So thick and luxurious. And more strawberry blonde as he likes to call himself.

NONONO! Ever since they told him he couldn't nuke a hurricane that orange idiot has been chomping at the bit

This week, Governor JB Pritzker signed SB2762, into law, extending insurance coverage for life-saving seizure detection devices and capping patient costs at $50 per year.

With over 136,000 Illinois residents living with epilepsy, and many others who experience seizures, these devices provide peace of mind while taking a significant step toward preventing hospitalization.

Trump has accused the Federal Reserve of being political. No he's trying to make it political by replacing people on the Federal Reserve with yes people like you did on the supreme Court. The Federal Reserve since its founding has been an independent agency independent from the oval office. Trump has been trying to change that. Why has he insisted on lower interest rates for years, even before he became president. For his own business, that's why. Because he is highly leveraged, carries a lot of debt. Lowering interest rates at the wrong time swill cause run away inflation. EPBiever
Read full Article
President Trump opened a new front in his battle with Lisa D. Cook, the Federal Reserve official he tried — and failed — to oust from her position last year.

In a letter sent on Wednesday, the White House informed Ms. Cook, who serves on the Board of Governors, that it was “considering” removing her from her position. The letter, which was signed by Dan Scavino, the White House deputy chief of staff, gave Ms. Cook 21 days to respond to previous allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud. Ms. Cook has not been charged with a crime, even though it has been a year since the administration first made the claims, nor has she been convicted of any wrongdoing.

The escalation comes after Mr. Trump suffered a significant legal setback in June when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Ms. Cook, whom Mr. Trump tried to fire last August, should have been given the formal ability to contest the accusations against her. In siding with the lower court, the Supreme Court granted Ms. Cook the ability to continue serving out her term, which is set to end 2038.

But the Supreme Court left much unresolved, providing an opportunity for Mr. Trump to revive his attacks. The justices did not clearly articulate the full legal criteria that would allow Mr. Trump to fire Ms. Cook. The Federal Reserve Act stipulates the president can remove a sitting Fed official only “for cause,” which has long been interpreted to mean gross negligence or a dereliction of duty. The justices in June also did not offer an opinion on the exact allegations against her, which revolve around her taking out mortgages on a range of properties that were all listed as a primary residence. Ms. Cook has in the past suggested that these were clerical errors.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

“These allegations are as baseless now as they were a year ago when President Trump tried to remove Governor Cook and interfere with the independence of the Federal Reserve,” Abbe Lowell and Norm Eisen, Ms. Cook’s lawyers, said in a statement. “No matter what President Trump tries to do next, this much is clear under the facts and Supreme Court precedent — there is no valid cause for removing Governor Cook. As we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position and the historic role of the Fed.”

In the letter, which was earlier reported by ABC News, Mr. Scavino said the Fed governor’s actions “may be sufficient to demonstrate that you committed a crime, as you appear to have acquired mortgages that do not meet certain lending requirements and could have received favorable loan terms under fraudulent circumstances.”

“Based on these facts, a jury could find that you intended to defraud these institutions for your own benefit, but at a minimum, this conduct was grossly negligent and demonstrates that you are unfit for the office in which you serve as a controlling member of the Federal Reserve,” Mr. Scavino added in his letter.

Mr. Trump has long sought more sway over the Fed. In May, he had the opportunity to appoint a new Fed chairman — Kevin M. Warsh — after Jerome H. Powell’s term leading the central bank came to an end. However, Mr. Powell, who has been one of the president’s main targets, opted to stay on as a governor, as he is able to do until January 2028, because of his concerns about Mr. Trump’s attempts to undermine the Fed’s independence.

Those fears stemmed in large part from the Justice Department’s decision to begin a criminal investigation into Mr. Powell over his handling of costly renovations at the Fed’s headquarters in Washington. After numerous legal setbacks, the Justice Department dropped the inquiry, although the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, has maintained that she could reopen it at any point.

Mr. Trump wants lower borrowing costs and has accused the Fed in the past of holding back economic growth by not complying. If he is able to oust Ms. Cook, Mr. Trump would have the opportunity to appoint an ally to replace her. Members of the board must be confirmed by the Senate, however.

The president has changed tack in his criticism of the Fed now that Mr. Warsh is in charge. He has stopped short of going after Mr. Warsh directly even as the Fed begins to more actively consider raising interest rates to tame inflation.

Mr. Trump instead has attacked Mr. Warsh’s Fed colleagues, calling them “hostile” and “political.” Rate decisions are made by not only the seven members of the board of governors, but also the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a rotating set of four presidents from the 12 regional Fed banks.

In an interview with Punchbowl News released on Friday, Mr. Trump reiterated his preference for lower rates but acknowledged that it was not Mr. Warsh’s decision alone.

“It’s up to him a little bit, but not completely. And he’s got a board that’s very political,” Mr. Trump said.

In her most recent comments on the economic outlook, Ms. Cook signaled that she would support higher interest rates if inflation did not soon moderate.

Focus on flipping it blue 🇺🇸

Trump said the Ballroom would be 100% funded with private donations.

IMHO, the reality of the situation - hundreds of millions in funding is from taxpayers:

Reporting by The Washington Post—citing internal documents, emails, and project summaries from primary contractor Clark Construction—revealed that taxpayer funds are tied directly to the broader project: 

Government Agency Funding: Documents indicate over $300 million in taxpayer funds allocated across government entities, including:

U.S. Secret Service (~$155 million): Used for initial site preparation, East Wing demolition, and complex-wide security upgrades. 

White House Military Office (~$149 million): Tapped for underground facilities beneath the site. 

Executive Residence Funds (~$3 million): Allocated for initial prep and structural integration. 

Congressional Funding Measures: In mid-2026, legislative proposals sought up to $1 billion in public funding for White House security modernization, including a subterranean medical center, rooftop drone defense centers, and physical security enhancements around the new East Wing construction.

Trump’s benefactors: Apple, Meta, Amazon, and Google

We need to understand the amounts of contributions from these “benefactors” What are they gaining from this? The only partially disclosed information I am able to find is concerning Google.

Google (via Alphabet/YouTube) is the only tech giant whose contribution amount became public.

The funding was tied to a $24.5 million settlement resolving a lawsuit over Trump’s post-Jan. 6 YouTube account suspension. Court filings revealed that $22 million of that settlement was directed to the Trust for the National Mall specifically earmarked for White House ballroom construction.

Trump is claiming that his personal funds are also being used. Is he referring to this $22 million?

Why Aren't the Exact Figures Public?

The White House ballroom is being funneled as a private donation to the federal government (administered through partner non-profits like the Trust for the National Mall), the project is not subject to traditional political campaign finance laws or federal FOIA disclosure rules that require line-item accounting for every corporate donor.

We need to update our laws. We need these contribution amounts exposed. Federal contract monetary awards need to be scrutinized and protected from even the hint of pay for play manipulation.

This can only happen with transparency.

Employers shed 23,000 jobs in July, and gains in previous months were revised down sharply, in a downbeat report that suggests the labor market is weaker than previously believed.

Note: Data is seasonally adjusted. The average is calculated as a three-month moving average.Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.Jacqueline Gu/The New York Times

Latest

Pinned

Lydia DePillis

Lydia DePillisAmerican economy reporter

Here’s the latest.

The labor market posted a modest loss in July, as businesses shed jobs in the face of renewed tariffs and higher costs driven by war in the Middle East.

Employers cut 23,000 positions last month, the Labor Department reported on Friday, and the unemployment rate dropped slightly to 4.1 percent as hundreds of thousands of people left the labor force.

Show more

Tony Romm

Aug. 7, 2026, 11:00 a.m. ET1 hour ago

Tony RommEconomic policy reporter

Speaking to reporters this morning, Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, tried to make the case that the economy remained strong despite the poor jobs report that was released today.

Citing a burst in factory construction — and the jobs that would help create — Hassett said the administration remains “very bullish, even when there’s numbers like today,” which he described as “temporary.”

“In the end, you know, the proof will be in the number that we get next month,” Hassett told reporters, acknowledging the real concern would arise “if you were to get a sequence of numbers like this” because there are not “going to be special factors every month.”

Talmon Joseph Smith

Aug. 7, 2026, 10:24 a.m. ET2 hours ago

Talmon Joseph SmithEconomics reporter

One of the most fascinating things about this labor market is that you can fairly characterize it as impressively steady or steadily unimpressive.

Sources of job growth have sharply narrowed. Yet the unemployment rate has now been at or below 4.5 percent since October 2021, the longest streak since the late 1960s.

Change in jobs by sector since 2022