Where are the best places to work in Tennessee? These 7 midsized companies ranked best according to Forbes
Forbes and SStatista have once again teamed up to assemble a list of top employers.
Forbes surveyed around 217,000 employees working at companies within the U.S. to compile a list of the best employers. The survey respondents were asked about salary, work environment, training programs and opportunities to advance, according to Forbes.
The survey results were combined with the previous year's data to create a list of the 498 best midsized employers. A "midsized employer" is defined as having between 1,000 and 5,000 employees, according to Forbes.
This year, seven Tennessee employers made the list. Here's which midsized companies are among the best.
The University of Tennessee clinched a top spot in Forbes Best Midsized Employers list, coming in at No. 14. On the list, Rocky Top was only bested by two other educational institutions: Western Carolina University and California State University, Sacramento.
The University of Tennessee Knoxville employs 2,213 faculty and 5,897 staff members, according to the university's human resources data.
The Maury Regional Medical Center is located in Middle Tennessee in Columbia. This year, the medical center is ranked at the No. 31 spot for best-midsized employers.
In the Health and Social Services category exclusively, Maury Regional ranked exceptionally well at No. 8. The medical centers and health companies that were ranked high include the Alzheimer's Association and Shriners Hospitals for Children.
Shoney's is an all-American restaurant chain with locations in 16 states. It is headquartered in Nashville.
Shoney's is a veteran member of the Forbes Best Midsized Employers list. The restaurant has made an appearance in the last several years, appearing both in 2023 and 2024. That being said, Shoney's ranking has increased dramatically. In 2023, the restaurant sat at No. 386, and in 2024, it ranked at No. 151.
Another veteran member of this best employers list is Dollywood, located in Pigeon Forge. In 2025, the theme park is ranked No. 142.
Though there are many others in the travel and leisure category on the 2025 Forbes list, few are resorts and none that match Dollywood's caliber. The theme park employs around 4,000 associates and has been consistently ranked well as an employer.
Kirkland's, a Brentwood-based retailer, ranked at No. 188. The home décor retailer has become a large chain, with 344 stores in 35 states.
The company was founded in 1966 and today employs more than 4,000 people, according to Kirkland's website.
The City of Knoxville is once again on the Forbes Best Midsized Employers list, ranked at No. 253. Knoxville also made the list in 2024, coming in at No. 369.
Knoxville was not the only city to make the Forbes list this year, however, it was the only city from Tennessee to be represented in this fashion. Other cities in the "government services" classification to appear on the list include the City of Durham in North Carolina and the City of Plano, Texas.
Covenant Transportation is the lowest-ranking Tennessee company, but it is still more than 100 places from the bottom of Forbes' list. It ranked as No. 344 on the Forbes list.
Covenant Transportation is a trucking and logistics company based out of Chattanooga. The company employs around 4,500 people, according to Forbes. Covenant Transportation was also named a top midsized employer in 2024.
This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: What's the best place to work in Tennessee? Forbes ranked these spots
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Is Now The Time To Look At Buying Proto Labs, Inc. (NYSE:PRLB)?
Proto Labs, Inc. (NYSE:PRLB), is not the largest company out there, but it saw a significant share price rise of 22% in the past couple of months on the NYSE. Shareholders may appreciate the recent price jump, but the company still has a way to go before reaching its yearly highs again. As a stock with high coverage by analysts, you could assume any recent changes in the company's outlook is already priced into the stock. But what if there is still an opportunity to buy? Let's take a look at Proto Labs's outlook and value based on the most recent financial data to see if the opportunity still exists. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Great news for investors – Proto Labs is still trading at a fairly cheap price. According to our valuation, the intrinsic value for the stock is $56.52, which is above what the market is valuing the company at the moment. This indicates a potential opportunity to buy low. However, given that Proto Labs's share is fairly volatile (i.e. its price movements are magnified relative to the rest of the market) this could mean the price can sink lower, giving us another chance to buy in the future. This is based on its high beta, which is a good indicator for share price volatility. View our latest analysis for Proto Labs Investors looking for growth in their portfolio may want to consider the prospects of a company before buying its shares. Buying a great company with a robust outlook at a cheap price is always a good investment, so let's also take a look at the company's future expectations. With profit expected to grow by a double-digit 15% in the upcoming year, the short-term outlook is positive for Proto Labs. It looks like higher cash flow is on the cards for the stock, which should feed into a higher share valuation. Are you a shareholder? Since PRLB is currently undervalued, it may be a great time to accumulate more of your holdings in the stock. With a positive outlook on the horizon, it seems like this growth has not yet been fully factored into the share price. However, there are also other factors such as capital structure to consider, which could explain the current undervaluation. Are you a potential investor? If you've been keeping an eye on PRLB for a while, now might be the time to enter the stock. Its buoyant future outlook isn't fully reflected in the current share price yet, which means it's not too late to buy PRLB. But before you make any investment decisions, consider other factors such as the strength of its balance sheet, in order to make a well-informed buy. It can be quite valuable to consider what analysts expect for Proto Labs from their most recent forecasts. At Simply Wall St, we have the analysts estimates which you can view by clicking here. If you are no longer interested in Proto Labs, you can use our free platform to see our list of over 50 other stocks with a high growth potential. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 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
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
With 79% ownership, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:PANW) boasts of strong institutional backing
Institutions' substantial holdings in Palo Alto Networks implies that they have significant influence over the company's share price 45% of the business is held by the top 25 shareholders Using data from analyst forecasts alongside ownership research, one can better assess the future performance of a company Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:PANW) can tell us which group is most powerful. We can see that institutions own the lion's share in the company with 79% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Since institutional have access to huge amounts of capital, their market moves tend to receive a lot of scrutiny by retail or individual investors. Hence, having a considerable amount of institutional money invested in a company is often regarded as a desirable trait. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about Palo Alto Networks. Check out our latest analysis for Palo Alto Networks Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices. We can see that Palo Alto Networks does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. This can indicate that the company has a certain degree of credibility in the investment community. However, it is best to be wary of relying on the supposed validation that comes with institutional investors. They too, get it wrong sometimes. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of Palo Alto Networks, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too. Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. We note that hedge funds don't have a meaningful investment in Palo Alto Networks. Looking at our data, we can see that the largest shareholder is The Vanguard Group, Inc. with 9.4% of shares outstanding. BlackRock, Inc. is the second largest shareholder owning 8.0% of common stock, and State Street Global Advisors, Inc. holds about 4.3% of the company stock. A deeper look at our ownership data shows that the top 25 shareholders collectively hold less than half of the register, suggesting a large group of small holders where no single shareholder has a majority. While it makes sense to study institutional ownership data for a company, it also makes sense to study analyst sentiments to know which way the wind is blowing. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too. The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it. I generally consider insider ownership to be a good thing. However, on some occasions it makes it more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions. Our most recent data indicates that insiders own less than 1% of Palo Alto Networks, Inc.. Being so large, we would not expect insiders to own a large proportion of the stock. Collectively, they own US$1.2b of stock. It is always good to see at least some insider ownership, but it might be worth checking if those insiders have been selling. The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a 20% stake in Palo Alto Networks. While this size of ownership may not be enough to sway a policy decision in their favour, they can still make a collective impact on company policies. It's always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand Palo Alto Networks better, we need to consider many other factors. For example, we've discovered 1 warning sign for Palo Alto Networks that you should be aware of before investing here. Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘This is the looting of America': Trump and Co's extraordinary conflicts of interest in his second term
The South Lawn of the White House had never seen anything like it. The president of the United States was posing for the world's media against a backdrop of five different models of Tesla, peddling the electric vehicles with the alacrity of a salesman on commission. 'I love the product, it's beautiful,' Donald Trump said as he sank into the driver's seat of a scarlet Model Y. With the Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, beside him, he went on to enlighten the American people that some Tesla models retail for as little as $299 a month, 'which is pretty low'. That same day, within hours of the White House's makeover into a Tesla showroom, the New York Times revealed that Musk had decided to invest $100m in political groups working for Trump. The massive injection of capital would enhance the nearly $300m Musk had already spent getting Trump elected. Related: 'I have never seen such open corruption': Trump's crypto deals and loosening of rules shock observers A week after the commercial on the South Lawn, on 19 March, Trump's commerce secretary, the billionaire investment banker Howard Lutnick, went on Fox News and exhorted viewers to 'buy Tesla'. 'Who wouldn't invest in Elon Musk's stock?' he gushed. 'He is probably the best person to bet on I've ever met.' At the time Lutnick made those remarks, he had yet to divest himself from Cantor Fitzgerald, the financial services firm he had led for 35 years. He was talking up stock in which he still had a vested interest – Cantor held $300m in Tesla shares, a stake that has since soared to $555m. And the commerce secretary was also bigging up his friend Musk, whose SpaceX and Starlink businesses are regulated by the commerce department that Lutnick now controlled. Eight days in March, three friendly billionaires, one of them the world's most powerful person, another the world's richest person. Doing what friends do: scratching each other's backs. Even though Musk later fell out with Trump – in a shocking social media spat that roiled US politics – the imagery remains powerful and highly symbolic of Trump's second term in the White House. Between them they committed in those eight days acts that, had they occurred during any previous presidency – including Trump's own first administration – would have provoked howls of protest concerning quid pro quo. Yet those eight days represent just a tiny slice of the graft and possible misconduct that is unfolding. The gift by the Qatari government of a $400m luxury jetliner to be repurposed as Air Force One has become the paradigm of the blitz of ethical dilemmas unleashed by Trump. The Pentagon last month accepted possession of the plane, which will be transferred to Trump's presidential library once he leaves office. That Trump doggedly accepted the Qatari 'palace in the sky' despite widespread condemnation speaks volumes about how indomitable he feels at this moment. He has shrugged aside the rebukes even of devoted Trump supporters, including the rightwing commentator Ben Shapiro, who bridled at the transfer's grubby appearance, calling it 'skeezy stuff'. It also shows Trump's disdain for the US constitution, given the emoluments clause's clear prohibition. Presidents are not allowed to accept high-value gifts from foreign governments without congressional consent. Yet the luxury jumbo jet is also just the thinnest edge of a very fat wedge. There has been so much more that has flown, if not under the radar, then partially obscured from sight amid the ethical blizzard of corruption and influence. There have been multimillion-dollar TV packages, real estate deals in Arab petrostates, dinners with the president going for $5m a pop, plum job offers for contributors to Trump's inaugural fund, cryptocurrency ventures attracting lucre from secret foreign investors, 'drill, baby, drill' enticements for oil and energy donations – the list goes on, and on … and on. Trump and his team of billionaires have led the US on a dizzying journey into the moral twilight that has left public sector watchdogs struggling to keep up. Which is precisely the intention, said Kathleen Clark, a government ethics lawyer and law professor at Washington University in Saint Louis. 'They have mastered the technique of flooding the zone – doing so much so fast that they are overwhelming the ability of ethics groups and institutions to respond.' Chris Murphy, the Democratic US senator from Connecticut, has delivered two long speeches on the floor of his chamber in which he has itemised Trump and Co's most controversial transactions. The record already stretches to scores of entries, chronicling what Murphy calls Trump's 'efforts to steal from the American people to enrich himself and his friends'. In an interview with the Guardian, the senator said that Trump's was a 'pay-for-play administration. That's the underlying theme. You pay Donald Trump money, he does favors for you. That's old-fashioned corruption.' Clark's analysis is even more pointed. 'People talk about 'guardrails' and 'norms' and 'conflict of interest', which is all very relevant,' she said. 'But this is theft and destruction. This is the looting of America.' *** Trump signaled that he would be a president like no other at the start of his first term, when he became the only occupant of the Oval Office in modern times to refuse to divest his assets by putting them into a blind trust. Though presidents are not bound by conflict of interest laws applying to other elected officials, the norm has been for incumbents to set themselves high standards, the archetype being Jimmy Carter's sale of his peanut farm. Trump, by contrast, put his assets in a trust that remained under the control of his family, with him as its sole beneficiary. He incurred numerous accusations of first-term conflicts of interest, as foreign officials from 20 countries descended on his hotels, while Secret Service agents in Trump's security detail were made to pay premium rates, pouring at least $10m into his bank account. Such unprecedented disregard for time-honored ethical boundaries was shocking at the time. Now it looks merely quaint. 'In the first Trump administration there were ethical lapses,' said Danielle Caputo, senior legal counsel for ethics at the Campaign Legal Center watchdog organization. 'With this new administration, there's not just a disregard for ethics rules, there's contempt.' The conversion of political power into cash began even before Trump re-entered the White House. Weeks before the inauguration, Melania Trump sealed a $40m deal with Jeff Bezos for an Amazon Prime 'behind-the-scenes' documentary on her life. Trump banked millions of dollars of his own by leveraging his status as president-elect to browbeat tech companies. He settled disputes over the freezing of his then Twitter and Facebook accounts in the wake of the 6 January 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol, prising $10m out of his friend Musk, and $25m from Meta. Trump used the months leading up to November's election to test-run what, as Murphy noted, has become a theme of his second presidency – pay-to-play. He invited oil executives to Mar-a-Lago and, as the Washington Post revealed, offered them a 'deal' in which they would donate $1bn to his campaign and in return he would tear up profit-limiting environmental regulations once he was back in the White House. He kept his promise: on day one of his new administration he discharged a barrage of pro-fossil fuel actions. Donors to his record-breaking $239m inaugural fund have also found Trump to be a grateful benefactor. Warren Stephens, an investment banker who gave $4m, was rewarded with the role of US ambassador to the UK; Jared Issacman, a billionaire pilot and close associate of Musk's, gave $2m to the fund and was tapped to lead Nasa (he was abruptly yanked from the appointment last month after he was reportedly discovered to have been been donating to Democrats). It's over the line, unlawful, corrupt and unethical. It is un-American Norman Eisen of the Brookings Institution The pattern has continued into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Three months into the administration, Trump's eldest son, Don Jr, launched an elite private members' club named Executive Branch which commands a sign-in fee of a cool $500,000. Its attraction? Access to cabinet members and top Trump advisers. Not to be outdone by his own son, Trump himself has followed the same playbook at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In March, he began inviting business leaders to dine with him in group settings at $1m a seat. Prefer something more intimate? No problem. One-on-one meetings are also available, yours for $5m. For a seasoned observer such as Norman Eisen of the Brookings Institution, the sheer mass of problematic transactions puts the administration beyond the pale. 'It's over the line, unlawful, corrupt and unethical. It is un-American.' Eisen has experience dealing with knotty ethical issues. He was special counsel for ethics during Barack Obama's first year in the White House. Obama notes in his autobiography, A Promised Land, that Eisen earned himself the title of Dr No, so strict was his approach to conflicts of interest. He would tell White House officials hoping to attend outside events that 'if it sounds fun, you can't go'. Eisen told the Guardian that he prevented Obama from refinancing his family home in Chicago. 'He was regulating the banking industry at the time, in the midst of the Great Recession.' The contrast between such almost pedantic strictures and the free-for-all in today's White House astonishes and dismays Eisen. 'If my somewhat tongue in cheek motto for Obama was 'If it's fun, you can't do it,' then the motto of the Trump White House seems to be 'If you can make a buck, grab it.'' Exhibit one of such conduct, Eisen suggests, is the Trump family's dive into the world of crypto. Shortly before the inauguration, they launched personal lines of meme coins, $Trump and $Melania. Then they issued a new cryptocurrency pegged to the dollar, known as a stablecoin. Taken together, Eisen believes that the two crypto ventures from the family of a sitting president amount to 'one of the worst and most shocking conflicts of interest in our nation's history'. Trump bragged on the campaign trail that he would turn the US into the 'crypto capital of the planet'. He was more circumspect in front of his faithful followers about the big plans his sons were simultaneously developing to cash in on the currency. Since his election victory, Trump has used his presidential status and executive power to boost not only the general standing of crypto but also his personal stake within it. One of his early executive orders created a 'strategic bitcoin reserve' designed to bolster the industry. At the same time, he eviscerated basic regulatory controls, halted federal crypto-related lawsuits and disbanded a taskforce trained to hunt down crypto criminals. 'We have a president whose net worth now includes very substantial investments in cryptocurrency who at the same time is loosening regulations on the crypto industry,' Eisen said. We've been pretty successful in this country rooting out corruption, or at least pushing it into the shadows. Now it happens out in the open Democratic senator Chris Murphy The unrivalled magnetism of the US presidency helped Trump to blast his nascent meme coin, a currency almost entirely reliant on hype, into the stratosphere. It rocketed from $6.50 on inauguration day to a peak of $73. Then, when it predictably plummeted back down to below $10, he used his presidential allure brazenly once again to boost the coin. This time he announced a 'private intimate dinner' for the top 220 $Trump investors, followed by an exclusive White House tour for the top 25. The ensuing scramble for a seat at the presidential dining table reportedly earned the Trump family $148m. The $Trump meme coin is an ethics regulator's waking nightmare. There is little transparency around who is channelling money into it, and even less around the potentially nefarious motives of investors. The same might be said about the Trumps' other big crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, which was launched last September by Trump's sons. The president himself is listed by the company as its 'chief crypto advocate'. Federal law sets tight rules against foreign parties donating to presidential campaign or inaugural funds. Yet there is nothing to prevent outside interests with connections to foreign governments engaging with World Liberty and its new product, the USD1 stablecoin. One of its biggest backers is the Chinese-born crypto billionaire Justin Sun (best known for paying $6.2m at a New York art sale for a banana taped to a wall, then eating it). Before the inauguration, Sun pumped $75m into World Liberty. A few weeks later, the Securities and Exchange Commission paused an investigation into him for alleged securities fraud. USD1 is currently valued at $2.3bn, the lion's share of which comes from a $2bn transaction by MGX, a firm which happens to be chaired by the intelligence chief of the United Arab Emirates. That a company with ties to the government of an Arab petrostate should be able to make such a giant investment in a crypto venture generating profit for the sitting US president and his family goes against the grain of decades of robust accountability work countering conflicts of interest. 'We've been pretty successful in this country rooting out corruption, or at least pushing it into the shadows,' Murphy, the US senator, told the Guardian. 'Now it happens out in the open.' And it doesn't stop there. Over the past few months Trump's second son, Eric, has been frenetically traveling the globe in search of real estate deals, throwing to the winds the pledge Trump made in his first administration to eschew any foreign business transactions. In his second administration, Trump has made no such promise. All he has conceded this time, in a document released by his lawyers in January, is that the Trump Organization will avoid cutting business deals with foreign governments. Even that boundary has been pushed close to breaking point. Eric Trump sealed his first deal since Trump re-entered the White House in April. It involves the construction of the Trump International Golf Club & Villas outside the Qatari capital, Doha, as part of a $5bn luxury beachside resort. The company managing the development, Qatari Diar, is owned by the sovereign wealth fund of the Qatari government. Two weeks after the Trump Organization announced the deal, the president himself arrived in Doha as part of his three-country tour of the Middle East. He declared the trip a huge success, having drummed up trillions of dollars of business and investments for the US. *** The Guardian invited the White House to comment on complaints that the president has blurred his public duties with his family's personal profit-making activities to a degree never before seen in the US. A White House spokesperson replied with a statement which they asked us to print in its entirety, so here goes: 'There are no conflicts of interest. President Trump's assets are in a trust managed by his children. It is shameful that the Guardian is ignoring the GOOD deals President Trump has secured for the American people, not for himself, to push a false narrative. President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public – which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.' The argument that there is no conflict of interest because Trump's business is handled by his children, specifically his sons – Don Jr leading on crypto and his social media empire, Eric on real estate – is an interesting one. Sons seem to be de rigueur, to the extent that members of Trump's inner circle who lack them might feel the need to borrow one. Take other key figures in Trump's cabinet, which is packed with so many banking and energy billionaires that it ranks as the richest presidential cabinet in modern history. Lutnick, the commerce secretary, who has a personal fortune of about $2.2bn, has been involved in various accusations of conflict of interest since he encouraged Fox News viewers to 'buy Tesla'. At the start of this year Cantor Fitzgerald, the Wall Street firm Lutnick led for almost four decades, increased its investment in Strategy, the biggest corporate holder of bitcoin in the world. Cantor's stake rose by several hundred million dollars to $1.3bn, research by the watchdog has found. At the same time, Lutnick was actively helping Trump create his strategic bitcoin reserve, a move that greatly strengthened the cryptocurrency. Last month, Lutnick divested himself of his Cantor stake, but he did so by transferring his ownership to his two sons. Cantor is now controlled by Brandon Lutnick, 27, and Kyle Lutnick, 28. Or take Robert F Kennedy Jr, the vaccine-skeptic health secretary. Under intense pressure from Democratic senators, he agreed to divest his 10% stake in any payout from an ongoing lawsuit in which he is engaged against Merck over its HPV vaccine, Gardasil. Government officials are not allowed under federal law to participate personally in official matters in which they have a financial interest. So what did Kennedy do? He transferred his stake in the case to one of his adult sons. And then there's Mehmet Oz, the multimillionaire physician better known by his TV name, Dr Oz, whom Trump put in charge of Medicare and Medicaid. As the Washington Post has reported, Oz co-founded a health benefits company, ZorroRX, that helps hospitals save on prescription drugs. This would have been an indisputable conflict of interest, because in his job as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Oz wields huge sway over hospital drug policies, and thus ZorroRX profits. Since taking up the position Oz, whose wealth is put at up to $300m, has divested himself of some of his investment portfolio and is no longer mentioned on ZorroRX's website. His fellow co-founder of ZorroRX, however, is still listed as the firm's head of medical affairs. That's his son, Oliver Oz. Under federal conflict of interest law, there is no prohibition on adult children managing the interests of parents who hold public office. Yet the spirit of the law does force us to reflect on why so many Trump administration leaders are so fond of handing sensitive money-making portfolios to their sons. 'By giving over to your son, you are immediately raising questions about how separate you are going to be from the success of this business,' said Caputo of the Campaign Legal Center. 'Will you be focused on what's best for the public, or will you be guided in your decision-making by what would most benefit your family?' *** In the last analysis, what matters most perhaps about the financial dealings of the Trump administration is what impact they are having on the American people. In particular, what is it doing to the 77 million voters who put their trust in Trump and sent him back to the Oval Office? Trump returned to the White House partly on his promise to working-class Americans that he would 'drain the swamp', liberating Washington from the bloodsucking of special interests. Yet a review by the Campaign Legal Center found that Trump nominated at least 21 former lobbyists to top positions in his new administration, many of whom are now regulating the very industries on whose behalf they recently advocated. Eight of them, the Campaign Legal Center concluded, would have been banned or restricted in their roles under all previous modern presidencies, including Trump's own first administration. They include Pam Bondi, the US attorney general. She approved the gift of the Qatari luxury jetliner as 'legally permissible', having herself worked as a lobbyist for Qatar. Trump's other great pledge was that he would put the wellbeing of 'forgotten' working people before that of the vested elites. His appeal was pitched at the millions of rural and working-class Americans who have languished from mounting income inequality, the decline of manufacturing jobs in the globalised economy, and what he claimed was the negative effects of millions of undocumented immigrants. Evan Feinman has witnessed personally and up close how this promise has fared in Trump 2.0. For the past three years, Feinman was busy leading a $42.5bn program created by Congress to bring affordable high-speed internet to every American home and business that needed it. The project was vast and ambitious, on a par with the rural electrification drive that transformed the heartlands of America in the 1930s. Located within the US commerce department, its success is critical to the future prosperity of millions of Americans, especially those in hard-bitten rural areas of the sort that solidly backed Trump in the last election. Studies have shown that giving families access to the internet improves the grades of school students, increases college enrolment and reduces the likelihood of households falling into debt. It also helps older Americans stay in their own homes and avoid residential care. By the inauguration, the broadband project was well under way, with several states only weeks away from breaking ground and laying the cables. Then Lutnick took over the reins of the commerce department. Within a days of his confirmation, Lutnick met with senior managers and informed them he wanted to scale back on the use of fibre optic and switch to satellite. According to an account of the meeting that was given to Feinman by someone present, Lutnick specifically inquired after his friend Musk, the CEO of Starlink, which provides internet services through low-Earth orbit satellites. Days after that, Feinman was told he was being let go. His contract was up for renewal, and it wasn't being extended. 'I was dismayed,' Feinman told the Guardian, insisting that his distress was not so much related to his own dismissal but out of concern for the Americans who would be harmed by the shift. By his reckoning, satellite internet would not only be slower than broadband, it would also be much more expensive – costing users an extra $840 a year in fees. 'For Americans in rural locations, that's going to really hurt. Many of the president's strongest supporters – up to hundreds of thousands of families who voted for Trump – are going to see slower, more expensive internet services, and all to the benefit of the wealthiest man on earth.' According to some estimates, Musk's Starlink stands to make $10bn to $20bn should the shift from broadband to satellite internet go ahead. The episode has left Feinman 'deeply saddened. I see my nation harming itself in ways that are inexplicable and entirely avoidable.' He fears for rural Americans who will pay the price. 'These are communities who put their trust in this administration. They are going to find that their trust has not been honored, and it will be to their significant future detriment.'
