Connect with us

News

Trump Halts Billions in Grants for Democratic Districts During Shutdown

Published

on

Trump Halts Billions in Grants for Democratic Districts During Shutdown

Two weeks into the government shutdown, the Trump administration has frozen or canceled nearly $28 billion that had been reserved for more than 200 projects primarily located in Democratic-led cities, congressional districts and states, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

Advertisement

Total amount of affected funding

By congressional district of grant recipient

Each of these infrastructure projects had received federal aid, sometimes after officials spent years pleading in Washington — only to see that money halted as President Trump has looked to punish Democrats over the course of the fiscal stalemate.

Advertisement

The Times conducted its analysis by examining federal funding records, which include details about the city and state where each grant recipient is based. The projects include new investments in clean energy, upgrades to the electric grid and fixes to the nation’s transportation infrastructure, primarily in Democratic strongholds, such as New York and California.

Advertisement

Total affected funding, by congressional district

Advertisement

Ala.

Advertisement

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif.

Advertisement

Colo.

Del.

Advertisement

Fla.

Ga.

Idaho

Advertisement

Ill.

Ind.

Advertisement

Iowa

Kan.

Ky.

Advertisement

La.

Maine

Advertisement

Md.

Mass.

Mich.

Advertisement

Minn.

Miss.

Advertisement

Mo.

Mont.

Neb.

Advertisement

Nev.

N.H.

Advertisement

N.J.

N.M.

N.Y.

Advertisement

N.C.

N.D.

Advertisement

Ohio

Okla.

Ore.

Advertisement

Pa.

S.C.

Advertisement

S.D.

Tenn.

Texas

Advertisement

Utah

Vt.

Advertisement

Va.

Wash.

W.Va.

Advertisement

Wis.

Wyo.

Advertisement

Circles sized by total amount of affected grant funding

In some cases, recipients had started to receive portions of the federal aid, only to become casualties in a funding battle that has no end in sight.

Mr. Trump’s aides have offered a series of explanations for the administration’s decision to pause or terminate grants, claiming in some cases that the spending would have been wasteful or in conflict with the president’s priorities. Since returning to office, Mr. Trump has been particularly aggressive in cutting federal investments to combat climate change.

Advertisement

But the budgetary moves coincide with the president’s public pledges to use the shutdown to slash spending favored by Democrats. He has described the federal stoppage as an “unprecedented opportunity” to make some cuts permanent.

Many Democrats said that the announcements fit a broader pattern at the White House, where Mr. Trump has claimed vast authority to reprogram the nation’s budget, even though the Constitution gives that power to Congress.

Advertisement

In doing so, Democratic lawmakers said the result could harm their cities and states, upending work that would have helped residents regardless of their political party.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

Total affected funding, by congressional district

Advertisement

N.Y. 10th

Advertisement

Dan Goldman

12 $17.84 bil.

Ill. 7th

Danny Davis

9 $2.37 bil.

Calif. 12th

Lateefah Simon

10 $1.40 bil.

Wash. 10th

Marilyn Strickland

1 $995.1 mil.

Calif. 7th

Doris Matsui

4 $655.3 mil.

Calif. 32th

Advertisement

Brad Sherman

1 $499.5 mil.

Minn. 4th

Betty McCollum

2 $465.9 mil.

Ill. 3rd

Delia Ramirez

14 $365.4 mil.

Colo. 2nd

Joe Neguse

15 $352.5 mil.

Mass. 2nd

James McGovern

3 $114.6 mil.

Ore. 2nd

Advertisement

Cliff Bentz

5 $294.3 mil.

Mass. 7th

Ayanna Pressley

9 $207.6 mil.

Mass. 5th

Katherine Clark

9 $180.3 mil.

Mo. 2nd

Ann Wagner

1 $189.2 mil.

N.Y. 20th

Paul Tonko

25 $129.3 mil.

Md. 7th

Advertisement

Kweisi Mfume

3 $158.9 mil.

Calif. 2nd

Jared Huffman

4 $129.1 mil.

Calif. 16th

Sam Liccardo

16 $75.2 mil.

Colo. 7th

Brittany Pettersen

13 $74.2 mil.

Calif. 17th

Ro Khanna

6 $25.9 mil.

Minn. 5th

Advertisement

Ilhan Omar

5 $76.5 mil.

Calif. 5th

Tom McClintock

2 $79 mil.

Ore. 1st

Suzanne Bonamici

11 $73.6 mil.

Wash. 2nd

Rick Larsen

3 $47.8 mil.

Calif. 28th

Judy Chu

5 $53 mil.

N.M. 3rd

Advertisement

Teresa Leger Fernandez

2 $65.4 mil.

Calif. 34th

Jimmy Gomez

3 $60.3 mil.

Colo. 1st

Diana DeGette

4 $57.6 mil.

N.M. 2nd

Gabe Vasquez

4 $56.1 mil.

N.M. 1st

Melanie Stansbury

3 $52.3 mil.

Minn. 8th

Advertisement

Pete Stauber

1 $49.8 mil.

Calif. 6th

Ami Bera

1 $50 mil.

Wash. 3rd

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

1 $46 mil.

Calif. 47th

Dave Min

3 $41.7 mil.

Calif. 19th

Jimmy Panetta

3 $30.8 mil.

Mass. 3rd

Advertisement

Lori Trahan

3 $39.7 mil.

Calif. 15th

Kevin Mullin

5 $31.6 mil.

Colo. 8th

Gabe Evans

2 $32.9 mil.

Ill. 13th

Nikki Budzinski

7 $27.6 mil.

Mich. 6th

Debbie Dingell

1 $30.7 mil.

Ore. 3rd

Advertisement

Maxine Dexter

2 $15 mil.

Hawaii 1st

Ed Case

5 $24.5 mil.

N.Y. 23th

Nicholas Langworthy

2 $27.4 mil.

N.Y. 17th

Michael Lawler

2 $26.2 mil.

Conn. 5th

Jahana Hayes

3 $20.1 mil.

Mass. 6th

Advertisement

Seth Moulton

3 $17.5 mil.

N.Y. 16th

George Latimer

1 $20.4 mil.

Minn. 7th

Michelle Fischbach

1 $19.6 mil.

Calif. 25th

Raul Ruiz

1 $18.4 mil.

Calif. 4th

Mike Thompson

2 $16.6 mil.

Del.

Advertisement

Sarah McBride

3 $15.3 mil.

Mass. 9th

Bill Keating

3 $6.4 mil.

Conn. 1st

John Larson

4 $8.2 mil.

N.Y. 19th

Josh Riley

5 $10.4 mil.

Md. 4th

Glenn Ivey

4 $11 mil.

R.I. 1st

Advertisement

Gabe Amo

2 $11.5 mil.

N.Y. 3rd

Thomas Suozzi

1 $11.2 mil.

Calif. 49th

Mike Levin

2 $10.5 mil.

Mass. 8th

Stephen Lynch

2 $8.8 mil.

Calif. 42th

Robert Garcia

1 $9.7 mil.

Wash. 5th

Advertisement

Michael Baumgartner

4 $8 mil.

Md. 3rd

Sarah Elfreth

4 $6.8 mil.

Conn. 2nd

Joe Courtney

3 $7.8 mil.

Calif. 50th

Scott Peters

1 $6.3 mil.

S.C. 4th

William Timmons

1 $1.7 mil.

Calif. 43th

Advertisement

Maxine Waters

1 $6.3 mil.

Calif. 39th

Mark Takano

1 $6 mil.

Wash. 7th

Pramila Jayapal

1 $2.9 mil.

Vt.

Becca Balint

2 $2.8 mil.

N.Y. 22th

John Mannion

1 $5 mil.

Calif. 37th

Advertisement

Sydney Kamlager-Dove

1 $3.4 mil.

N.H. 1st

Chris Pappas

1 $4.7 mil.

N.Y. 25th

Joseph Morelle

1 $4.8 mil.

Conn. 3rd

Rosa DeLauro

1 $4.4 mil.

Md. 1st

Andy Harris

1 $4.5 mil.

N.J. 6th

Advertisement

Frank Pallone

2 $4.7 mil.

Calif. 14th

Eric Swalwell

2 $3 mil.

Calif. 9th

Josh Harder

2 $4.2 mil.

N.Y. 12th

Jerrold Nadler

2 $3.8 mil.

Ill. 16th

Darin LaHood

1 $2.9 mil.

Conn. 4th

Advertisement

Jim Himes

1 $3 mil.

Ill. 10th

Bradley Schneider

1 $2.9 mil.

Ill. 5th

Mike Quigley

1 $2.7 mil.

Calif. 20th

Vince Fong

1 $2.1 mil.

Calif. 36th

Ted Lieu

2 $2.4 mil.

Md. 5th

Advertisement

Steny Hoyer

1 $2.5 mil.

Ill. 9th

Janice Schakowsky

1 $2.5 mil.

Ore. 4th

Valerie Hoyle

1 $1.7 mil.

R.I. 2nd

Seth Magaziner

1 $1.9 mil.

Calif. 10th

Mark DeSaulnier

1 $2.1 mil.

N.Y. 26th

Advertisement

Timothy Kennedy

1 $1.8 mil.

Ill. 17th

Eric Sorensen

1 $1.8 mil.

Calif. 24th

Salud Carbajal

1 $1.3 mil.

Calif. 11th

Nancy Pelosi

1 $1.9 mil.

N.J. 12th

Bonnie Watson Coleman

1 $2 mil.

N.Y. 13th

Advertisement

Adriano Espaillat

1 $1.2 mil.

N.Y. 9th

Yvette Clarke

1 $1.1 mil.

N.Y. 6th

Grace Meng

1 $1.5 mil.

Ga. 5th

Nikema Williams

1 $1.1 mil.

Ill. 11th

Bill Foster

1 $1.1 mil.

Calif. 22th

Advertisement

David Valadao

1 $1 mil.

New delays in transportation aid

So far, the administration has targeted essentially two broad tranches of federal aid. First, the White House has held up billions of dollars in previously approved transportation funding for New York and Chicago.

Advertisement

In New York, the administration stopped the delivery of about $18 billion in pledged investments for two major projects: the Second Avenue subway, which traverses the east side of Manhattan, and the Hudson River tunnel, which serves as the primary rail route through New York City and along the northeast corridor. Funding for the tunnel, in particular, came only after years of wrangling, as New York officials and their counterparts in New Jersey looked to repair a roughly 115-year-old passage from damage wrought by Hurricane Sandy while improving rail capacity.

In Chicago, the Trump administration said it paused about $2.1 billion in money pledged for the city’s own transit upgrades, including an extension of its rail system into the South Side. Groundbreaking was expected to begin in 2026 after years of work to shore up federal funding for the expansion.

In both cases, the White House said it was pausing the delivery of federal dollars so that it could review the cities’ contracting policies. The administration sought to determine if leaders had made construction-related decisions on the basis of race, diversity or inclusion.

Advertisement

The moves came at a moment when the president was at war with key leaders from those states. Mr. Trump has frequently attacked Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer, two New York Democrats who lead their party in the House and Senate, for refusing to bow to his demands on spending. The Transportation Department claimed that the two men were to blame for the slowdown in aid, since the agency could not complete its review quickly during the shutdown.

Separately, federal officials have repeatedly tried to withhold security and counterterrorism funding from New York, though the state won back some of the money.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has similarly gone after Chicago and its Democratic mayor, Brandon Johnson, along with the Democratic governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, saying this month that both should be jailed.

Deep cuts to energy funding

The Trump administration also moved to terminate another tranche of money outright. Two days into the shutdown, it announced it would end roughly $7.6 billion in previously approved grants for 223 energy-related projects in 16 states, 14 of which are led by Democrats. Those cuts were later expanded.

Advertisement

The cancellations were the latest attempt by Mr. Trump and his top aides to revoke climate- and infrastructure-related funding adopted under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a series of actions that have been challenged in court. The Energy Department said that it made its decision because the projects were “not economically viable” or did not advance Mr. Trump’s energy policy agenda.

Many of the projects are located in Democratic-led congressional districts, prompting lawmakers to question in recent days if there might be political motivations behind the administration’s actions.

Advertisement

The cuts targeted a vast range of projects, including efforts to prevent power outages and modernize energy grids — a bipartisan goal — as well as investments in newer energy sources, like hydrogen. The Trump administration revoked its plan to provide up to $1.2 billion for the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, known as ARCHES, which aimed to help develop a clean-burning power source for heavy-duty trucks, port operators and other major drivers of harmful emissions.

The Biden administration announced the award in 2023, nearly two years after Democrats and Republicans adopted a bipartisan package to improve the nation’s infrastructure.

More cuts to come

Advertisement

As the shutdown enters its third week, Mr. Trump and his aides have threatened additional cuts. The president in recent days has described the closure as an opportunity “handed to us on a silver platter” to lay off federal workers, slash federal agencies and reduce other funding, perhaps in permanent ways.

One potential target is Portland, Ore. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, signaled this month that the Trump administration could block some unspecified federal aid to the city, which is led by a Democrat, because of ongoing protests of the president’s immigration crackdown.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

To analyze the impact of cancelled and paused grants, The Times began by compiling a list of affected grants. The list was then cross-referenced against data from USAspending.gov, where detailed information about each grant was collected. The figures shown on the page reflect the total amount of known funding that has not yet been outlaid.

To determine the impact by congressional district, each grant was grouped into the district where the grantee is located. In some cases, the work being funded by the grant may not occur in the same district, or could occur across multiple districts and states. The exact monetary allocation across those work sites is not known. Grants where the recipient could not be matched to a congressional district are not shown.

Advertisement

For some large projects, government data only shows currently allocated funds, instead of the entire cost of the project. In cases where this is known, the grant data was supplemented by additional reporting to better reflect the amount of affected funding.

News

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Published

on

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Virginians approved a new congressional map on Tuesday that would aggressively gerrymander the state in the Democrats’ favor, giving the party as many as four more U.S. House seats.

The new map draws eight safely Democratic districts and two competitive districts that lean Democratic, according to a New York Times analysis of 2024 presidential results. It leaves just one safe Republican seat, compared with the five seats the G.O.P. holds on the current map.

The proposed map was drawn by Democratic state legislators and approved by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat. It eliminates three Republican-held seats in part by slicing the densely populated suburbs in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and reallocating their overwhelmingly Democratic voters into five congressional districts, some stretching more than a hundred miles into Republican areas.

Perhaps the most extreme new district is the Seventh, which begins at the Potomac River and stretches to the west and south in a manner that resembles a pair of lobster claws. Several well-known Virginia Democrats have already announced their candidacies and begun campaigning in the district.

Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Published

on

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel listens during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday in Washington.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with payments of at least $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to people affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, the United Klans of America, the National Socialist Party of America and other extremist groups.

“The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” Blanche said.

Advertisement

The civil rights group faces charges including wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought by the Justice Department in Alabama, where the organization is based.

The indictment came shortly after SPLC revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into its program to pay informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities. The group said the program was used to monitor threats of violence and the information was often shared with local and federal law enforcement.

SPLC CEO Bryan Fair said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

Blanche said the money was passed from the center through two different bank accounts before being loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups, which also included the National Socialist Movement and the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club. The group never disclosed to donors details of the informant program, he said.

“They’re required to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty in what they’re telling donors they’re going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they’re raising money doing,” he said.

Advertisement

The indictment includes details on at least nine unnamed informants were paid by the SPLC through a secret program that prosecutors say began in the 1980s. Within the SPLC, they were known as field sources or “the Fs,” according to the indictment. One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Another was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

The SPLC said the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

The center has been targeted by Republicans

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

Advertisement

The SPLC has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The center regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The center came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The center included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the center, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the center had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger Stressed Pragmatism, But Politics Hound Her

Published

on

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger Stressed Pragmatism, But Politics Hound Her

On the night of her resounding win in last fall’s election for Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger told her supporters that they had sent a message to the world. “Virginia,” she said in the opening lines of her victory speech, “chose pragmatism over partisanship.”

But even then it was clear that the first big issue of her term would be as partisan as it gets: a proposed amendment by her fellow Democrats to allow them to gerrymander the state’s 11 congressional districts.

The push to redraw the Virginia map was another salvo in a barrage of redistricting spurred by President Trump in a bid to keep Republicans in control of the House in this year’s midterm elections.

Virginians vote on Tuesday on whether to adopt the proposed map, and if the “Yes” vote wins, Democrats could end up with as many as 10 seats, up from the six they hold now. The redistricting battles of the last year would end up in something of a draw, with gains for Democrats in California and Virginia offsetting gains for Republicans in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina — unless Florida lawmakers decide in the coming weeks to draw a new, more Republican-friendly map.

Historically, redrawing of congressional maps has been done each decade after the U.S. census. But with Republicans holding such a slim majority in the House, Mr. Trump began by pressing Texas to redraw its maps, touching off the wave of gerrymandering

Advertisement

Virginia Democratic legislators rolled out their redistricting plan last October, setting in motion the state’s lengthy amendment process just as the campaign for governor was entering its final weeks. At the time, Ms. Spanberger expressed support for the plan, though she emphasized that its passage was up to the legislature and then to the voters.

But even if her formal role in the process was relatively minor — Ms. Spanberger signed the bill setting the date for the referendum — the politics of the effort has loomed over the first few months of her term. Her support for the amendment has drawn accusations of hypocrisy from the right and complaints from some on the left that she has not been outspoken enough in her advocacy.

“There’s always going to be somebody who wants me to do something differently,” the governor said in an interview on Saturday at a rally in support of the amendment outside a home in Northern Virginia. “I will always make someone unhappy, and I will always make someone happy.”

Ms. Spanberger, a former C.I.A. officer and three-term congresswoman, won a 15-point victory in 2025 after running on a campaign focused on pocketbook issues. Centrism has been her political brand since she was first elected to the House in 2018, flipping a district that had long leaned to the right.

Now Republicans campaigning against the amendment have made Ms. Spanberger a prime target, deriding her as “Governor Bait-and-Switch” and highlighting an interview in August 2025 in which she said she had “no plans to redistrict Virginia.”

Advertisement

“This was the perfect opportunity for her to show that she is the middle-of-the-road suburban mom that she portrayed herself as,” said Glen Sturtevant, a Republican state senator. He dismissed the notion that this was an effort that had been thrust upon her, pointing out that she had signed the bill setting the date for the referendum. “She is certainly an active participant in this whole process,” he said.

Republicans have eagerly highlighted recent polls suggesting that Ms. Spanberger’s honeymoon is over, though because governors in Virginia cannot serve two consecutive terms, public approval is less of a pressure point than it might be elsewhere. Some of her political adversaries have tied the drop in her ratings to her involvement in the campaign for the amendment.

But a number of factors are at play in those sagging poll numbers. Some on the right are irked by her support of standard Democratic priorities like gun control measures and limits to cooperation with federal immigration agents.

But some of the most vociferous criticism of her from Republicans, up to and including the president, has been for a host of proposed taxes and tax hikes in the legislature — on everything from dog grooming to dry cleaning — that she in fact had nothing do with. Most of those taxes, which were floated by various lawmakers, never even came up for a vote.

But Ms. Spanberger did not publicly hit back against these attacks until recent days, a delay that some Democrats say was costly.

Advertisement

“She let other people define her,” said Scott Surovell, the State Senate majority leader.

Mr. Surovell’s frustration echoed a growing discontent among Democrats about the governor’s recent moves. For all the Republican criticism of her, some operatives and lawmakers said, Ms. Spanberger has not been aggressive enough in pushing for Democratic priorities, redistricting among them.

This criticism broke out into the open in recent days, after the governor made scores of amendments to bills that had passed the General Assembly. Some lawmakers and Democratic allies accused her of unexpectedly diluting long-sought goals like expanded public sector unions and a legal retail marketplace for cannabis.

“Our party base is looking for us to stand up and fight and advocate and deliver,” said Mr. Surovell, who represents a solidly Democratic district in Northern Virginia. “It’s hard to deliver when you’re standing in the middle of the road.”

In the interview, Ms. Spanberger insisted that she supported the purpose of many of the bills but had to make amendments to ensure that her administration could implement them.

Advertisement

And she said she had been explicit in her support of the redistricting effort, appearing in statewide TV ads encouraging people to vote “Yes” even as an anti-amendment campaign has sent out mailers suggesting that the governor opposes the effort.

But she said she had never been in a position to barnstorm the state as Gov. Gavin Newsom did in the months leading up to the redistricting referendum that passed in California. Mr. Newsom is a second-term governor in a much bluer state, she said, while she only recently took office and has been “in the crush of their legislative session,” with hundreds of bills to read and examine in a short period.

“Those who may not be focused on the governing and only on the politics, they’re going to want me to do politics 100 percent of the time,” she said. “And for people who care about the governing and not the politics, they’re going to want me to do governing 100 percent of the time.”

Her preference, as she has often made apparent, is for the governing over the politicking. But she acknowledged that it is all part of the job.

Asked if she lamented that the highest-profile issue of her term so far was such a polarizing matter, rather than the cost-of-living policies she emphasized on the campaign trail, she said: “Any person in elected office wants to talk about the thing they want to talk about all the time, and that’s it. So I won’t say ‘No’ to that question.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending