LiveNewsWatch

Category: US Economy

  • Pentagon Accepts $130 million Anonymous Trump Ally Donation to Fund Troops

    Pentagon Accepts $130 million Anonymous Trump Ally Donation to Fund Troops

    The Defense Department revealed Friday that the Trump administration intends to use a $130 million donation from a President Donald Trump loyalist who wishes to remain anonymous to pay military personnel during the government shutdown. The money was received under the department’s “general gift acceptance authority,” according to a statement released by chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell to CNN. “The donation was made on the condition that it be used to offset the cost-of-Service members’ salaries and benefits.”

    The action is a dramatic break from government practice, which has hitherto relied on congressionally authorized public funds to fund the military. Additionally, it immediately sparked inquiries regarding the identity of the contributor and the reasons behind sending the government the nine-figure cheque. It’s unlikely that the $130 million donation will have a significant effect on paying the salaries of the approximately 1.3 million active-duty military personnel, which comes to about $100 per service member.

    On Friday, appropriators from both parties of Congress stated that they were still waiting for an explanation from the administration regarding the details of the donation. Democrats also questioned its legality, arguing that the Pentagon’s cited gift acceptance authority only allows gifts for a few specific uses, like supporting military schools, hospitals, and cemeteries, or helping injured soldiers or the families of those killed or injured in the line of duty.

    Offset a Lapse in Appropriations

    Donations from foreign governments or organizations may also be subject to further, stricter regulations. Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, the leading Democrat on the Senate’s defense budget subcommittee, said in a statement that using anonymous donations to finance our military raises serious concerns about whether our own troops are in danger of being literally bought and paid for by foreign powers.

    Additionally, budget experts questioned whether the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from utilizing federal monies in excess of what has been allotted to them, would be violated if the donation were used to pay military personnel. During the shutdown, Democrats have repeatedly charged the administration with breaking that rule, notably when it decided to fire thousands of government employees.

    “The Antideficiency Act makes it clear that private contributions cannot be used to make up for a lapse in appropriations,” said Bill Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Senate GOP budget aide. “The law is very clear, so I think they could accept it, but they couldn’t use it for that purpose,” Hoagland told CNN.

    Pentagon accepts $130 million anonymous Trump ally donation to fund troops
    Pentagon Receives $130 million Anonymous Trump Ally Donation to Pay U.S. Military Source: Web

    In an effort to address military shortages, Trump praised the $130 million donation on Thursday, claiming it came from “a friend of mine.” Declining to reveal the donor’s identity, he said, “He doesn’t really want the recognition.”

    A White House spokesperson directed inquiries to the Pentagon and Treasury regarding the donor’s name and any connections to foreign organizations or interests.  After that, the Pentagon forwarded those inquiries back to the White House. A request for comment was not immediately answered by Treasury. In addition to calling the donation “anonymous,” the Pentagon did not answer inquiries about whether it intended to inform Congress of the specifics of its use.

  • Trump Says He May Seek $230 mln in Compensation from US Justice Department

    Trump Says He May Seek $230 mln in Compensation from US Justice Department

    The U.S. President Trump is requesting that the Justice Department compensate him roughly $230 million for the federal investigations into him, according to people familiar with the matter. They also stated that senior department officials who supported him or those close to him may eventually approve any settlement.

    In American history, there has never been a situation like this. Federal law enforcement followed Mr. Trump, a presidential candidate, who ultimately won the election and took control of the administration that now has to investigate his claims. Additionally, it is the most glaring illustration to date of the possible moral dilemmas that could arise from placing the president’s former attorneys in charge of the Justice Department.

    Mr. Trump filed concerns via the administrative claim procedure, which frequently serves as a prelude to legal action. According to people familiar with the case, the first claim, filed in late 2023, seeks damages for a variety of alleged rights abuses, including the F.B.I. and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and potential ties to the 2016 Trump campaign.

    Since the claim has not been made public, they talked under the condition of anonymity. Furthermore, the F.B.I. is accused of violating Mr. Trump’s privacy in the second complaint, which was filed in the summer of 2024, by searching his Florida home and club, Mar-a-Lago, for classified materials in 2022. Additionally, it charges him with mishandling confidential documents after he left office, which is an act of malicious prosecution by the Justice Department.

    Awfully Strange to Make a Decision

    “I was damaged very greatly and any money I would get, I would give to charity,” the president remarked when questioned about the matter at the White House following the publication of this piece. “That decision would have to cross my desk, and I’m the one who makes the decision,” he continued. “It’s really weird to make a decision where I’m paying myself.”

    According to attorneys, there are unquestionable ethical issues with the president’s legal arguments. Bennett L. Gershman, a professor of ethics at Pace University, called it a travesty. “The ethical dilemma is so fundamental and basic that a law professor is not necessary to explain it.”

    “And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not,” he continued, adding that those individuals are the ones who will determine whether he succeeds or fails. It’s strange, almost too unbelievable to be true.

    Trump Says He May Seek $230 mln in Compensation from US Justice Department
    President Trump Says He May Seek $230 mln in Damages from U.S. DOJ Source: Web

    The president also appeared to recognize that point last week in the Oval Office when he made a passing reference to the matter while standing by Attorney General Pam Bondi, her deputy Todd Blanche, and F.B.I. director Kash Patel. The deputy attorney general, in this case Mr. Blanche, is one of two individuals who can approve such a settlement in accordance with Justice Department standards.

    When he became president, Mr. Trump said, “I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and I said, I’m sort of suing myself.” “It sort of looks bad, I’m suing myself, right?” he continued. Thus, I’m not sure. However, that was a really powerful and strong lawsuit.

    Lawsuits are not strictly administrative claims. In order to determine whether a settlement may be made without filing a lawsuit in federal court, these complaints are first sent to the Justice Department using a document known as a Standard Form 95. A person may file a lawsuit in court if the department formally denies the claim or chooses not to take action. However, in this case, that is unlikely to happen because Trump is already essentially negotiating with his subordinates.

    Taxpayers usually pay for compensation. According to two people with knowledge of the president’s legal claims, he anticipated to be compensated by the federal government but had not received it.

    In the second claim, Merrick B. Garland, who was then the attorney general, Christopher A. Wray, who was then the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Jack Smith, who was the special counsel looking into Mr. Trump at the time, were accused of “harassment” meant to influence the election results. “President Trump spent tens of millions of dollars defending the case and his reputation as a result of this malicious prosecution,” the claim stated.