Connect with us

Business

Column: Former California Rep. Devin Nunes once sued media companies. Now he's struggling to run one

Published

on

Column: Former California Rep. Devin Nunes once sued media companies. Now he's struggling to run one

Who would have guessed that Devin Nunes, who left Congress to run former President Trump’s media company, would be accused of mismanagement and cronyism?

Well, me, for one.

It’s not that I am any kind of oracle. It’s just that I’ve followed Nunes’ career as an ultra-litigious Trump defender who is afflicted by a world-class intolerance for perceived slights.

Before taking the helm of Trump Media in 2022, Nunes had a master’s degree in agriculture but little hands-on business experience. He was involved in his family’s San Joaquin Valley dairy farm decades ago; when he was 14, he has recounted, he bought seven head of young cattle to raise and sell. I guess this explains his tolerance for the, ah, stench of MAGA bull.

Given his disdain for media in general and free speech in particular, as evidenced by a series of lawsuits against news organizations and other critics, putting Nunes in charge of a fledgling media empire was a bizarre move — unless the company is all about cozying up to the deep-pocketed sort of people who would benefit from a second Trump administration.

Advertisement

According to documents obtained by ProPublica, an unnamed Trump Media whistleblower recently asked the company’s board of directors to fire Nunes. One person with knowledge of the situation told ProPublica that the complaint alleged “misuse of funds, hiring of foreign contractors and interfering with product development.” (A Trump Media spokesperson denied the charges and accused the nonprofit journalism organization of a campaign to damage the company.)

Turmoil ensued: The company’s chief operating officer and chief product officer resigned. In any case, with almost no revenue to speak of and no indication that its Truth Social is competitive with major social media platforms, analysts consider Trump Media & Technology Group a meme stock. Its value is based entirely on the value Trump’s supporters place on him.

In recent weeks, with polls tight and the prospect of a second Trump term looming, shares of Trump Media have massively rebounded from a precipitous fall. Incredibly, the company is worth around $6 billion, putting Trump’s 59% stake at more than $3 billion. But if Trump loses in November, bye-bye, inflated valuation.

“It’s really simple,” Matthew Tuttle, the chief executive of Tuttle Capital Management, told CNN. “People realize that if Trump gets elected, this stock has the potential to do something. And if he doesn’t get elected, it probably goes to zero.”

In any case, one enterprise Nunes has mastered is filing doomed lawsuits. Between 2019 and 2023, he filed at least 11 of them, including defamation suits against Twitter parody accounts that posed as his cow and his mother. He tried to sue Twitter too, but a judge ruled that the social media company was protected by the Communications Decency Act, which gives such online platforms immunity from civil liability.

Advertisement

Nunes also sued McClatchy, the company that owns his hometown newspaper, the Fresno Bee, for defamation. He asked for $150 million in damages but ultimately dropped the lawsuit.

In 2019, he sued Fresno-area activists who had mounted a campaign to get Nunes to stop calling himself a “farmer” on the ballot. Nunes later quietly withdrew that lawsuit.

It was a very busy year for Nunes’ attorneys. He also sued Hearst and the journalist Ryan Lizza over an Esquire story that alleged — in a lighthearted, faux-investigative manner — that Nunes’ family had secretly moved its dairy operations to Iowa and implied that they employed illegal immigrants. After several court go-rounds, the case was dismissed last year.

Let’s see. Who else did the co-sponsor of the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act frivolously sue that year?

He took aim at the liberal nonprofit Campaign for Accountability and the research firm Fusion GPS, the source of the infamous Steele dossier, which contained unverified gossip about Trump. Nunes, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, claimed the organizations conspired to hinder his investigation of the Steele dossier. That lawsuit was dismissed in 2020.

Advertisement

The lawsuit-happy former dairy farmer sued CNN for defamation after the network reported that he had traveled to Vienna to get dirt on Joe Biden. That lawsuit, which asked for $435 million, was dismissed in 2021.

In 2022, Nunes again sued CNN, and its host Jake Tapper, who reported that Nunes had reposted a disgusting MAGA meme about Paul Pelosi on Truth Social. Pelosi, the husband of former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had been attacked by a stranger in their San Francisco home. Nunes’ attorneys claimed that Tapper insinuated that Nunes “has a depraved mind and that he acted immorally, fraudulently, unprofessionally, spread lies about Paul Pelosi, and disparaged and defamed Paul Pelosi.” (I couldn’t have put it better myself.) That lawsuit was dismissed in 2023.

I can find only one instance in which Nunes was not essentially laughed out of court. In 2021, he sued NBCUniversal, the parent company of MSNBC, alleging that Rachel Maddow had libeled him when she said he failed to turn over to the FBI a package that he had received from a Russian agent. In 2022, a judge ruled that it was plausible that Maddow knew the claim was untrue and has allowed the case to proceed.

My favorite empty Nunes legal threat is the one he once made against a fellow Californian, Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of Torrance. Lieu said Nunes had conspired with Lev Parnas, the Russian-born Rudy Giuliani associate, to undermine the U.S. government. (In 2021, Parnas was sentenced to prison for making illegal donations to Trump’s 2020 campaign, and just last month, he tearfully apologized to Hunter Biden for pushing the Trump/Giuliani/Nunes-endorsed lie that as vice president, Joe Biden took actions in Ukraine to benefit his son.)

“I welcome any lawsuit from your client and look forward to taking discovery of Congressman Nunes,” Lieu responded. “Or, you can take your letter and shove it.”

Advertisement

I guess they shoved it: Miraculously, no lawsuit was ever filed.

Threads: @rabcarian

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

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Published

on

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.

In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”

“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.

In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.

Advertisement

The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.

“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.

Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.

The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.

Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.

Advertisement

Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.

Continue Reading

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending