because they might not otherwise be able to get home if they do not accept the high offer. The Council aims to end these predatory practices and protect New York consumers with this landmark ban.
"Fair pricing visible for all to see. Today, New York City has upheld this basic principle, passing the country’s strongest municipal protections against surveillance pricing," DCWP Commissioner Samuel A. A. Levine said in a statement.
"At a moment when working families are struggling with the cost of living," he continued, "New Yorkers should not have to contend with an ever more fickle economy, in which the price of groceries, household goods, and everyday essentials depends on how much an algorithm thinks it can squeeze from their wallets."
"Surveillance pricing weaponizes our personal data against us—tracking our behavior, characteristics, location, schedules, and purchasing history to predict the most we are willing to pay, then charging accordingly," Levine said. "It’s wrong, it’s loathed by consumers, and now it’s illegal."
"In New York City, algorithms do not have the final say," he added. "People do."
New York City follows Seattle—which in September became the first US city to ban surveillance pricing—as well the states of Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey in outlawing the practice.
When I sponsored legislation making Seattle the first city in the country to ban surveillance pricing, I knew we wouldn’t be the last. Now, we’re taking on unfair pricing coast to coast. Congrats, New York.Portland City Council, your move.
— AMR - Alexis Mercedes Rinck (@alexis4seattle.bsky.social) November 12, 2026 at 9:23 PM
Consumer advocates hailed Thursday's vote, with Consumer Reports senior policy analyst Grace Gedye saying that “living in New York is already expensive enough. The last thing New Yorkers need is algorithms quietly hiking prices on everyday essentials."
"Nobody should pay more just because a data broker is tracking what they search for, what they hover over, or where they live,” she added. “The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are."
Lindsay Owens, the president and CEO of the economic justice group Groundwork Collaborative, asserted that “New Yorkers didn’t sign up to be spied on and have their own data turned against them just to pad corporations’ pockets."
"Today, the New York City Council has drawn a clear line in the sand that New Yorkers deserve a fair price, not one set by an algorithm designed to extract every last penny they’re willing to pay," she continued.
"But while the Council has moved to protect shoppers in the city, families across the Empire State, from Westchester to Buffalo to Albany, are still waiting on Governor [Kathy] Hochul to do the same," Owens added. "All New Yorkers deserve a fair price, no matter their ZIP code. Gov. Hochul can’t wait another day to sign the One Fair Price Act.”
“Living in New York is already expensive enough. The last thing New Yorkers need is algorithms quietly hiking prices on everyday essentials."
New York state lawmakers passed that bill in June. Championed by Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, the legislation would prohibit companies from using consumers' personal data—including browsing histories, income, and other identifying information—to set individualized prices for goods and services. It also prohibits collecting, retaining, selling, or sharing personal data to facilitate surveillance pricing.
Not everyone welcomed New York City's surveillance pricing ban. Uber spokesperson Josh Gold argued that "this law will make it harder for small restaurants with limited marketing budgets to reach customers, putting them at a disadvantage against national chains."
The surveillance pricing victory comes amid a broader campaign to restrict corporate snooping on New Yorkers, including the increasingly widespread use of facial recognition and other biometric identification technologies in retail businesses.
A separate City Council measure sponsored by Brooklyn Councilmember Shahana Hanif, a Democrat, would prohibit businesses and other public accommodations from using biometric recognition technology to identify or verify customers. It would also require notification and written consent for biometric data collection and establish protections governing the handling of that information.
The legislation would restrict Madison Square Garden’s controversial use of facial recognition technology. MSG owner James Dolan has notoriously used facial recognition to blacklist people he dislikes, including hundreds of attorneys whose law firms have sued his companies; in one particularly publicized case, a mother was denied entry to Radio City Music Hall while accompanying her daughter’s Girl Scout troop because she worked for a firm litigating against MSG.
Hanif has warned that biometric surveillance poses particular dangers to immigrant communities, whose identifying information could potentially reach federal immigration authorities amid the Trump administration's deadly crackdown.
"This bill protects everybody," Hanif said when introducing her bill, "but we know who experiences disproportionate surveillance, and our immigrant community is among them."
"No other industry is allowed to treat its own development of unsafe products—much less ones that could kill us all—as inevitable."
A coalition of advocacy groups on Thursday filed a landmark lawsuit aimed at stopping further development of artificial intelligence technology until guardrails are put in place.
The lawsuit—filed in the San Francisco Superior Court by Irreplaceable Education Fund, Public Citizen, Heat Initiative, and The Alliance for Secure AI—cites recent "loss of control" incidents, in which AI agents acted without human intervention, to argue for a freeze on AI development.
The complaint also cites statements made by multiple executives and current or former employees at frontier AI labs, in which they outlined "catastrophic risks to the public, including by enabling AI-driven cyberattacks and bioweapons" and even "the deaths of literally every human being on the planet."
Making matters worse, the complaint continues, the AI labs "have no realistic plan to prevent the continued harm caused by their technology" since "their frontier AI systems are black boxes that [they] do not fully understand."
The lawsuit also points to multiple employees of AI labs who have resigned to protest the lack of safety protocols being built into their models, such as former OpenAI safety official David Robinson, who last month warned of that the risks from the technology are "much larger, for example, than a single nuclear power station melting down."
"This is, to use a non-technical term, insane," the complaint emphasizes. "It is also blatantly illegal. No other industry is allowed to treat its own development of unsafe products—much less ones that could kill us all—as inevitable. Nor is any industry granted the right to self-regulate the development of such dangerous products."
The complaint asks the court to stop Anthropic, Google, Meta, OpenAI, and SpaceXSI from developing and releasing new AI models.
Phil Aroneanu, founder and executive director of Irreplaceable Education Fund, warned of risks to democratic governance if Big Tech is allowed to barrel ahead with unchecked AI development.
"Most Americans feel like they’ve lost control over their lives and livelihoods and are demanding accountability," said Aroneanu. "We must freeze frontier AI development until the technology is under control and the American people have a say and a stake in its future, instead of leaving it to a handful of billionaire Big Tech CEOs."
Brooke Istook, CEO of Heat Initiative, pointed to the damaging impact the tech industry has had on children as further reason to halt AI development.
"Children have already paid the price for Big Tech prioritizing profit over safety," said Istook. "We’ve watched chatbots push kids toward suicide and AI tools turn their ordinary photos into AI-generated child sexual abuse material. Now these companies are racing to build AI systems they admit they may not be able to control."
Former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who filed the complaint on behalf of the groups, noted that it is "patently illegal for companies to develop and release products they know are unsafe in any respect, let alone have the potential to exterminate the human race."
"We are asking the court to intervene before the risks AI executives have warned us about cause devastating and irreversible harm," Platkin explained. "AI companies are causing a public nuisance by knowingly developing and deploying AI systems that pose catastrophic risk. These companies must match their rhetoric with action and stop developing dangerous AI systems that can escape human control before a tragedy occurs."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the CFPB's architect, promised a reckoning when Democrats retake Congress: "If you've been making your profits by cheating American families... you better get ready for some investigations."
The Trump administration has almost entirely abandoned consumer protection lawsuits even as complaints about corporate abuses surge, according to a Guardian analysis published Thursday.
From mid-2012 to the start of 2025, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—created to fight predatory actions by financial institutions in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis—averaged about 30 enforcement actions a year, helping to recoup over $21 billion for consumers illegally ripped off by banks, mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and other entities.
But since January 2025, when President Donald Trump returned to office, it has launched just two enforcement actions. Meanwhile, it has dropped pending cases against at least 23 defendants—including credit card companies like Capital One, banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, and Warren Buffett’s business empire Berkshire Hathaway.
Those cases were not abandoned because consumers no longer have complaints about these companies. On the contrary, complaints have increased against 17 of the 23 companies the bureau stopped pursuing. Overall, the number of complaints filed by consumers with the bureau has shot up from nearly 2.7 million in 2024 to 6.3 million this year.
“Consumers are telling the bureau that there is an emergency, and the bureau is not listening or acting on that information,” Erie Meyer, a former chief technologist at the CFPB who helped oversee the creation of its complaint database, told The Guardian. “People are getting screwed twice: first by the company, second by the agency that’s supposed to stick up for them.”
Austin Hinkle, a former senior counsel and section chief at the CFPB, described Trump’s new regime at the bureau as essentially issuing “corporate pardons” to firms that were being investigated under the Biden administration for alleged flagrant abuses.
“People are getting screwed twice: first by the company, second by the agency that’s supposed to stick up for them.”
In February 2025, just a month after his second term began, Trump’s CFPB dismissed a lawsuit filed under the Biden administration accusing Capital One of cheating millions of customers out of more than $2 billion in interest by deliberately concealing higher-interest savings accounts from them, going as far as directing employees not to inform customers about the accounts unless asked. The company agreed to a $425 million class-action settlement in April, considerably less than the $2 billion in lost interest alleged by the CFPB.
Also in February 2025, the bureau dismissed a lawsuit against the mortgage company Vanderbilt, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. Regulators accused the company of knowingly saddling low-income families with mortgages they could not afford in an echo of the lending behavior that spawned the 2008 housing crisis, which in turn led to the CFPB’s creation. In one case, Vanderbilt granted a mortgage to a family that, by the company’s calculations, would have had just over $57 left in income after monthly expenses. In another, it approved a mortgage for two adults who already had 33 debts in collection.
In March 2025, the bureau also dropped a case accusing three of the nation’s largest banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—of failing to prevent widespread fraud using their money transfer system, Zelle. Consumers allegedly lost a combined $870 million after the banks failed to stop repeat scammers from using the app. Regulators also alleged that the banks refused to compensate victims even after they provided evidence that criminals had taken over their accounts.
All of these cases were dismissed with prejudice, meaning that a future CFPB cannot reopen any of them.
The administration also dropped other cases involving payday lenders accused of trapping borrowers in cycles of debt, companies allegedly charging delivery drivers fees to access their own earnings, student loan servicers accused of collecting discharged debts, and banks accused of mistreating elderly and disabled veterans receiving federal benefits. It also canceled a settlement with Navy Federal Credit Union over illegal overdraft fees charged to military service members, veterans, and their families.
In addition, the administration has terminated or weakened another 23 existing enforcement orders, often involving companies that had already agreed to compensate victims for misconduct, according to a report by Democrats on the US Senate Banking Committee. That report estimated that reduced enforcement at the CFPB had cost consumers $19 billion during Trump’s first year in office.
The money transfer company Wise, for instance, had a $2 million fine reduced to just $45,000. Other companies like Apple and US Bank were freed from enhanced oversight years ahead of schedule.
Many consumer protection cases and settlements were dismissed while the bureau was run by Russell Vought, an architect of the Heritage Foundation’s far-right Project 2025, which has functioned as a policy playbook for Trump’s second term. He also leads the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Vought has referred to the CFPB as “a woke and weaponized agency against disfavored industries and individuals” and said his goal was to “close down the agency.”
In April 2025, he attempted to fire about 90% of the CFPB’s workforce—an effort blocked by federal courts. Vought stopped serving as acting director in August. The agency is now led by Mark Paoletta, a former chief legal officer for Vought.
Democrats, who retook both the US House of Representatives and Senate earlier this month in a midterm landslide fueled by grievances about high prices and a lack of accountability for powerful corporations, have vowed to investigate the Trump administration's efforts to "dismantle" the CFPB.
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), who is in line to become the chair of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions beginning in 2027, told The Guardian that he and his colleagues plan to pursue “subpoenas, investigations, hearings, and, ultimately, legislative action to restore consumer protections in this country and hold accountable those who seek to profit off the most vulnerable Americans.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who led the charge to create the CFPB in 2010, is expected to take over as chair of the Senate Banking Committee, where she has promised a reckoning for corporate abuses.
As ranking member, she has already confronted Vought directly about his actions while in charge of the CFPB—including during a hearing in July when she questioned him about the bureau’s decision to terminate a settlement with Toyota Motor Credit after the company donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund. The company had been accused of trapping consumers into paying thousands of dollars in some cases for unwanted insurance and warranties, while making the products extremely difficult to cancel and withholding refunds.
Warren has promised that she will prioritize accountability for the financial institutions that have been allowed to run roughshod under Trump.
“Big Tech CEOs, administration officials, Trump family crypto businesses, Wall Street executives, and giant corporations should preserve their documents and prepare to answer tough questions,” an aide to Warren told Politico Monday.
On CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Warren said, “If you’ve been making your profits by cheating American families and scamming your investors, you better get ready for some investigations, serious ones.”
"The average real wage—what your paycheck buys—is falling," said one economist.
The impact of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran continued to hit US consumers hard in October, with the price of groceries experiencing a particularly notable spike.
The latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) report from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released on Tuesday shows that overall prices increased by 0.4% in October, higher than economists' expectations of a 0.3% increase.
Core inflation, which excludes food and energy prices, showed a monthly increase of 0.3%, which was also higher than economists' expectations of a 0.2% increase.
The CPI report doesn't include estimates of yearly price increases, as the BLS last October didn't collect any price data during a government shutdown.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, estimated in a social media post that the data released by BLS "implies about a ~4% inflation rate for the past year."
Long highlighted a "a big jump in grocery prices" in the report, while also noting that "eating out, electricity, transportation (especially airfares), rent, and medical services (especially hospitals)" all saw "sizable monthly price increases." Analysts have noted that Trump’s Iran war is increasing costs across the economy, including food prices, by jacking up fuel and fertilizer expenses.
Ben Zipperer, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, posted a chart showing that real wage growth has been in decline in the seven months since Trump launched his illegal war without congressional authorization in February.
Zipperer also mused that the decline in workers' earning power may have "something to do with the recent election results," in which Democrats ousted Trump's Republicans as the majority party in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate starting in January.
Maybe something to do with the recent election results:
[image or embed]
— Ben Zipperer (@benzipperer.org) November 10, 2026 at 9:56 AM
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers observed that real wage growth is now flat throughout Trump's second term, with prices really picking up steam at the start of the Iran War.
"The average real wage—what your paycheck buys—is falling," Wolfers wrote. "That's the sense in which it might feel like you're falling behind. It's not meant to work this way."
The latest inflation report was so ugly that even National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, who has been widely criticized for spinning bad data into an implausibly sunny narrative, couldn't paint a rosy picture during a Tuesday interview with Fox Business.
"It's a disappointing report," Hassett acknowledged. "Energy prices in the CPI are up 20% year-over-year, and gasoline prices are up 37% year-over-year... right now, the trickle down from the higher energy prices is definitely very palpable in the data."
🤯 even Hassett can't spin hotter than expected inflation data: "It's a disappointing report ... things have accelerated over the last three months ... the trickle down from higher energy prices is definitely very palpable in the data" https://t.co/yiIylq1mT5
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2026
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is facing calls to step aside as Senate Democratic leader before his party takes over as the majority next year, said the latest CPI report showed "why Americans chose Democrats to be in charge."
"From his costly tariffs to his reckless war, Trump has only made inflation worse," said Schumer. "And he openly admits he doesn’t care. Our Senate Democratic majority will work relentlessly to bring down costs for all Americans."
"The next Congress has a responsibility to take these sorts of transactions seriously and root out the blatant corruption that has allowed America to turn into an oligarchy."
The American Economic Liberties Project on Monday called on the US Congress and state attorneys general to investigate the US Department of Justice's decision last week to abruptly end its probe into the proposed merger between Fox Corporation and TV streaming company Roku.
In a Friday announcement, the DOJ said that its investigation found it was "unlikely" that a Fox-Roku merger would pose "a substantial risk of harm to competition" in the TV streaming market.
The DOJ also said it was satisfied with Fox's pledge to keep Roku "an open and neutral content partner," noting that the media giant "would suffer monetary and reputational harm if it attempted to use the Roku platform to harm Fox's content rivals."
Although earlier reporting claimed that the DOJ would approve the Fox-Roku merger under a consent decree, the department instead signed off on it "with a simple affirmative press statement outlining commitments from Fox, several of which expire in just three years, and leaving the conditions without any judicial enforcement mechanism attached," explained the American Economic Liberties Project.
Additionally, the group pointed out that the DOJ's decision to end its merger investigation came just weeks after Fox made a $1 million contribution to First Lady Melania Trump's "Fostering the Future" initiative, a scholarship program aimed at helping foster children attend college.
“It should set off every alarm bell that the Fox Corporation is giving any money to the first lady’s foster care initiative during the Justice Department’s review of its Roku deal,” said Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project. "This is part of a documented pattern, where big media corporations curry favor with the administration, via donations and promises of favorable coverage, and then deals get done."
Hepner added that the DOJ's decision to sign off on the deal was part of a broader pattern of corporate consolidation and corruption under the second Trump administration.
“The next Congress has a responsibility to take these sorts of transactions seriously," he said, "and root out the blatant corruption that has allowed America to turn into an oligarchy, where power keeps getting consolidated at a remarkable rate."
"All this dealmaking leads to staggering amounts of cash."
Forbes reporter Dan Alexander on Sunday thoroughly debunked claims made by President Donald Trump that his net worth grew by $3 billion since his return to office solely due to gains in the stock market.
During an interview with CBS News' "60 Minutes," Trump was asked by Ross Douthat about a Forbes estimate showing that Trump's net worth had grown from $3.9 billion in 2024 to $7 billion in 2026.
"Your net worth went up by $3 billion..." Douthat began.
"So did everyone's!" Trump replied.
Ross Douthat asks the President how his net worth rose by nearly $3 billion, according to a Forbes estimate, since he returned to office. Watch the interview Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT on 60 Minutes.
[image or embed]
— 60 Minutes (@60minutes.bsky.social) November 8, 2026 at 10:37 AM
"My net worth did not go up by $3 billion," Douthat shot back.
"Well, you should have had stock," Trump said.
Trump then claimed that he didn't pay too much attention to his net worth and said, "I guess it's gone up" over the last two years.
Alexander responded to Trump's claims in a social media post, giving detailed breakdown of how Trump's net worth grew by $3 billion, and emphasizing that "the president's answer here is nonsense."
Alexander began the story in 2024, when Trump grew his net worth by $1.8 billion while running for president when the Trump Media and Technology Group became a publicly traded company after a merger with Digital World Acquisition Corp.
The Forbes reporter emphasized that this was just the start of Trump's political profiteering, which he would really kick into high gear in the latter half of 2024.
"Just before the election, Trump kicked off a venture named World Liberty Financial, selling a crypto token and offering vague promises of a 'financial revolution,'" Alexander explained. "For Trump, the proposition was clearer: a 52.5% cut of every dollar investors put in after the initial $30 million."
Twenty days after Trump's triumph in the election, Chinese billionaire Justin Sun invested $30 million into World Liberty Financial, which ensured that the Trump family "would collect," wrote Alexander.
"The crypto community went wild, and money started pouring in, especially as the inauguration approached," Alexander continued. "One day before Trump took office, Sun announced another $45 million investment."
During this period, Trump also launched his official meme coin, which quickly shot up in value before crashing back down, leaving most of its investors billions of dollars underwater.
Alexander noted that foreign investments into World Liberty Financial continued pouring in after the election, especially from firms located in the United Arab Emirates.
The Wall Street Journal would later report that many of these investments were made by associates of an Abu Dhabi royal family member who "secretly signed a deal with the Trump family to purchase a 49% stake in their fledgling cryptocurrency venture for" $500 million.
"All this dealmaking leads to staggering amounts of cash by the end of 2025," Alexander explained, with World Liberty Financial and the Trump meme coin producing "$1,425,000,000 of liquidity... in one year."
In addition to crypto schemes, Trump also vastly expanded his overseas licensing empire, which in 2025 generated 10 times more income than it did just two years prior, Alexander wrote.
Summing up his findings, Alexander wrote that Trump over the last two years had made $1 billion off World Liberty Financial dealings, $1 billion from the sale of crypto tokens, $400 million in branding ventures, and $500 million after an appeals court wiped out a fine he had been ordered to pay as part of a civil financial fraud case.
This means that Trump's vast enrichment over the last two years has come from his own personal business dealings, not just gains in the stock market.
"In fact, almost none of Trump's $3 billion in gains from the fall of 2024 to the fall of 2025 came from stock," wrote Alexander. "In the fall of 2024, we estimated that the president's liquid assets totaled about $415 million. After analyzing his financial disclosure, we pegged about 10% of that in stock."
"People just want to live, not survive," said one organizer.
Hundreds of thousands of workers across France held demonstrations to protest the high cost of living and the French government's proposed budget that includes a number of austerity measures.
As reported by Euronews, the government of French President Emmanuel Macron is attempting to pass a budget that has been decried by major trade unions for "targeting the most vulnerable and those who are ill, freezing social benefits, and undermining the protective role of the social security system."
Sophie Binet, head of the General Confederation of Labor, acknowledged the need to curb the country's budget deficit, but told Euronews that "we need to reintroduce taxes on the wealthiest individuals and the largest companies," which "will enable us to fund our public services."
The French Interior Ministry estimated that 600,000 people attended Thursday's demonstrations, which took place across 180 different locations, according to Bloomberg.
The Ministry of Public Action and Accounts estimated that nearly 10% of French public servants were on strike Thursday, including almost 16% of all teachers, according to The New York Times.
The nationwide protests began in September when students blockaded their schools to protest staffing shortages, dilapidated buildings, and a widely criticized university application system.
They have since spread to encompass a wide range of grievances in the country, including the cost of living and the high cost of fuel sparked by US President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
While earlier demonstrations had been marked by violent unrest, Thursday's protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, and included a festive performance from the Orchestre du Nouveau Monde in Paris.
« J'ai deux passions ! »Ambiance festive pour le concert géant de l'orchestre du Nouveau Monde sur la Place de la République à Paris.#grevegenerale #5Novembre #greve5novembre https://t.co/A5KhOjGxmN
— Luc Auffret (@LucAuffret) November 5, 2026
In an interview with the Times, 27-year-old Antonia Barot said that she attended the Thursday protests because of the government's "disregard for young people's and workers' living conditions," adding that "we need to realize how powerful we are."
Florence Eliakine, 61, told the Times the protests should "make it clear to our government, which pursues right-wing policies, that there is a social and ecological crisis that must be taken into account."
Gaëlle Martinez, national secretary of the trade union Solidaires, told France 24 that the motive behind the demonstrations was a simple one.
"People just want to live, not survive," Martinez explained.
She also said that the government needed to draft "a new budget" that would "tax the biggest companies, the richest companies where the profits are made," while eliminating proposed cuts to vital programs.
"This highlights the danger of allowing an unregulated monopolist to control an essential service," said former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan.
Tech giant Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is telling US schools that there's a price to be paid for restricting student access to its artificial intelligence tools.
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that, starting early next year, schools that fully disable the company's AI will also lose access to its search engine, which is by far the most used internet search tool in the world.
Chris Phillips, vice president for education at Google, justified the policy by claiming that "Search and AI are deeply integrated," adding that students attending schools where AI is banned "will not have access to Search, and they’ll see a message from their school that indicates it’s not available."
As the Times noted, Google has deeply integrated itself into US classrooms, many of which rely on its Classroom assignment platform and equip students with low-cost Chromebook laptops.
"The company’s new strategy underscores Google’s powerful role in American education," the Times explained. "If school leaders want continued student access to Search within the company’s ecosystem, they will be forced to embrace Google's AI."
Schools around the US have been banning the use of AI for young students over concerns that reliance on the technology will hinder the development of critical thinking skills and also enable mass cheating on assignments.
Morgan Polikoff, an education professor at the University of Southern California, told the Times that he expects Google's new policy linking AI and Search will only add more fuel to the backlash against the tech industry.
"This is a particularly clear example of the tech industry going out of its way to force AI on us all," said Polikoff, "even if we have said we don’t want it."
Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission under President Joe Biden, accused Google of "using its search monopoly to coerce schools into adopting AI," and said it was yet another reason why antitrust action should be taken against the company.
"This highlights the danger of allowing an unregulated monopolist to control an essential service," Khan wrote in a social media post. "Multiple courts have found Google liable for violating antitrust laws, and this latest move shows it remains unchastened. As the public increasingly pushes back against the use of AI in schools, Google is making clear it will punish those who don’t fall in line."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose city earlier this year banned AI in elementary and middle schools, similarly took Google to task for trying to force its products onto students.
"No corporation should have the power to dictate how we teach our children," Mamdani wrote. "Our public schools exist to serve students, not to grow the profit margins of Big Tech."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) used news of Google's new AI school policy to take a shot at President Donald Trump, who has constantly downplayed the need for any regulation of the industry.
"President Trump claimed that AI oligarchs could regulate themselves because they 'love our country,'" Sanders wrote. "Now, Google is threatening schools: If you stop your students from using AI, we will cut off your access to Google Search. That’s not love. That’s extortion."
Cognitive scientist Gary Marcus, a longtime skeptic of the AI industry, responded to Google's move by writing, "This is evil."
Author Kashana Cauley remarked that Google's motto used to be "don't be evil," whereas today its motto appears to be, "We are now holding your kids and their schools hostage."
Cauley added that schools wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't taken up Google's offer to supply low-cost Chromebooks for students.
"The schools shouldn’t be beholden to district-wide Chromebook deals if Google is holding us hostage," she wrote. "We need to get Chromebooks and Google out of the schools."
"We cannot let the billionaire class take these kinds of risks with our future."
Progressive author Naomi Klein and comedian Ilana Glazer on Monday warned that America's billionaire class is taking "unprecedented risks with our future," and said US policymakers must block further Big Tech initial public offerings and mergers to prevent even more damage from occurring.
In an op-ed published by The Guardian, Klein and Glazer outlined how US billionaires have used tax loopholes, corporate mergers, and IPOs to enrich themselves at an unprecedented scale, as their wealth has grown by an estimated 40% over just the last two years.
Klein and Glazer argued that the upcoming IPOs of artificial intelligence giants OpenAI and Anthropic could be particularly risky to the economy given questions about their ability to be consistently profitable.
"It’s no secret that the AI companies Anthropic and OpenAI are intending to go public in the near future," they wrote. "Both of these players also had major security flaws exposed recently, and openly acknowledge mind-bogglingly huge amounts of debt."
The risk will only grow, they added, if Nasdaq grants OpenAI and Anthropic the same exception it granted to Elon Musk's SpaceX earlier this year by allowing their shares to be immediately included in index funds without having to wait through the one-year "seasoning" period.
"June’s highly contentious SpaceX IPO already carries great risk for regular investors," they explained. "If more speculative tech companies with staggering risk profiles are allowed to follow suit, the results will become too much for the market to bear."
Klein and Glazer said that policymakers need to intervene to put a halt to new Big Tech IPOs, and also pass a wealth tax to take away billionaires' power to spend cavalierly even as they leave working people potentially holding the bag for their failed investments.
"We cannot let the billionaire class take these kinds of risks with our future," they emphasized. "To stop these reckless IPOs we must stand together, take collective action, and push for real change."
Economist Jeffrey D. Sachs last month similarly called for AI IPOs to be halted until Congress "has enacted a public system of licensing, independent safety evaluation, liability, and financial backstops for frontier AI."
Sachs noted that Anthropic executives and employees, including CEO Dario Amodei, have warned that AI could pose a threat to all human life, and he questioned why the creators of such technology should become unfathomably wealthy before such risks are understood and eliminated.
"A company should not disclose a risk of catastrophe to humanity and then sell its shares to the public before any public authority has the power to evaluate that risk or to stop deployment," argued Sachs. "In fact, to proceed rapidly in the face of such dire warnings is beyond folly."
With inflation climbing to 3.6%, "instead of focusing on delivering lower prices, Trump is touting Big Oil's Iran War windfall."
Less than a week before the US midterm elections in which voters may end Republican control of Congress, the Bureau of Economic Analysis on Thursday released inflation data highlighting the nation's persistent affordability crisis under GOP leaders, including President Donald Trump.
In September, the Personal Consumption Expenditures index rose 3.6% from a year ago, up from 3.4% in August, according to the BEA. Core PCE strips out food and energy prices, the latter of which has soared as Trump has waged an illegal war on Iran. That increased 3.1%, up from 3% the previous month.
The "bottom line," said Navy Federal Credit Union chief economist Heather Long, is that "inflation is back near a three-year high."
"It's largely due to war in Iran, but there's legitimate concern that inflation is spreading beyond energy," the economist explained. Referencing the "core" figure, she noted some "worrying trends."
Long pointed to a "big rise in goods prices" that "is largely driven by Trump's tariffs (big move up since 2025) and now war."
The expert also noted that "service sector inflation is picking up again."
She further observed that "rent prices are no longer improving" and housing inflation is "moving sideways."
The inflation update comes just days after the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers announced last week that its Consumer Sentiment Index dropped to 48 this month, nearing the record low of 44.8 from this past May, and Trump celebrated fossil fuel industry profits from his war during a weekend campaign rally in Georgia.
Trump told the crowd he was advised against highlighting how the industry—which helped him get elected two years ago and in which he is significantly invested—is "making hundreds of billions of dollars," given that "people are paying a little higher" for gasoline and diesel.
"I can just see the fake headlines," he said. "President Trump is talking about all the money they're making while people are suffering at the pump. That will be the headline. But I said, I don't give a damn, I'm going to say it: We're making a freaking fortune."
As of Thursday, the national average for a gallon of gasoline was $4.23 and $6.33 for diesel. The Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University estimates US residents have paid at least $81.1 billion more for gas and $65.9 billion for diesel, or a total of $147 billion. That's over $619 per household, for just gas.
Some estimates are even higher. A Monday report from Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee states that US households "have now spent an additional $101 billion on gasoline since the start of the Iran War, or an average of $856 in gas costs per family."
Meanwhile, oil giants Shell and TotalEnergies announced their sizable third-quarter profits on Thursday, and companies such as BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil are expected to follow suit on Friday.
"Inflation remains high, working families are paying $4.23 at the pump, and meager pay raises aren’t keeping up with rising prices," Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who is now senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement.
"Instead of focusing on delivering lower prices, Trump is touting Big Oil's Iran War windfall," Jacquez stressed. "Skyrocketing prices and economic growth largely driven by AI spending do not add up to an economy that works for working families."
Democrats in Congress have seized on cost-of-living concerns ahead of the midterms, including Sen. Ed Markey, who is up for reelection in Massachusetts. He said Thursday that "inflation is up. Margins are tighter."
"Prices are skyrocketing—and small business owners are on the frontlines of Trump's war on Main Street," Markey added. "Small businesses and workers should not have to bear the costs of Trump's reckless economic policies."
This article has been updated to credit the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University for its fuel cost tracker.