
Worrell fingers predecessor's ‘misuse of funds' for Orange state attorney's budget shortfall
The Orange-Osceola State Attorney's Office is grappling with an $849,000 budget shortfall, and State Attorney Monique Worrell on Monday blamed part of the problem on a 'misuse of funds' by her predecessor.
Most of the deficit, Worrell said, comes from the loss of a $500,000 federal grant for victim advocates under the federal Victims of Crimes Act, which had its funding cut by Congress last year.
But Worrell also criticized what she called mismanagement by her predecessor Andrew Bain, ranging from hefty exit payouts for top officials to 'irresponsible financial decisions' regarding his own criminal justice initiatives. She said the office will undergo an audit to rectify how it was managed in the past and reveal ways to spend funds more efficiently in the future.
'Rather than functioning the way the office has functioned for the last 40 years, what are some efficiencies that we can use?' Worrell said. 'Are there things that we can do better so that we are using every dollar to its best and highest use? That's what I'm after at this point.'
As the region's top prosecutor, Worrell has in recent weeks trumpeted the need to address her office's funding issues, which she says has led to prosecutors being stretched thin amid rising caseloads. But Monday's press conference was her most detailed description of the deficit she says she inherited following her election victory over Bain, forcing her to go without filling key administrative roles, including a chief of staff and a fulltime public information officer.
It is also her clearest rebuke of Bain, who spent 17 months in office after Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended Worrell in 2023 and appointed him to replace her.
'The interim administration just compounded that problem and made it worse,' Worrell said. 'But it was it was always a problem and it will continue to be a problem until our circuit is funded at the level that it should be for the number of cases that we're processing on an annual basis.'
Central to Worrell's claims was the nearly $93,000 payout of unused annual leave to outgoing officials ahead of her return. Two of Bain's top brass, Chief Assistant State Attorney Ryan Williams and Deputy Chief Assistant State Attorney Jamie McManus, received a combined amount just over $70,000, according to figures released by Worrell's office.
Williams and McManus served just 16 months as Bain's No. 2 and No. 3, respectively, but 9th circuit policy required them to work two years in the circuit before they qualified for the payout.
As for Bain's supposed reckless spending, Worrell pointed to a $30,000 debt owed to the University of Central Florida for Bain's 'Turning Pages' program, a literacy initiative aimed at youth in the criminal justice system and taught by graduate students.
Another $67,000 was said to have been given to The Levitt Group, a consulting firm Worrell said specializes in airport concessions that was paid to offer 'criminal justice advice.'
Additionally, Worrell said Bain spent $9,800 on tablet computers from the Figgers Foundation, run by DeSantis donor Freddie Figgers, 'despite the office staff advising the administration' that cheaper tablets of good quality could be purchased on Amazon. It's not clear what the tablets were for.
UCF did not respond to a message seeking comment. But Jeremy Levitt, president and CEO for The Levitt Group, called Worrell's criticism 'rubbish,' saying airport concessions is but one part of a company that has 'consulted all over the world.'
Levitt said he served as Bain's senior criminal justice advisor at a 'heavily discounted rate,' consulting on topics like police deescalation training and hate crimes. He said he led a charge for the office to receive a $1 million federal grant to create a hate crimes task force, calling it 'a damn good return on your money.'
An assistant for Bain, since picked by DeSantis for a judgeship in Orange County, did not immediately respond to Worrell's remarks about his handling of the office. Worrell, however, pledged she is 'not going to use the resources of this office to investigate my predecessor.'
'This office's primary function isn't investigating crime, it's prosecuting it,' she said.
The State Attorney's Office's finances have been the subject of controversy in recent weeks, centered around a massive backlog of cases with too few prosecutors and support staff to clear them.
Florida's attorney general has sent prosecutors to tackle the 13,000-case backlog since the issue was first acknowledged, but Worrell has said that's a temporary fix and implemented a policy limiting the review of so-called 'non-arrest' cases as a way to address it.
As of Friday, the additional prosecutors have processed about 100 nonarrest cases since their arrival, though their work has been interrupted by the departure of their supervisor, Statewide Prosecutor Nick Cox.
Cox, who helped forge an assistance pact with Worrell, was recently hired to be chief assistant state attorney in Hillsborough County.
'For this budget year, there's no getting back on track — the damage is already done,' Worrell said. 'What we have done is we've gone to [Justice Administrative Commission] to ask for more authority to spend more money. That's going to help us get out of this hole, but part of the problem is that we were always underfunded.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." - 'Wish him well' - The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days as Musk described the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore. I was surprised," Trump told reporters. Musk, who was Trump's biggest donor to his 2024 campaign, also raised the issue of the Republican's election win. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," he posted, adding: "Such ingratitude." Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Musk had alleged that the Republican president is featured in unreleased government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while he faced sex trafficking charges. Trump was named in a trove of deposition and statements linked to Epstein that were unsealed by a New York judge in early 2024. The president has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case. "Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files," Musk posted on X. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He appeared to have deleted those tweets by Saturday morning. bur-sco/dhc
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The days around Trump's trade war announcements saw spikes in lawmaker stock market transactions
In the days before President Donald Trump suddenly paused most of the punishing tariffs on foreign countries he had revealed in early April, more than a dozen congressional lawmakers were tied to thousands of dollars' worth of stock transactions, including significant purchases as the US stock market tumbled, a CNN analysis of financial filings shows. Seven Democrats and three Republicans reported stock transactions made on April 7, two days before Trump instituted the pause, according to a CNN review of a database of congressional financial filings compiled by Capitol Trades, a platform by the financial data research firm 2iQ which tracks lawmakers' financial activity. That day, a post on X erroneously suggested a pause was already underway, tumbling stocks and sending the markets into a state of turbulence. The next day, on the eve of Trump's tariff reprieve, seven Republicans and four Democrats were tied to transactions, filings show. The White House that day announced it would impose hefty tariffs on China and the S&P 500 closed at its lowest level so far this year. Then came April 9. 'BE COOL!' and 'THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that day, hours before his White House announced a 90-day pause on tariffs against a number of countries save for China. The announcement set the S&P 500 on track to post its biggest single-day gain since October 2008. House and Senate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long traded stocks, and their reported transactions so far this Congress have largely mirrored Americans' high volume of trading activity amid the frenetic market shifts fueled by the president's whipsaw economic policy. While lawmakers who spoke with CNN denied having advance briefings, some who bought ahead of the president's tariff reprieve stood to make significant gains after it spurred a market rebound. Lawmakers told CNN the trades were made largely by third-party financial advisors with unilateral control over their portfolios. But experts and some on Capitol Hill say questions around the timing of the transactions strikes at the heart of an ethical and optical question that has long dogged Congress: Can lawmakers play the market without generating suspicion their access to information gives them an unfair advantage, or should they ban the practice altogether? 'At a time where there was significant or important non-public information swirling around Washington, the public can't help but fear that members of Congress are using their access to information to personally profit,' Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Donna Nagy, who has testified before Congress on the issue, told CNN after viewing the trading data. 'And whether that perception is true or not, it is destructive. It fuels a corrosive belief that lawmakers are using their positions for purposes of profit and not for the public interest.' Lawmakers, their spouses, and children are permitted to make trades but they are mandated to report any activity done on their behalf within 45 days. They are only required to disclose a monetary value range for trades. From March 31 — just before the president's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement of tariffs of at least 10% across all countries — through the April 9 pause, a total of 35 lawmakers (19 Republicans and 16 Democrats) reported purchases between about $8.6 million and $27.9 million and sales between about $5.9 million and $22.4 million across 1,265 transactions. Not all of the trades were individual stocks; some involved were mutual funds or public bonds. From March 31 through April 9, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna reported the most transactions at 438, while GOP Rep. Kevin Hern reported the single highest-value transaction of up to $5 million on April 4. Eleven lawmakers reported one transaction. Fourteen lawmakers reported two transactions or fewer. The transactions Khanna reported, his communications director Sarah Drory told CNN, were not stock trades but part of a trust managed by an independent third party that stems from money his wife had before they were married. Hern spokeswoman Miranda Dabney, meanwhile, told CNN: 'Rep. Hern does not have day-to-day management or control over his stock portfolio or his businesses.' In statements provided to CNN, representatives for the lawmakers who reported trades during that period pointed to various agreements with third-party financial advisors and noted that some purchases were bonds and not individual stocks. The offices told CNN the lawmakers are not directly involved in the purchases. 'President Trump was telling the entire world for months, and even decades, about the benefits of tariffs. It was even a central component of his 2024 presidential campaign. Suggesting any behind-the-scenes coordination is ridiculous,' a spokesperson for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said, pushing back on concerns around the timing of the trades. The Georgia Republican – whose 11 reported purchases on April 8 included between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock each, according to the filings – does not direct her own trades but instead has a fiduciary agreement with her portfolio manager, the spokesperson said. Around Trump's trade war, a number of Republicans publicly pledged support for Trump's economic policy while protecting their own financial interests. Sen. Markwayne Mullin sold between $290,000 and $700,000 in stocks across industries from a joint account on April 8 through 'an independent, third-party operator firm that manages all stock portfolio investments on his behalf,' according to his spokesperson. At the same time, the Oklahoma Republican was publicly supporting the president's escalating trade war, despite the financial decisions that appeared to mirror broader consumer concerns. Hern, the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House said on February 13, shortly after Trump announced 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all countries: 'These reciprocal tariffs will incentivize other nations to level the playing field and remove long-standing, exorbitant tariffs.' On March 31 — two days before Trump announced expansive tariffs on April 2 — a trust affiliated with Hern sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of structured investments. For Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, one of the Republicans behind the push to ban lawmaker stock trading, having an intermediary conduct the trades does little to assuage concern. 'Members of Congress should come here to advance the interests of their constituents, not to enrich themselves using stock trading,' Roy said. Rhode Island Rep. Seth Magaziner, one of the leading negotiators on the Democratic side of the effort to ban congressional stock trading who participates in regular meetings on the issue, similarly told CNN: 'We should eliminate the opportunity for members of Congress to engage in any sort of insider trading because the opportunity clearly exists.' The director of government affairs at the Project on Government Oversight Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette told CNN, 'You occasionally have these moments where it really clarifies and distills down just how bad this is. And I think the tariff announcements and subsequent trades and transactions are a prime example of that.' March 3 — the day before Trump levied an additional 10% tariff on China and a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian imports with some exceptions — saw the highest number of lawmakers reporting stock trading in a single day through mid-April, according to CNN's analysis. Sixteen lawmakers, evenly split among Democrats and Republicans, reported hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of transactions that day — most of them purchases. The president had confirmed at an afternoon White House event on March 3 that the tariffs would take effect the next day, leading to a sharp selloff in stocks. At that point, March 3 had so far been the worst day for the market. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, who reported purchases between $50,000 and $100,000, was the only lawmaker to report having personally traded on March 3. McCormick did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Lawmakers reached by CNN sought to distance themselves from the transactions filed during those key dates around Trump's tariffs announcements. CNN reached out to the 16 lawmakers who reported transactions on March 3, and the 35 lawmakers, some of whom overlapped, who reported having transactions between March 31 and April 9. Those who responded to CNN said they were unaware of trades being made through various agreements with financial advisors. They said the filings did not reflect traditional stock trades and that they had no interactions with the administration around key announcements. Some told CNN the filings reflected trades or reinvestments through a joint account or by a spouse. Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer is waiting on congressional approval for a blind trust, a spokesman told CNN. GOP Rep. Bruce Westerman, meanwhile, has instructed his investment advisor to not invest in individual stocks and is in the process of putting his assets back into a fund, after receiving heat for recent investments, spokesperson Kinsey Featherston shared. Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson has begun the process of divesting her stocks, managed by an independent third party, into ETFs and mutual funds upon becoming a member of Congress, her spokesperson told CNN. Some said they supported efforts to ban lawmaker trading of individual stocks, even those with active portfolios, including Khanna and GOP Rep. Rob Bresnahan. The STOCK Act passed with overwhelming support in 2012 to increase transparency about lawmaker stock trading and made it illegal for lawmakers to use inside information for financial benefit. But lawmakers and experts argue problems persist with existing reporting structures and enforcement mechanisms. Along with only being required to report a monetary range of transactions, lawmakers also don't report the timing of a trade on a given day, which could be useful context for those determining whether seemingly well-timed trades could be based on non-public information. There is also currently no designated oversight body to determine whether lawmakers hold a conflict of interest in their trading practices. Legal experts say that even lawmakers who use financial advisors to trade on their behalf are not necessarily insulated from scrutiny, and it depends on the details of the agreement. The $200 fine for late filings is hardly a deterrent, experts argue. 'That doesn't pass the sniff test even a little bit because there is no guarantee that they're not talking to those people because there is no prohibition against them from talking to those financial advisors,' Hedtler-Gaudette said of the arrangements most lawmakers have with their financial advisors. As efforts to ban congressional stock trading have fallen short, scholars and ethics experts have argued that members of Congress are privy to more information than the average American and are often faced with legislative decisions that overlap with their investment portfolios. 'It is essentially completely legal for a congressman, congresswoman or senator to go to Goldman Sachs, Blackrock or Vanguard and be like, 'Hey I'm proposing this regulation, what do you think will be the impact on the market?' There is nothing to stop you from that,' said Dr. Jan Hanousek Jr., an assistant professor at the University of Memphis who has studied the patterns of lawmaker stock trading. 'This is an insane problem.' Beyond ethics concerns, a 2022 Fox News poll found that 70% of respondents supported banning members of Congress and their families from trading stock, while a January UC San Diego study found that even when lawmakers make their trading practices public, it 'erodes' the legitimacy of Congress. The push to ban lawmaker stock trading last peaked when dozens of federal officials and some lawmakers made lucrative stock and mutual fund trades as the government was preparing for the financial onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. The Department of Justice has since closed investigations into the moves. But in a sign this Congress' bipartisan group of lawmakers may be closer to finding the political will to ban the practice, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the president himself have publicly supported the effort, following news of lawmaker stock trading activity around the tariff announcements. 'I have been working on this issue for years,' Roy told CNN. 'We can and should fix the problem during this term now that President Trump and the Speaker have signaled their support for the measure. We have the will and the mandate of the American people to do this. Let's deliver.' CNN's John Towfighi contributed to this report.


The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Musk voices regret for Trump feud: ‘Went too far'
Elon Musk is voicing regret for his public feud with President Trump, days after an explosive set of public attacks shattered the pair's close alliance. 'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far,' Musk wrote in an early morning post on his social media platform X on Wednesday. Musk's comments represent the tech mogul's clearest effort yet to smooth over tensions after a blowup that upended months of close coordination between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful leader. In another post on Tuesday night, Musk shared a news headline noting that his net worth had fallen more than $100 billion amid his efforts leading the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, as investors sold off shares of his car company Tesla. 'Worth it,' he wrote of the financial hit. Musk in a series of posts on X last week lambasted the president's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' in Congress, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' and slamming Republicans in the House who voted for it. The legislation is the centerpiece of Trump's legislative agenda, with the White House dismissing the billionaire's criticism that it would add trillions to the country's debt. Over the course of several hours, Musk issued rapid-fire social media posts lashing out at the bill and the president himself, saying Trump would have lost the 2024 election without his warchest, backed calls to impeach Trump and replace him with Vice President Vance, and floated forming a third party. After Trump called Musk 'crazy' and argued his former adviser was upset because the legislation he's seeking to advance in the Senate would repeal electric vehicle tax credits, the Tesla CEO responded with a terse 'Whatever.' Musk capped off his fusillade by alleging that '[Trump] is in the Epstein files,' referring to documents about the convicted sexual offender Jeffrey Epstein who died by suicide in jail in 2019. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. 'Have a nice day, DJT!' Republican lawmakers moved quickly to urge Musk and Trump to patch up their feud, arguing the pair remain aligned on many priorities. Within hours of the back-and-forth, Musk signaled a desire to deescalate, replying 'true' to a post that urged the two men to 'make peace for the benefit of our great country.' Musk's business empire has faced risks in the wake of the blowup, with his aerospace company SpaceX alone holding billions of dollars in federal contracts. Trump in the midst of the pair's feuding last week threatened to cut Musk's government contracts. The president escalated his threat in a phone interview with NBC News's Kristen Welker over the weekend, warning Musk will face 'serious consequences' if he tries to back Democratic candidates over GOP lawmakers who support his tax and spending bill. The feud has also worn on views of Musk within the GOP. A YouGov/Economist poll released Tuesday showed a drop in support for Musk among Republicans, with his net favorability sinking 20 points. The survey showed two-thirds of Republicans still view him favorably. For his part, Trump pushed to turn the page late last week, focusing instead on the economy, his legislative agenda and international issues. The White House said the president also planned to sell or give away the Tesla he purchased earlier this year. The vehicle was no longer at the White House on Tuesday, ABC News' Jonathan Karl reported. And Trump told reporters he's 'not really interested' in efforts to reconcile the duo. 'I'm not thinking about Elon Musk,' the president said over the weekend. 'I just wish him well.'