Connect with us

Business

Column: As 10 states prepare to vote on abortion rights, Texas shows that abortion bans kill women

Published

on

Column: As 10 states prepare to vote on abortion rights, Texas shows that abortion bans kill women

This election day, voters will have a direct voice in deciding whether to preserve or enhance abortion rights in 10 states, including six in which abortion is outlawed or seriously restricted.

As it happens, new data points arrive almost weekly to inform voters what’s at stake in these ballot campaigns. To put it bluntly, the health of pregnant women and those of childbearing age hangs in the balance.

With the election now less than five weeks away, let’s take an up-to-date look at this increasingly dismal landscape.

We expect that if Donald Trump is elected he will find a way to impose a nationwide abortion ban. Then we will start seeing these tragedies and near-tragedies in every state.

— Nancy L. Cohen, president, Gender Equity Policy Institute

Advertisement

There can no longer be any doubt that the abortion bans enacted in more than 20 states threaten women’s health.

The bellwether state is Texas, the only state to impose its abortion ban as early as September 2021, even before the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the nationwide abortion right guaranteed by Roe vs. Wade in 1973.

That timing has allowed analysts to generate statistics on maternal mortality in 2022 (for other antiabortion states, those statistics won’t be available until early next year). The Texas statistics are horrific.

Advertisement

As compiled by the Los Angeles-based Gender Equity Policy Institute initially at the request of NBC News, they show that maternal deaths rose in Texas to 28.5 per 100,000 live births in 2022, exceeding the national rate of 22.3.

“The data are telling us that Texas is a harbinger of what is to come in states that ban abortion,” says GEPI President Nancy L. Cohen.

The maternal mortality rate rose by 56% in Texas from 2019 through 2022, the figures show, well exceeding the national increase of 11%. The rate for Black women rose by 38% and for Hispanic women by 30%.

What was especially striking, Cohen told me, was that the maternal mortality rate for white women in Texas nearly doubled in 2019-22, while rising by only 6% nationwide.

“To see middle-class women with health insurance and all the privileges in the world experiencing this causes real alarm about what we might see coming down the road,” Cohen says. “We expect to see significant increases in maternal mortality in all the ban states.”

Advertisement

New antiabortion initiatives are surfacing all the time.

Most recently, as of Tuesday, Louisiana’s classification of two drugs used for medication abortions — mifepristone and misoprostol — as controlled substances went into effect, making possession without a prescription punishable by up to five years in prison. Since Louisiana already bans all abortions except to protect the life or physical health of the mother, that effectively rules out the use of the drugs to terminate a pregnancy.

Another noxious new wrinkle is efforts to prevent pregnant women from leaving antiabortion states to obtain abortions where they’re legal. On Monday, the goonishly malevolent Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton sued the city of Austin to block its spending of public funds to pay for residents to travel outside the state for abortions. The city appropriated $400,000 for the purpose in its current fiscal year budget. City officials decried Paxton’s lawsuit as an attempt to “score a few political points.”

Antiabortion Republicans have also objected to Biden administration rules extending the federal medical privacy law, HIPAA, to cover requests from authorities in antiabortion states for medical information about residents who have sought abortions in states where they’re legal. Among the 30 GOP lawmakers who sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra last year, demanding that he rescind the rule, was Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), currently the GOP candidate for vice president. The rule remains in place.

Antiabortion statutes in many states have been cynically drafted with purported exemptions that afford physicians some leeway to perform abortions for women in extreme cases — say, for women in imminent danger of death or severe medical complications. They don’t work.

Advertisement

“The so-called ‘life’ or ‘health’ exceptions are so vague that doctors fear jail time or fear for their licenses, so they cannot provide the standard of care,” Cohen says. “None of the states that have banned abortions have meaningful exceptions.”

That may be what caused the death of a 28-year-old Georgia woman who perished while physicians debated whether her pregnancy-related infection was severe enough to warrant operating. The doctors, according to a report by ProPublica, were so worried that acting might expose them to felony charges under Georgia’s abortion ban that they waited 20 hours before performing surgery. It was too late, and she died.

It’s important to understand that even explicit laws protecting abortion rights cannot always safeguard those rights in the face of determined interference. That’s illustrated by the lawsuit that California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed Monday over the refusal of St. Joseph Hospital, a Catholic hospital in Eureka, for its alleged denial of an emergency abortion to a patient, Anna Nusslock, who suffered a major pregnancy crisis in February.

Doctors at St. Joseph understood that the patient’s health was threatened and the twins she was carrying were not viable, the lawsuit states. But they couldn’t perform the operation because Catholic Church rules that govern healthcare at the institution forbade it. Instead, they recommended that Nusslock be helicoptered to UC San Francisco for an abortion.

Nusslock said at a news conference Monday that she was concerned about the $40,000 cost of the trip. She was advised against driving the 300 miles to UCSF — “If you try to drive, you will hemorrhage and die before you get to a place that can help you,” her physician at St. Joseph warned her, the lawsuit says. Instead, she was told to drive 12 miles to Mad River Community Hospital for treatment. A nurse gave her a bucket and towels in case she continued bleeding in the car.

Advertisement

Bonta alleges that the hospital’s discharge of Nusslock while she was experiencing a pregnancy-related crisis violated at least four provisions of California law. It may also have violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which mandates that hospitals with emergency rooms stabilize any arriving patients before discharging them.

A spokesman for Providence, the Washington-based Catholic chain that owns the Eureka hospital, told me that “while elective abortions are not performed in Providence facilities, we do not deny emergency care. When it comes to complex pregnancies or situations in which a woman’s life is at risk, we provide all necessary interventions to protect and save the life of the mother.”

The hospital chain said it is “immediately re-visiting our training, education and escalation processes in emergency medical situations to ensure that this does not happen again.”

It should be clear that if even some of Bonta’s and Nusslock’s allegations hold water, Providence’s right to continue running the Eureka hospital should come under question.

“Elective abortion” is not a medical term but one favored by the Catholic Church to signify abortions that cannot be performed in its hospitals, according to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which is promulgated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Advertisement

I asked Providence who, if anyone, provided an interpretation of the directives to the doctors on hand when Nusslock was at the hospital that prevented them from providing her with necessary care, and why licensed physicians need to retrained and reeducated about how to respond to an emergency in the emergency room at Eureka, but haven’t received a reply.

Providence’s alleged actions suggest that state laws protecting abortion rights are not impervious — and that would especially be so if Republicans regain the White House and control of Congress in the coming election.

“We expect that if Donald Trump is elected he will find a way to impose a nationwide abortion ban,” Cohen says. “Then we will start seeing these tragedies and near-tragedies in every state. Under a national ban, state protections will be meaningless.”

Trump has given equivocal indications about his abortion policies in a second term. But he also has bragged about appointing the Supreme Court justices who cemented the majority that overturned Roe vs. Wade.

Moreover, Project 2025, the manifesto for a second Trump term drafted by the Heritage Foundation, several of whose authors have close ties to Trump, calls for stringent limits on reproductive healthcare rights.

Advertisement

Among other provisions, Project 2025 calls for revoking the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, which would mean taking the abortion drug off the market, or barring that, reinstating restrictions on mifepristone, including requiring in-person dispensing and eliminating prescribing via telehealth.

It would exempt abortion from EMTALA, so that even treatments in the most dire emergencies could not include abortion. It would eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood and “all other abortion providers,” and allow states to ban Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs.

Project 2025 also advocates removing Medicaid funding for states that require health insurance plans to cover abortion, as is the law for many health plans in California.

There are reasons to fear a second term for Trump. But few have such immediate life-or-death consequences as his policies on healthcare.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

President Trump Wants to Be Everywhere, All the Time

Published

on

President Trump Wants to Be Everywhere, All the Time

To understand how Mr. Trump has achieved this omnipresence, The New York Times reviewed the first 329 days of his second term, finding at least one instance each day when he attracted the public’s attention to himself and his actions.

The review encompassed more than 250 media appearances, more than 320 official appearances, and more than 5,000 Truth Social posts or reposts. The analysis shows that while Mr. Trump has lagged his predecessors in his number of official appearances, he has pursued a raft of innovative methods to force himself into the public consciousness on a daily, and sometimes even hourly, basis.

Advertisement

The battery of activity started from the moment he was inaugurated, when he traveled from the Capitol Building to the Capital One Arena to publicly sign a flurry of executive orders.

Advertisement

Since then, he has stayed in the public eye in part by doing things no president has ever done. High-stakes Oval Office meetings, like his negotiations with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, are held on-camera and broadcast live on global news networks. His Q.-and-A. sessions with reporters frequently last an hour or more.

Advertisement

He regularly airs his opinions – on social media, in discursive asides at rallies – about idiosyncratic subjects that range widely across the zeitgeist, from Sydney Sweeney’s sexy denim ads to the redesigned logo of the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain to the mysterious fate of the aviator Amelia Earhart, who vanished over the Pacific Ocean in 1937.

And his engagement with the news media has soared well beyond the start of his first administration.

Advertisement

Through Dec. 14, Mr. Trump took reporters’ questions on 449 occasions, compared with 223 during the same period of his first term. On average, Mr. Trump has interacted with journalists roughly twice a day, doubling his rate from 2017, according to Martha Joynt Kumar, a Towson University political scientist who tracks presidential press interactions. Mr. Trump limits which news outlets can ask questions at small events, but in sheer volume, he is the most media-accessible modern president, and far outpaces his predecessor, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“Reporters will be in my office asking me for the president’s reaction to a breaking news story,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in an interview. “And I’ll just say to them, ‘I don’t know, why don’t you ask him yourself in 30 minutes?’”

Advertisement

Finding the Cameras

President Trump’s media appearances have soared this year, more than doubling both the Biden administration’s and those of his own first term.

Advertisement

Note: Media appearances include interviews, opinion pieces, position papers, press conferences and informal Q.-and-A.s. Source: Roll Call Factbase. The New York Times

Many of his public moments go viral online, like his diatribe about restoring the name of the Washington Redskins, or the A.I.-generated video meme he posted of himself dribbling a soccer ball with Cristiano Ronaldo in the Oval Office. They take on a life of their own, rippling across social media and dissected and amplified by influencers and mass media platforms alike.

Advertisement

The result is a president whose not-so-inner monologue is injected into our daily lives in myriad ways, when we are watching TV on the weekends or idly scrolling the web – a Greek chorus for our national narrative.

“He’s the most ubiquitous president ever,” said Douglas Brinkley, the presidential historian.

The media strategy aligns with his political strategy.

Advertisement

Dating back to his years as an outspoken real estate developer and reality TV star, Mr. Trump has relished being unavoidable for comment. But at age 79, he has been outdoing his younger self. And there is a logic to his logorrhea.

Mr. Trump’s allies often speak of the political benefits of flooding the zone: pursuing so many policies, ideas, and dramatic restructurings of the normal ways of governance as to overwhelm the system. “All pedal, no brake,” as Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s one-time adviser, has called it.

Advertisement

“We joke internally that he is our ultimate director of communications,” Ms. Leavitt said. “He has incredible media instincts, and he is the final decision maker on all policy, and he has been in a ‘flood the zone,’ ‘do as much as possible’ mindset since he walked into the Oval Office on Jan. 20.”

All presidents benefit from the awesome news-making powers of the office, with its agenda-setting influence over a dedicated global press corps. But Mr. Trump has outstripped his predecessors in whipsawing the public’s attention onto matters small and large – and limiting the level of scrutiny that any one shocking remark or policy proposal receives.

“People can really only focus on a handful of things a day,” said Bill Burton, a deputy White House press secretary under former President Barack Obama. “This attention flood is working for Trump because he is able to do an extraordinary amount of executive actions and very little of it can get attention.”

Advertisement

Or as Mr. Brinkley put it: “He plays to win the day, every day, around the clock.”

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

His commentary takes on a life of its own.

One of Mr. Trump’s political assets is his instinct for virality.

With a natural feel for the web, Mr. Trump has a knack for amplifying wacky memes and pop culture curios that can drive days of online discourse. Sometimes, coverage of his offhand remarks or late-night social media posts can crowd out the more significant, norm-shattering changes he is making to American governance.

Advertisement

Late one Friday night in May, the president posted an obviously A.I.-generated image of himself as the pope. It struck a nerve.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump had already courted controversy days earlier, after the death of Pope Francis on April 21.

Advertisement

“I’d like to be pope,” the president told reporters who asked about who should become the next pontiff. “That would be my number one choice.”

The comment disturbed some Catholics, who said the notion was crude and insensitive. That reaction seemed only to prompt Mr. Trump to double down, posting the A.I.-generated image to his Truth Social account days later. By the weekend it had become a cultural phenomenon, mocked on “Saturday Night Live” and called out by experts as an example of misleading A.I. content.

Advertisement

After Mr. Trump posts the A.I. image …

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 2

Trump posts A.I. image of himself as Pope

Advertisement

… some Catholics were outraged, prompting a news cycle focused on the controversy …

Advertisement

There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President. We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us.

Advertisement

May 3

NYS Catholic Conference says “do not mock us”

Advertisement

May 3

“Saturday Night Live” covers fake image

May 3

Advertisement

Vatican asked about image, declines to comment

May 4

Advertisement

Cardinal Joseph Tobin of New Jersey criticizes image as “not good”

May 4

JD Vance defends Trump on X, calling it a joke

Advertisement

… before Mr. Trump suggested he had nothing to do with it.

Advertisement

Advertisement

5

Says “the Catholics loved it”

Advertisement

Mr. Trump, who is not Catholic, had plenty of defenders, too. They said his commentary and the A.I. image were simply jokes, part of the president’s unique comedic style.

“As a general rule, I’m fine with people telling jokes and not fine with people starting stupid wars that kill thousands of my countrymen,” Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, wrote on X.

Advertisement

In his quest for attention, the president is often aided by a cottage industry of right-wing influencers and activists who are primed to syndicate, reinforce and defend whatever content he pushes out each day. For this conservative media ecosystem, Mr. Trump’s messaging and commentary are the raw fuel that drives clicks, shares and views.

Advertisement

On June 7, the president’s visit to a raucous U.F.C. fight – complete with a “Trump dance” entrance into the arena – generated an immediate spike in online interest, including about 50,000 posts on X. Five days later, when he promoted a “Trump gold card” visa, his announcement led to roughly 30,000 posts on X.

A barrage that distracts from bad news.

One pattern in Mr. Trump’s behavior: When his administration is faced with bad news, he launches a fusillade of distraction.

Advertisement

This can take the form of outlandish, out-of-left-field claims about political opponents. Or he might weigh in on a pop culture subject far afield from Washington politics – from the ratings of late-night hosts like Seth Meyers to the physical appearance of a megastar like Taylor Swift.

The events of July 2025 offer a case in point.

Advertisement

Advertisement

As the Jeffrey Epstein files returned to the news – along with speculation that Mr. Trump might appear in them – the president embarked on a breathtaking series of tangents. Mr. Trump claimed without evidence that former President Bill Clinton had bankrolled an effort by senior intelligence officials to frame him for a crime, mused about stripping the actress Rosie O’Donnell of her U.S. citizenship, and accused the singer Beyoncé of accepting millions of dollars to endorse his erstwhile rival, former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Advertisement

On July 8, the F.B.I. said it would not declassify more Epstein files.

Advertisement

July 8

F.B.I. publishes memo about Epstein files

Advertisement

Over the following days, Mr. Trump seemed to lash out in every direction.

Advertisement

Advertisement

10

Claimed intelligence officials tried to frame him

Advertisement

10

Pushed to defund NPR and PBS

10

Advertisement

Directed ICE to arrest protesters

12

Advertisement

Threatened Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship

15

Claimed Adam Schiff engaged in mortgage fraud

Advertisement

On July 18, the Justice Department filed a request to unseal grand jury testimony about Mr. Epstein, again raising questions about Mr. Trump’s involvement. The president promptly lobbed insults at late-night talk show hosts, dismissed the Epstein affair as “fake news” and shared fresh claims about a supposed Obama administration plot to undermine him after the 2016 election.

Advertisement

On July 18, the Department of Justice filed a request — later denied — to unseal grand jury testimony.

Advertisement

July 18

Advertisement

Request filed to unseal grand jury testimony

Advertisement

Over the following days, Mr. Trump bounced from topic to topic.

Advertisement

20

Criticized Washington Commanders name

Advertisement

Obama himself manufactured the Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX. Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe, and numerous others participated in this, THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY!. Irrefutable EVIDENCE. A major threat to our Country!!!

21

Called the “Russia hoax” the “crime of the century”

Advertisement

22

Called Epstein controversy “fake news”

Advertisement

22

Criticized Kimmel and Fallon

24

Advertisement

Criticized Federal Reserve chairman

On July 25, The Wall Street Journal published a major scoop: The paper had unearthed a risqué birthday letter that Mr. Trump had apparently written to Mr. Epstein in 2003. Mr. Trump responded with his attack on Beyoncé and revived his threat to revoke the broadcast licenses of TV networks. Then he announced the imminent construction of an enormous gilded ballroom at the White House, at a cost of $200 million. (He has since revised the cost upward to $400 million.)

Advertisement

Asked if there was a deliberate strategy to distract from negative news, Ms. Leavitt noted that every administration seeks to minimize unhelpful headlines.

“Yes, there have been times in which we’ve tried to do that, but also often it just happens naturally, because the president is willing to weigh in on so many subjects,” she said. “Sometimes it’s really not deliberate. It’s just him speaking his mind on whatever news cycle or news story is brought to him in that moment.”

He has added tricks to his arsenal.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s devotion to Truth Social mirrors the hair-trigger Twitter habit of his first term; on one recent December evening, he posted 158 times between 9 p.m. and midnight. And he has continued to appear on Fox News with certain preferred hosts.

But this year, he has added to his media arsenal by appearing in many more public spaces that fall outside of a president’s typical itinerary.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has stopped by a Washington Commanders N.F.L. game, popped up in the New York Yankees locker room, attended the Ryder Cup golf tournament and the men’s tennis final at the U.S. Open, sat ringside at numerous U.F.C. fights, and traveled to the Daytona 500. He is the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl. When FIFA staged the Club World Cup final in New Jersey, Mr. Trump not only attended, but joined the winning team onstage for the trophy ceremony.

The net effect is a sense of inescapability, that no corner of American life remains Trump-free – which itself amounts to a potent expression of presidential authority and command. “His power, in part,” said Mr. Burton, the former Obama aide, “comes from the attention that people give him, or that he forces on them.”

Advertisement

Advertisement

Can it ever be too much?

In the fall of 2009, President Barack Obama appeared on David Letterman’s talk show, gave interviews to CNBC and Men’s Health magazine, and made the rounds of all five major network Sunday shows. Washington was abuzz about whether he was overexposed.

Advertisement

That debate sounds quaint today. But the question of whether a president can be too visible remains open.

“The public is being desensitized” to Mr. Trump’s omnipresence, argued Mr. Brinkley, the historian. “It starts becoming blather. The enemy for Trump isn’t Democrats; it’s the public being bored with the show.”

Ms. Leavitt said that if there was a risk to his ubiquity, “President Trump would not be president right now.” She added: “He is a businessman who speaks his mind and tells it like it is, and sometimes people don’t like that. But obviously the vast majority of our country does, or else he wouldn’t be in this office.”

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

During Mr. Trump’s first term, the public eventually tired of his frenzied pace. And in some ways, Mr. Trump appears to be slowing down physically as he approaches his 80th birthday in June (which he will celebrate in part by staging a nationally broadcast U.F.C. fight on the White House lawn). He has appeared to doze at some Oval Office meetings, and he is holding fewer formal public events than he did at this point in 2017.

Advertisement

Still, Mr. Trump and his team have embraced the everywhere-all-at-once nature of modern media. Average Americans, busy with work and family, do not tune in for daytime news conferences or Cabinet meetings. And 6:30 p.m. newscasts and local newspapers are no longer the primary vessels by which Americans learn about their commander-in-chief.

Instead, politics now suffuses our lives as a kind of ambient noise – via TikTok videos, social media posts, YouTube talk shows and family Facebook messages – never fully separate from our leisure pursuits. “Right now the game is attention, in terms of what’s culturally breaking through,” Mr. Burton said. “The fact that so much message exists is the point.”

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has both propelled this merging of culture and politics, and continues to strategically exploit it. In December, he became the first president to personally host the Kennedy Center Honors, comparing himself onstage to Johnny Carson and musing that he would do a better job than Jimmy Kimmel.

“This is the greatest evening in the history of the Kennedy Center,” Mr. Trump told the crowd. “Not even a contest. There has never been anything like it.”

His performance will air in prime time on CBS on Dec. 23.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Photo and video sources: Graham Dickie/The New York TimesDoug Mills/The New York TimesRoll Call Factba.sePBSMauro Pimentel/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesKenny Holston/The New York TimesThe New York TimesAnnabelle Gordon/ReutersEric Lee/The New York TimesFoxCheriss May for The New York TimesWilfredo Lee/Associated PressMargo Martin, via StoryfulMark Abramson for The New York TimesGlobal NewsAl Drago/Getty ImagesFox NewsDave Sanders for The New York TimesPete Marovich for The New York TimesTed Shaffrey/Associated Press Show all

Continue Reading

Business

Why is Trump’s media company getting involved with nuclear power?

Published

on

Why is Trump’s media company getting involved with nuclear power?

President Trump’s media company is merging with a nuclear fusion energy firm in a $6-billion deal aimed at generating more power amid growing demand from power-hungry artificial intelligence data centers.

The merger between Trump Media & Technology and TAE Technologies could lead to one of the world’s first publicly traded fusion energy companies, the two companies said Thursday.

What is TAE Technologies?

TAE Technologies is a private company based in Foothill Ranch, Calif. It has been raising funds for commercial-scale nuclear fusion, a method of energy production that supporters say could revolutionize access to electricity. Founded in 1998, the company has built and operated five fusion reactors and raised more than $1.3 billion.

Fusion uses the same process that powers the sun to produce potentially limitless energy. Experts say it hasn’t been achieved on a large scale because the process is volatile and expensive. TAE is trying to develop the technology needed to reduce the size, cost and complexity of fusion reactors.

“Our talented team, through its commitment and dedication to science, is poised to solve the immense global challenge of energy scarcity,” TAE Chief Executive Michl Binderbauer said in a statement. “Recent breakthroughs have prepared us to… commercialize our fusion technology.”

Advertisement

What is the political history of Truth Social?

Truth Social was launched in 2022 as Trump created an alternative to mainstream social media, which was increasingly restricting and blocking his posts and profiles, as well as those of his allies and supporters. It began trading on the Nasdaq stock exchange through a 2024 merger with a special purpose acquisition company.

While most social media platforms have lifted restrictions on Trump’s posts, he still primarily posts on his own platform.

Though Trump and companies he is associated with control more than a 40% stake in the company, much of his investment is managed by others to avoid a conflict of interest during his term as president. Some analysts suggest his indirect association with a new company in a highly regulated industry could also lead to issues.

TAE will need significant investment and regulation to advance, which makes Trump’s ties a major conflict, Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, told the Associated Press.

“He’s jumping into this industry just like he jumped into cryptocurrency a couple of years ago,” Painter said. “Just as the United States government is gonna get all involved in it. And it’s so obvious that there’s a huge conflict of interest.”

Advertisement

Trump Media shares, which had fallen more than 80% from their 2024 peak, have skyrocketed around 50% since the deal was announced.

The company now has a market value of more than $4.5 billion.

Why are the companies merging?

The parent company of Trump’s social media site, Truth Social, Trump Media & Technology, previously had little to do with energy production. The company agreed to merge with Alphabet-backed TAE Technologies, with the aim of paving the way for easier access to abundant electricity.

The merger aims to help both companies diversify and raise more money.

It is an attempt to combine Trump Media’s “significant access to capital” with TAE’s “leading fusion technology,” the companies said in a release.

Advertisement

They plan to begin construction in 2026 on the first-ever utility-scale fusion power plant.

“Fusion power plants are expected to provide economic, abundant and dependable electricity that would help America win the AI revolution,” the release said.

The boom in popularity of AI chatbots such as ChatGPT has created a seemingly insatiable new demand for power.

The Georgia Institute of Technology says modern AI data centers use as much electricity as a small city. As AI models grow, they demand even more power.

What are the terms of the deal?

The all-stock transaction announced this week values each share of TAE Technologies at $53.89, although it is a private company. Trump Media has agreed to provide $200 million in cash to TAE upon closing, expected in mid-2026.

Advertisement

When the merger is complete, TAE and Trump Media shareholders will each own about 50% of the combined company.

Trump Media will be the holding company for TAE, TAE Power Solutions and TAE Life Sciences.

Continue Reading

Business

U.S. Space Force awards $1.6 billion in contracts to South Bay satellite builders

Published

on

U.S. Space Force awards .6 billion in contracts to South Bay satellite builders

The U.S. Space Force announced Friday it has awarded satellite contracts with a combined value of about $1.6 billion to Rocket Lab in Long Beach and to the Redondo Beach Space Park campus of Northrop Grumman.

The contracts by the Space Development Agency will fund the construction by each company of 18 satellites for a network in development that will provide warning of advanced threats such as hypersonic missiles.

Northrop Grumman has been awarded contracts for prior phases of the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture, a planned network of missile defense and communications satellites in low Earth orbit.

The contract announced Friday is valued at $764 million, and the company is now set to deliver a total of 150 satellites for the network.

Advertisement

The $805-million contract awarded to Rocket Lab is its largest to date. It had previously been awarded a $515 million contract to deliver 18 communications satellites for the network.

Founded in 2006 in New Zealand, the company builds satellites and provides small-satellite launch services for commercial and government customers with its Electron rocket. It moved to Long Beach in 2020 from Huntington Beach and is developing a larger rocket.

“This is more than just a contract. It’s a resounding affirmation of our evolution from simply a trusted launch provider to a leading vertically integrated space prime contractor,” said Rocket Labs founder and chief executive Peter Beck in online remarks.

The company said it could eventually earn up to $1 billion due to the contract by supplying components to other builders of the satellite network.

Also awarded contracts announced Friday were a Lockheed Martin group in Sunnyvalle, Calif., and L3Harris Technologies of Fort Wayne, Ind. Those contracts for 36 satellites were valued at nearly $2 billion.

Advertisement

Gurpartap “GP” Sandhoo, acting director of the Space Development Agency, said the contracts awarded “will achieve near-continuous global coverage for missile warning and tracking” in addition to other capabilities.

Northrop Grumman said the missiles are being built to respond to the rise of hypersonic missiles, which maneuver in flight and require infrared tracking and speedy data transmission to protect U.S. troops.

Beck said that the contracts reflects Rocket Labs growth into an “industry disruptor” and growing space prime contractor.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending