Connect with us

News

Trump’s recruitment of watchdog chiefs impeded by talk of regulatory cuts

Published

on

Trump’s recruitment of watchdog chiefs impeded by talk of regulatory cuts

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Republican enthusiasm for culling and combining the many US banking regulators is complicating efforts by the incoming administration of Donald Trump to find heads for those watchdogs.

The problem is particularly acute for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which focuses on the way lenders treat customers. The CFPB has been a target of hostility from Republicans since its creation after the 2008 financial crisis. A number of experienced candidates have demurred when contacted about the position, people familiar with the search said.

“Republicans think the CFPB is unconstitutional, and even if you do make progress in protecting middle-class and low income Americans, the Democrats will never give you credit because you’re wearing the wrong colour jersey,” said a former senior financial regulator who is not interested in the job.

Advertisement

Recruiting issues are becoming more serious because of growing ferment around consolidating banking regulatory and supervisory responsibilities that are currently spread among the US Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Some potential candidates have been interviewed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the bosses of Trump’s newly created advisory committee, the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), and have been asked about streamlining regulation, people close to the process said.

Musk has called for eliminating the CFPB and Ramaswamy asserted last week on social media that it was “one of the easiest agencies to shut down”. The Wall Street Journal reported that some regulatory candidates have been asked whether it would be possible to eliminate the FDIC, which has protected bank depositors since the Great Depression.

The Trump transition team’s questions, combined with enthusiasm from the Republicans due to run key committees on Capitol Hill for lightening the regulatory load, could herald the first serious effort to reshape the guardrails for the banking industry since the 2010 Dodd-Frank law.

“I think the Trump team might be serious about this,” said Bill Isaac, a former FDIC chair, adding that he has talked to leading Capitol Hill players about his proposal to merge the OCC and the supervisory functions of the Fed and FDIC into a new regulator. “The system is broken.”

Advertisement

Tim Scott, the Republican in line to chair the Senate Banking Committee, has concerns with the current structure of the US’s bank regulatory system, his spokesman said, but did not specify whether he supported consolidating banking regulators. Scott “looks forward to working with the incoming Trump administration to find solutions to streamline regulation, reduce red tape, and increase efficiency while ensuring the continued stability of our financial system.”

But experienced Washington hands point out that multiple prior attempts to consolidate the patchwork of banking regulators into a single super-watchdog have failed. In 2010, Republicans provided crucial votes to help kill the idea.

“Most regulatory scholars support some form of consolidation among bank regulators in the US, but every attempt at doing this has failed. After every financial crisis, there is more regulation and more regulators than there were before,” said Aaron Klein, a senior fellow at Brookings and former Treasury official under Barack Obama.

During Trump’s first term, the acting head of the CFPB Mick Mulvaney at one point refused to request any funding for the watchdog, but it eventually resumed normal operations.

“Congress is needed for any consequential structural changes and it is incredibly difficult to envision a scenario where this issue makes it on the agenda, let alone gets the Democratic support necessary for enactment,” said Isaac Boltansky, managing director at BTIG.

Advertisement

Investor groups and former regulators have expressed alarm at the prospect of weakening the FDIC, noting that it is well known and popular with consumers, in part because most banks tout its deposit insurance as part of their advertising.

“FDIC has a perfect record of protecting insured deposits for over 90 years. Strong consumer confidence in the brand, providing stability during crises,” tweeted Sheila Bair, a former FDIC chair.

Patrick Woodall, managing director for policy at Americans for Financial Reform, said: “The FDIC stamp of approval has safeguarded depositors — and confidence in the banking industry — for nearly a century, while the CFPB has a strong track record of standing up for the little guy. Billionaire ideas about consumer protection and financial stability will do nothing for everyday people.”

Even Isaac said he opposes eliminating the FDIC as an independent agency, because of its emergency bank takeover responsibilities.

“I don’t think that makes any sense,” he said. The idea is to have the FDIC be an independent, bipartisan agency and the Treasury is anything but.”

Advertisement

The Trump transition team did not reply to a request for comment.

News

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending