House ethics panel tells AOC to make more payments over her Met Gala ‘Tax the Rich' outfit
While the Met Gala is always an eye-catching affair, in September 2021, Ocasio-Cortez stunned onlookers with a Brother Vellies custom white mermaid gown that had the words 'Tax the Rich' written in red on the back.
At the time, the congresswoman explained on Instagram she wanted to bring attention to the idea of raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans by doing so 'in front of the very people who lobby against it,' per the Daily News. The event cost $35,000 per person at that time, The New York Times reported.
For years, the ethics panel has been investigating Ocasio-Cortez's attendance at the 2021 Met Gala, and now it says she must make additional payments worth nearly $3,000 in relation to the event.
The panel released a report Friday stating the estimated rental cost the congresswoman had paid for the dress and some of her accessories in 2022 was below fair market value.
'The Committee found that she failed to fully comply with the Gift Rule by impermissibly accepting a gift of free admission to the 2021 Met Gala for her partner [Riley Roberts] and by failing to pay full fair market value for some of the items worn to the event,' the report read.
But the panel did not find evidence Ocasio-Cortez 'intentionally underpaid for any goods or services' related to the gala.
'In many instances, the congresswoman relied on the advice of counsel in determining appropriate payment amounts, and most discussions about payment were handled through a campaign staffer,' the report read.
Ocasio-Cortez previously paid just shy of $1,000 for her Met Gala outfit, but the panel found its fair market value to be worth more than $3,700.
The panel said the congresswoman did make 'significant steps' to comply with House gift rules and advised her to pay an additional $2,733.28 to settle the matter.
The congresswoman was also advised to donate $250 to the Met's Costume Institute for the cost of Roberts' meal at the 2021 gala.
Mike Casca, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, said in a statement obtained by The Hill, 'The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House.'
'She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she's done at each step in this process,' Casca added.
The Independent has reached out to the congresswoman's office for comment.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
6 minutes ago
- Washington Post
What will Trump's Alaska summit achieve?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. The highly anticipated Trump-Putin summit will take place tomorrow in Anchorage. On the agenda: how to end the Ukraine war. The meeting is sure to provide much theater, but will it yield anything else? I sat down with my colleagues David Ignatius and Max Boot to discuss. — Damir Marusic, assignment editor 💬 💬 💬 Damir Marusic Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk reportedly said, 'I have many fears and a lot of hope.' David, Max, how are you feeling ahead of the sit-down? David Ignatius For me, it's a mix of hope and dread. The hope is that President Donald Trump, having committed so much to ending a war that he rightly condemns as a bloodbath, will lean hard enough on Russian President Vladimir Putin to get terms that reasonable people could sell to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his country. The fear is that Trump will simply listen to Putin's demands and either seek to impose them on Ukraine or walk away from his diplomatic mission. If I had to guess, I'd opt for the fearful version. Max Boot I have more fear than hope. I see no indication that Putin is going to call off his war (which is making little progress on the ground). The offer Putin apparently made to special envoy Steve Witkoff — he is demanding that Ukraine turn over unconquered, well-defended territory in the Donetsk region in return for a ceasefire — is a nonstarter for Ukraine. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir I'm maybe a bit more optimistic. Not in the sense that there will be any progress, but the opposite: The White House seems to be lowering expectations about what's possible. Trump on Monday told reporters, 'It's not up to me to make a deal.' Max Yes, I'm mildly cheered to see the White House lowering expectations. But I also know that Trump is mercurial and unpredictable, and he loves surprises. So the chances of Putin-Trump meeting in private and hatching some kind of deal (or, more exactly, the framework of a deal) and Trump coming back to proclaim 'peace for our time' are not negligible. I don't see that as the likeliest outcome — and I am also buoyed by the fact that Trump was able to say no to a bad offer from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at their last summit — but it's a real danger. David Trump's flair for the dramatic is what got him into this negotiation in the first place. And recalling his diplomacy with Kim, it's hard to imagine him just having a 'listening exercise' and then saying, 'See you later, Vlad.' One way or another, I suspect Trump will want some drama. Max My concern level will rise if Trump and Putin meet alone, with only interpreters. That's what happened at their last meeting in Helsinki, and it was a disaster. I hope Trump will take Secretary of State Marco Rubio, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg and others into the room with him (but preferably not Witkoff, who has proved very credulous in dealing with Putin). David An important baseline for Anchorage will come today, when Trump speaks with European leaders and Zelensky about what Europe might do to support Ukraine against continuing Russian aggression even if the U.S. backs away. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir The danger for me seems to be that Trump is still in thrall to the idea that everyone just wants to make money. During that Monday news conference, in the same breath as he said it was not up to him to make a deal, he seemed to hold out hope that normalizing economic relations with Russia could bring Putin to the table, saying that Putin has to get back to rebuilding his country. David Trump has always had a fantasy that there are 'trillions' to be made in a future Russia. People keep trying to talk him out of that misjudgment, I'm told. Yet it persists. Weird. Max I thought reality was dawning for Trump last month when he started denouncing Putin for having nice conversations but then continuing to bomb civilian centers. Trump was finally on the right track in threatening massive sanctions and agreeing to supply weapons to Ukraine (albeit with the Europeans buying them first). But then he did another U-turn last week, following Witkoff's meeting with Putin, again blaming Zelensky for starting the war and pretending that Putin is interested in peace. The whole summit is built on a fundamental misunderstanding: Trump thinks Putin wants to end the war. What Putin really wants is to win the war. David Trump has tried every possible approach to diplomacy. Term sheets. Timelines. High-level meetings. But he keeps coming back to his core idea that it's only a meeting between the two big guys — him and Putin — that can resolve this, so we end up in Anchorage with very little work done on the shape of a settlement or clarity about what it might involve. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Is there any sense that Trump still has the 'stick' of secondary sanctions in mind? Max I don't know what Trump will do, but if he's serious about making a deal with Putin, he first has to impose the full gamut of pressure and wait for the sanctions to bite. He is making a major blunder by prematurely rushing into a summit when there is no indication that Putin will make any concessions. David I think Trump would love to use China and India as leverage to get Putin to make concessions. I'm told that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has included Ukraine in his conversations with Chinese officials, and obviously Trump has threatened India with heavy secondary sanctions if it continues to buy oil from Russia. But my guess is that these efforts will fade if Trump encounters an immovable obstacle in Putin on Friday. Damir An immovable Putin wouldn't cause him to double down, but fold? Is it TACO all over again? Max Trump has said he may conclude there is no deal to be had and walk away. That's fine, if it happens. The question is what happens next. Will he just ignore the entire war, thereby giving Putin a free hand? Or will he return to his threats of sanctions for Russia to punish Putin for intransigence? Trump doesn't have to insert himself into the peacemaking process — ultimately, it will be up to Russia and Ukraine to make peace, and thus far Putin is not even willing to meet Zelensky — but Trump does need to continue backing Ukraine. David I don't like the TACO analogy. It just eggs Trump on, as near as I can tell. I think the question for Trump is how much he's willing to risk to gain a peace in Ukraine that's desperately important for Europe but less so for the United States. And the answer, probably, is that he's not willing to risk much.
Bloomberg
6 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Festivals and Parades Are Canceled Amid US Immigration Anxiety
Pittsburgh had planned to host its first-ever local World Cup this summer, a community soccer competition inspired by the global tournament and aimed at celebrating the city's cultural diversity. The weeks-long event, which was set to begin in June, would have featured teams made up of residents from the city's vast immigrant community, who'd play under the flags of their national origins. But city officials called off the games amid growing anxieties over President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. The city also canceled its annual International Parade and Festival, which previously brought out vendors and performers from dozens of cultural groups. In a statement from Mayor Ed Gainey's office to Bloomberg, spokesperson Olga George said both events were canceled out of 'an abundance of caution' after consulting with residents and community stakeholders.
New York Times
6 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Federal Deployment Ramps Up in D.C.
President Trump made a show of force in Washington, D.C., this week, exercising his unique powers over the nation's capital to commandeer the city's police force, deploy the National Guard and send hundreds of federal law enforcement agents into the city in what he described as an effort to combat crime. It is the first time a president has used a declared emergency to wrest control of the city's police, a step that its mayor said was 'unsettling' though allowed under the law. Congress and the executive branch have long exerted controls over the city's budget and other decisions. But the president's move may represent the biggest encroachment on the city's autonomy since it was granted home rule 52 years ago. While crime is a concern for many residents, the situation on the ground differs from Mr. Trump's hyperbolic statements in justifying the moves: Official data shows that crime is falling — particularly violent crime, which hit a 30-year low last year — after surging during the pandemic. Mr. Trump, who has stoked fears of violent crimes in America's cities going back more than 35 years, delivered increasingly dire threats after returning to office in January that if he was not satisfied with the city's efforts to combat crime, he would order a federal takeover of Washington — in effect dissolving the local government to rule it directly. Mr. Trump took his first firm steps in that direction last week, after a prominent young administration official was beaten by a mob of young assailants in an attempted carjacking in Washington. Here's what to know. What is Trump doing on law enforcement in Washington? And how is he able to do it? In the span of a week, Mr. Trump rapidly ratcheted up moves going over the heads of D.C. leaders. He has invoked his authority in overseeing federal law enforcement and a 1973 law that gives the president the power to take temporary control of the city's police. He ordered a surge of roughly 500 federal agents into the city beginning last Friday, after the beating of Edward Coristine — an operative of the Department of Government Efficiency — that week. Then on Monday, Mr. Trump used a provision of the D.C. Home Rule Act, the law that established a local government and granted the city limited autonomy, to temporarily take over the Metropolitan Police Department, the city's main police force. A White House official said the current takeover would last 30 days, the maximum outlined in the law before the president must seek an extension of that authority through Congress. Mr. Trump has expressed interest in seeking such an extension. What powers do federal agents have on city patrols? On Tuesday, National Guard troops began to deploy in Washington for the first time since 2020, when Mr. Trump ordered a crackdown on Black Lives Matter protests in the city. Unlike the 50 states, D.C. does not control its National Guard unit and has little ability to push back against a federal deployment, as Gov. Gavin Newsom of California did earlier this year. About a dozen troops were spotted on the National Mall on Tuesday as others gathered at the D.C. Armory, the headquarters of the D.C. National Guard. The initial deployment near the Washington Monument was a far cry from the aggressive policing carried out by the D.C. Guard in 2020. The troops were seen snapping photos of themselves with visitors, and left roughly two hours after they arrived. One complicating factor of using federal agents to patrol Washington is that those agents do not have the same authority as police officers to arrest people for minor criminal offenses. Trump administration officials have suggested that if federal agents see someone commit such a crime, they can stop and detain the person until a local police officer arrives and makes an arrest. City officials have said the National Guard troops would not have the authority to make arrests, as the use of the military for civilian law enforcement is limited by the Constitution. Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington said this week that the president 'has the authority, by virtue of the statute, to request services.' But she said city officials retained the authority to hire and fire people in the Police Department. She added that the police chief would work 'hand in hand with the people that the president has designated.' Could Trump fully take over D.C.? Even before the current crisis, Mr. Trump held a significant amount of control over D.C. The president nominates the city's judges and top prosecutor. Much of the City Council's powers to make laws and plan the annual budget is also subject to congressional oversight. Mr. Trump in effect exercised his presidential powers to set aside some of the city's autonomy, declaring a public safety emergency and temporarily commandeering the city's police force. In theory, Mr. Trump could go further, with the approval of the Republican-controlled Congress. Lawmakers could extend the emergency, keeping the police under Mr. Trump's authority for the duration. Mr. Trump may also be able to keep the National Guard and other federal agents deployed in the city indefinitely. In California, a fraction of the Guard force that Mr. Trump had federalized is still operating under federal control months after being called up. He could also direct federal units to more forcefully police the city, using tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles, low-flying aircraft and other aggressive tools and tactics. The White House had previously said that federal agents in the city would be 'identified, in marked units, and highly visible,' but those restrictions are not mandated by law, and those units could quickly shift to crack down on city residents. The most extreme — and most unlikely — outcome is that Mr. Trump calls on Congress to repeal the D.C. Home Rule Act. That would dissolve the local government and place the city directly under federal control. The city's 700,000 residents — more than the population of Vermont or Wyoming — would lose the ability to elect their mayor and local council members. Mr. Trump has in recent months expressed support for a federal takeover, and Republicans in both the House and the Senate have introduced legislation to do so. But the chances of those laws passing are still very low. Under current Senate rules, such a law would need 60 votes to advance, and there are only 53 Republicans in the Senate. Has something like this happened before? Mr. Trump is the first president to use a declared emergency to wrest control of D.C.'s police. But federal police and the military have previously been deployed in the city, most recently during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. Mr. Trump had also deployed the National Guard to Washington in 2020 as part of a crackdown on racial justice protests after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. The D.C. Guard was at the forefront of that deployment, which was widely seen as a debacle at the time. Mr. Trump had also considered a deployment of active-duty military units like the 82nd Airborne, and senior Army leaders warned National Guard officers that Army units would replace them on the ground if they were insufficiently aggressive in controlling the protests. There have been other encroachments on the city's autonomy during home rule. Before this week, the most significant was a financial control board, established by Congress in 1995 to steer the city out of a fiscal crisis.
