Trump's WSJ, Rupert Murdoch Defamation Suit Gets Obama Judge
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Obama-appointee Judge Darrin P. Gayles has been assigned to President Donald Trump's defamation suit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over the publication's story about an alleged birthday drawing for Jeffrey Epstein.
This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
College endowment tax is leading to hiring freezes and could mean cuts in financial aid
A big increase in the tax on university endowments is adding to financial uncertainty for the wealthiest colleges in the U.S., leading several already to lay off staff or implement hiring freezes. Spending more endowment money on taxes could also lead colleges to reduce financial aid, cutting off access to elite institutions for lower-income students, colleges and industry experts have warned. President Donald Trump signed the tax increase into law last month as part of his signature spending bill. The new tax rates take effect in 2026, but colleges such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford already are citing the tax as one of many reasons for making cuts across their universities. Each will be on the hook to pay hundreds of millions more in taxes, while also navigating reductions in research grants and other threats to funding by the Trump administration. A tax on college endowments was introduced during Trump's first administration, collecting 1.4% of wealthy universities' investment earnings. The law signed by Trump last month creates a new tiered system that taxes the richest schools at the highest rates. The new tax will charge an 8% rate at schools with $2 million or more in assets for each enrolled student. Schools with $750,000 to $2 million will be charged 4%, and schools with $500,000 to $750,000 will continue to be charged the 1.4% rate. The tax applies only to private colleges and universities with at least 3,000 students, up from the previous cutoff of 500 students. 'The tax now will really solely apply to private research universities,' said Steven Bloom, assistant vice president of government relations for the American Council on Education. 'It's going to mean that these schools are going to have to spend more money under the tax, taking it away from what they primarily use their endowment assets for — financial aid.' This small group of wealthy colleges faces a tax increase The law will increase the endowment tax for about a dozen universities, according to an Associated Press analysis of data from the National Association of College and University Business Officers. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are expected to pay the 8% rate next year. The schools facing the 4% rate include Notre Dame, Dartmouth College, Rice University, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University in St. Louis and Vanderbilt University. Some universities are on the edge of the law's parameters. Both Duke and Emory, for instance, were shy of the $750,000-per-student endowment threshold based on last fiscal year. Endowments are made up of donations to the college, which are invested to maintain the money over time. Colleges often spend about 5% of their investment earnings every year to put toward their budgets. Much of it goes toward scholarships for students, along with costs such as research or endowed faculty positions. Despite the colleges' wealth, the tax will drastically impact their budgets, said Phillip Levine, an economist and professor at Wellesley College. 'They're looking for savings wherever possible,' Levine said, which could impact financial aid. 'One of the most important things they do with their endowment is lower the cost of education for lower- and middle-income students. The institutions paying the highest tax are also the ones charging these students the least amount of money to attend.' For example, at Rice University in Houston, officials anticipate the college will need to pay $6.4 million more in taxes. That equates to more than 100 student financial aid packages, the university said, but Rice officials will explore all other options to avoid cutting that support. How colleges are adjusting to financial pressures In the meantime, some universities are going forward with staff cuts. Yale University says it will have to pay an estimated $280 million in total endowment taxes, citing the tax in a campus message implementing a hiring freeze. Stanford University announced plans to reduce its operating budget by $140 million this upcoming school year, which included 363 layoffs and an ongoing hiring freeze. The university spent months trying to determine where to reduce its budget, but said it would continue to support undergraduate financial aid and funding for Ph.D. students. Research universities are under increasing financial pressure from reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. No university knows this pressure better than Harvard, the country's wealthiest college. Its $53 billion endowment puts it at the top of the list for the new tax, but it's also seeing massive portions of research funding under threat in its ongoing battle with the White House. The federal government has frozen $2.6 billion in Harvard's research grants in connection with civil rights investigations focused on antisemitism and Harvard's efforts to promote diversity on campus. But the impact of other administration policies on the university could approach $1 billion annually, Harvard said in a statement. 'It's not like Harvard is going to go from one of the best institutions in the world to just a mediocre institution. That's probably not going to happen," Levine said. 'But that doesn't mean it's not going to be a bad thing — that there won't be pain and that students won't suffer.' ___ Mumphrey reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye in Philadelphia contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Russ Feingold: Messing with the Boundary Waters is bad politics
As a former U.S. senator and lifelong Wisconsinite, I believe deeply in our responsibility to protect special places. Today, that responsibility includes standing up for one of the most beloved — and politically underestimated — wild places in America: the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northeastern Minnesota. In May, House Republicans championed a provision in the budget reconciliation bill that would have given away 6,000 acres of the Superior National Forest to a Chilean billionaire who has dreams of opening a toxic copper mine on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters. Fortunately, the provision was later rejected by the Senate Parliamentarian. Had that language made it through the Senate, it wouldn't have been just an environmental disaster — it would have been a political one as well. A pending stand-alone bill by Rep. Pete Stauber, R-Minn., who authored the giveaway provision in the budget bill, seeks to grant expedited mining rights to the Chilean billionaire, threatening America's public lands and our nation's most visited wilderness. The repeat users of the Boundary Waters are not coastal environmentalists. They are our Midwestern neighbors — voters from Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and North and South Dakota — who return year after year to paddle, portage and camp in one of the last truly wild places left in this country. We are not talking about just a few adventurous families. About 150,000 people experience the Boundary Waters every year, out of more than 8 million people who visit northeastern Minnesota annually, meaning millions of Midwesterners have personally experienced this national treasure. These are battleground state voters. Undermining a place so central to their outdoor traditions and interests is just plain bad politics, in addition to being a terrible idea on the merits. Why would we ever mine in a place that is almost as much lake as forest? The 3 million-acre Superior National Forest, of which the Boundary Waters is a part, contains 20% of all the freshwater in our country's entire 193 million-acre national forest system. We know that Midwestern voters across the political spectrum care about protecting the environment. The University of Wisconsin at Madison's Center for Communication & Civic Renewal conducted a poll in December to ascertain what divides or unites voters in the Midwest. The results showed that environmental issues are one of the few areas that generate strong bipartisan support among Midwesterners. The Boundary Waters also faces a threat by the Donald Trump administration. On June 11, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins posted a callous and inaccurate tweet blithely announcing that she and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum had begun the process of undoing the 20-year copper mining ban in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters. Rollins' knee-jerk social media post immediately after the exclusion of the giveaway language from the budget bill reflects complete ignorance of the power of this place. The lakes and forests of the Boundary Waters support communities and businesses and enrich the lives of countless wilderness travelers. The Boundary Waters is not some faraway preserve. It's 1.1 million acres of forests and interconnected lakes in northeastern Minnesota. President Theodore Roosevelt recognized its unique beauty and ecological value in 1909 by establishing the Superior National Forest. This region is part of a priceless landscape of protected lands and waters that stretch across the U.S.-Canada border. From scout trips to honeymoons, family vacations to solo paddles, this wilderness is woven into the fabric of life for thousands upon thousands of Midwestern families. It is public land that belongs to all of us. Now, that fabric is at risk. The proposed copper mines — owned by Chilean conglomerate Antofagasta — would threaten the Boundary Waters with acid mine drainage and heavy metal pollution. If that contamination happens, there's no going back. One of the purest freshwater systems on Earth would be damaged — and it cannot be remediated once it's poisoned. Why would we jeopardize clean water, wildlife and a thriving recreation economy for the short-term profits of a Chilean company? This isn't a partisan issue. It's about clean water and our outdoor traditions and protecting the places that reflect our values. I urge everyone who cares about our public lands to speak up. The Boundary Waters needs us now. Let's not look back and wish we'd done more.
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
Student loan borrowers face an expensive ‘cliff effect' under the new 'standard' repayment plan, expert says
President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill" overhauled the so-called Standard Repayment Plan for federal student loan borrowers. Next year, millions of current borrowers will have access to the changed program. For new borrowers, it will be one of just two options available to pay back their debt. That may not be to their benefit, experts say: For some borrowers, the new Standard Plan will keep them in debt longer and add tens of thousands of dollars to the total they must repay. "The design of the new plan, in which a borrower's payment term is scaled up in five-year increments based on arbitrary thresholds, means some borrowers will face a problematic 'cliff effect,'" said Michele Shepard Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute For College Access & Success. "A small difference in their balance will tip them into the next tier and extend their term," Zampini said. Here's what to know about the changes to the Standard Plan. The current Standard Plan is fairly simple: Borrowers typically have their debt divided into fixed payments over 10 years. It's often the fastest option for people to pay off their student debt, compared with the U.S. Department of Education's other income-driven repayment plans. Historically, IDR plans cap a borrowers' monthly bill at a share of their discretionary income, and lead to loan cancellation after a certain period — typically 20 years or 25 years. (But the recent law makes changes to those plans, too. ) The new Standard Plan will spread a borrower's debt into fixed payments over one of four timeframes, depending on what they owe. Those who've borrowed up to $24,999 will still have a 10-year repayment term. But those who owe between $25,000 and $49,999 will pay their debt back over 15 years; a balance ranging from $50,000 to $99,999 will be paid back over 20 years; and a debt over $100,000 will lead to a 25-year repayment term. More from Personal Finance:Trump floats tariff 'rebate' for consumersStudent loan forgiveness may soon be taxed againStudent loan borrowers — how will the end of the SAVE plan impact you? Tell us The longer timelines will force people to carry debt later into their lives, when they should be preparing for retirement, said Astra Taylor, co-founder of the Debt Collective, a union for debtors. "We anticipate an explosion of senior debtors," Taylor said, in an earlier interview with CNBC. Under the new Standard Plan, some borrowers with higher balances may have lower monthly bills than under the current plan because their repayment term is longer, said Zampini. "However, many such borrowers will pay more in total over the life of the loan, as compared to the current Standard Plan," Zampini said. Indeed, a borrower who took out $100,000 in federal student loans would repay around $125,000 over 10 years under the current Standard Plan, according to an analysis by Kantrowitz. (He assumed a 5% interest rate.) But under the revised plan, that same borrower would be required to pay back more than $175,000 during their 25-year term — a difference of nearly $50,000. The modified Standard Plan will be available by July 1, 2026, according to the Education Dept. That plan will be one of just two repayment options available to borrowers who take out student loans after that date, along with Republicans' new IDR plan, called the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP. Borrowers with loans taken out before July 1, 2026 will maintain access to some existing repayment plans, including Income-Based Repayment, or IBR, and the current 10-year Standard Plan. But keep in mind: Even borrowers with old loans who take out a new one after July 1, 2026, will lose the existing options for that loan, said Scott Buchanan, executive director of the Student Loan Servicing Alliance, a trade group for federal student loan servicers. "If you borrow again, you will be in the world of two choices," Buchanan said.
