Connect with us

Business

A Trump Oligarchy Is Moving to Washington, and Buying Up Prime Addresses

Published

on

A Trump Oligarchy Is Moving to Washington, and Buying Up Prime Addresses

President Biden warned in his farewell address to the nation last week that an oligarchy is taking shape in America. In Washington, the oligarchs are already here, buying big houses.

Counting President-elect Donald J. Trump himself, there are at least a dozen billionaires among his cabinet picks and those headed for senior roles in the new administration. Elon Musk tops the list with a $429 billion net worth, according to Forbes, making him the world’s richest man. Mr. Trump weighs in with an estimated $6.8 billion.

It is an extraordinary concentration of wealth in a city where power has always been more important than money, but is now more than ever intertwined with it. Mr. Trump campaigned as a populist defender of the American working class, but he has put some of his richest donors in commanding roles in the top reaches of government. A number will oversee the very industries that produced their fortunes.

“It’s tempting to liken this to the Gilded Age, but John D. Rockefeller didn’t actually run McKinley’s campaign or move into the White House,” said Michael Waldman, who was President Bill Clinton’s chief speechwriter and is now president and chief executive of the Brennan Center for Justice, which promotes legal system reforms and works to curb money in politics. He was referring to Mr. Musk, who spent more than $250 million to help Mr. Trump win and is now expected to have an office in the White House complex.

One of the most immediate effects in Washington has been an explosion in the luxury real estate market.

Advertisement

The financier Howard Lutnick, Mr. Trump’s choice to be commerce secretary (worth $1.5 billion, according to Forbes), last month closed on the French Chateau-style home of the Fox anchor Bret Baier on Foxhall Road for $25 million, a record for the area. Scott Bessent, the nominee for Treasury secretary (his financial disclosure statement shows he is worth in excess of $700 million) has looked at a $7 million Federal-style house on N Street in Georgetown, once the home of the syndicated columnist Joseph Alsop.

The 1850 Italianate-style Georgetown home of the late Boyden Gray, an influential lawyer for Republican presidents, sold last month for $10.5 million. Real estate agents would not disclose the buyer, but they did say they were running short of trophy houses in Washington because of a second-term Trump bump.

“We’ve really been overwhelmed by the wealth factor that has come to Washington since the election,” said Jim Bell, an executive vice president of TTR Sotheby’s International Realty. He said agents have resorted to calling their Washington clients and asking if they’d be interested in selling to the newcomers.

The journalist and author Sally Quinn got one such call from an agent who told her she could get twice the price for the 18-room, 1790s Georgetown home she shared for more than 30 years with her husband, the late Benjamin C. Bradlee, the famed executive editor of The Washington Post. The house was once owned by Robert Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln’s son.

Ms. Quinn said she was happy to get the call, but adamant: “I said, ‘Never.’ This is my home.”

Advertisement

It is unclear where Mr. Musk will live in Washington, although there are local media reports that he is trying to buy the Line Hotel in the buzzy, bar-heavy neighborhood of Adams Morgan and turn it into a private club. A spokeswoman for Mr. Musk, the Tesla founder whose rocket company, Space X, has billions of dollars in contracts with the federal government, did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Musk is expected to have an office in the Eisenhower Executive Building across from the White House as the co-leader of the unofficial Department of Government Efficiency. His partner in the effort is Vivek Ramaswamy, a pharmaceutical entrepreneur with a net worth of $1 billion, according to Forbes, who is also planning to run for governor of Ohio, a seat that becomes open in 2026.

Jonathan Taylor, a founder and managing partner of TTR Sotheby’s, said that the rich with connections to the administration, although not necessarily a part of it, are moving here too. “There are a lot of very wealthy people looking for a seat at the table,” he said.

That is hardly surprising, said David Rubenstein, the billionaire co-founder of the private equity Carlyle Group.

Big donors, he said, “would like to get the policies they believe in from the federal government — more oil drilling, easier antitrust policy, more favorable crypto policy, less bank oversight. They also want more support for helping American companies invest overseas, and have ready access to government officials.”

Advertisement

Washington housing, he said, was also a relative bargain for them. “If you want to buy a home in New York or Southampton, a really good house, it could cost $100 million to $150 million,” he said. “You can’t spend $25 million in Washington even if you try.”

Mr. Rubenstein, who served as deputy domestic policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter, said he looked at Mr. Baier’s house when it was on the market but decided to stay in the home in Bethesda, Md., where he has lived for decades. He also owns the sprawling compound in Nantucket that President Biden has used for his family Thanksgiving vacations.

Democrats have money too, although Mr. Biden’s Cabinet is largely filled with single- and double-digit millionaires. His current White House chief of staff, Jeffrey Zeints, listed assets ranging from $68 million to $338 million on his 2024 financial disclosure form. One outlier is Penny Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune who was a commerce secretary for President Barack Obama and served as Mr. Biden’s special representative for Ukraine’s economic recovery. She has a current net worth of $4.1 billion, according to Forbes.

Mr. Trump’s billionaires have substantially bigger assets than those top officials who came to Washington for his first term, which was considered the wealthiest administration in American history at the time. Mr. Trump’s first secretary of state, Rex W. Tillerson, the former chief executive of ExxonMobil, had assets of between $289 million and $350 million in 2017. He lasted a little more than a year before Mr. Trump fired him by tweet.

Some tech billionaires, who moved here in part to have access to the White House and Congress as their industry came under growing government scrutiny, have been in Washington for years.

Advertisement

Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder and owner of The Washington Post, paid $23 million in 2016 for the former 27,000-foot Textile Museum on a grand street in the Kalorama neighborhood. The Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who donated more than $1 million to Mr. Trump in 2016, paid $13 million in 2021 for a home on Woodland Drive owned by Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce in Mr. Trump’s first term. Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google, paid $15 million for the home across from Ms. Quinn on N Street, where Jacqueline Kennedy lived for a short time after her husband’s assassination in 1963.

“These are really rich people,” said Kara Swisher, a journalist who chronicles the tech industry and is a former opinion writer for The New York Times. “As much as they like to have an image of not being spendy, they’re all really spendy. They all have private planes, they all have assistants, they have people who get them the kind of nuts they want.”

Washington neighborhoods in high demand, real estate agents said, were Kalorama, Massachusetts Avenue Heights off the embassy-lined street of the same name, and Georgetown, whose cobblestone lanes were traditionally the preserve of Washington’s old-line elite. Not anymore, said Jamie Peva, a real estate agent with Washington Fine Properties who has sold houses in Georgetown for 33 years.

“That whole WASP hegemony that started to decline in the ’80s just continued to decline,” he said. “All of a sudden tech starts to come in. It’s a meritocracy.”

A few of the billionaires will presumably not need homes in Washington. Charles Kushner, a real estate executive whose companies are worth $2.9 billion, according to Forbes, is to live in Paris as the U.S. ambassador to France. Mr. Trump pardoned Mr. Kushner, a major donor to Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign, in the last days of his first term. In 2004, Mr. Kushner pleaded guilty to tax evasion, retaliating against a federal witness and lying to the Federal Election Commission.

Advertisement

Warren Stephens, an investment banker worth $3.3 billion, according to Forbes, is to live in London as the U.S. ambassador to Britain. In 2016, Mr. Stephens gave $2 million to a group aiming to stop Mr. Trump from winning the Republican presidential nomination and in the 2024 primaries backed Republican candidates other than Mr. Trump. In April, after it became clear that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee, Mr. Stephens donated more than $3 million to his campaign.

Tilman Fertitta, the owner of the Houston Rockets and a longtime Republican donor who is worth $10.2 billion, according to Forbes, is set to live in Rome as the U.S. ambassador to Italy.

Eric Lipton contributed reporting.

Business

Disney’s ABC challenges FCC, escalating fight over free speech

Published

on

Disney’s ABC challenges FCC, escalating fight over free speech

Walt Disney Co.’s ABC is forcefully resisting Federal Communications Commission efforts to soften the network’s programming, accusing the federal agency of an overreach that violates 1st Amendment freedoms.

Last week, the FCC took the unusual step of calling in the licenses of eight Disney-owned television stations for early review. The move — widely interpreted as an effort to chill the network’s speech — came a day after President Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

The FCC separately has taken aim at ABC’s daytime discussion show, “The View,” which delves deeply into politics.

The FCC has questioned whether the show, which prominently features Trump critics Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, could continue toclaim an exemption to rules that require broadcasters to provide equal time for opponents of political candidates.

In its response this week to the FCC, Disney’s Houston television station raised the stakes in “The View” dispute, calling the commission’s actions “unprecedented” and “beyond the Commission’s authority.” The ABC station’s petition for a declaratory ruling said “The View,” has long qualified as a “bona fide” news interview program with freedom to conduct interviews of legally qualified political candidates.

Advertisement

“The Commission’s actions threaten to upend decades of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech, both with respect to The View and more broadly,” the Houston station KTRK-TV said in the filing.

The network’s firm stance sets up a clash with the Trump administration, including the president’s hand-picked FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who has made no secret of his disdain for Kimmel and other ABC programming. Earlier this year, Carr announced that decades-old exemptions from the so-called “equal time rule,” for some programs, including “The View,” were no longer valid.

In a statement, the FCC said it would “review Disney’s assertion that ‘The View’ is a ‘bona fide news program’ and thus exempt from the political equal time rules,” according to a spokesperson.

“Decades ago, Congress passed a law that generally prohibits broadcast television programs from putting a thumb on the scale in favor of one political candidate over another,” the spokesperson said. “The equal time law encourages more speech and empowers voters to decide the outcome of elections.”

ABC’s strenuous arguments mark a turning point for the Disney-owned outlet.

Advertisement

In December 2024, a month after Trump was elected to a second term, the network quickly settled a lawsuit over statements made by news anchor George Stephanopoulos that Trump found offensive. ABC agreed to pay Trump $15 million to end his legal fight — sparking an outcry among free speech advocates, who accused the network of caving on a case it may have won.

But, over the past year, the network has weathered several storms, including a threat by Carr in September to punish ABC if it didn’t muzzle Kimmel for comments he made in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s death. ABC briefly benched Kimmel to allow tensions to cool but, during the week his show was off the air, protesters loudly bashed Disney, demanding the legendary company stand up for free speech.

Thousands of consumers canceled their Disney+ and Hulu subscriptions in protest.

Protesters swarmed Hollywood Boulevard, protesting ABC’s move to bench Jimmy Kimmel in September over comments he made about the shooting of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Some conservatives, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and commentator Ben Shapiro also criticized Carr’s handling of 1st Amendment issues.

“The days of the FCC as a paper tiger are numbered,” the FCC’s lone Democrat, Anna M. Gomez, said Friday in a statement. “What the public will remember is who complied in advance and who fought back. I’m glad Disney is choosing courage over capitulation.”

The high-profile dispute presents an early challenge for Disney Chief Executive Josh D’Amaro, who succeeded longtime chief Bob Iger in March.

ABC has asked for the full commission — a three member panel of Carr, Gomez and Commissioner Olivia Trusty, a Republican — to rule on the equal time exemption for “The View.” ABC said that, in 2002, it received a ruling from the FCC that granted the exemption, and the show’s format has not changed. “The View” is produced by ABC News.

Advertisement

“Some may dislike certain — or even most — of the viewpoints expressed on The View or similar shows,” the station said in its filing. “Such dislike, however, cannot justify using regulatory processes to restrict those views.”

ABC described a logistical nightmare of providing equal time for political opponents by pointing to California’s crowded primary field of gubernatorial candidates. “Affording equal time would mean accommodating over 60 legally qualified candidates, regardless of their perceived newsworthiness,” the station wrote.

The network said it makes show bookings based on newsworthiness, not partisan politics. It also noted it has invited politicians from both sides of the aisle to appear on “The View,” but some, including Vice President J.D. Vance, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of State Marco Rubio and entrepreneur Elon Musk, have declined the invitation.

The station also noted that, while the FCC has questioned the exemption for “The View,” the agency hasn’t shown interest in regulating programs on other networks, “including the many voices — conservative and liberal — on broadcast radio.” The FCC also oversees radio station licenses.

“The danger is that the government will simply decide which perspectives to regulate and which to leave undisturbed,” ABC said.

Advertisement

On April 28, Carr called for a review of Disney’s broadcast licenses, including for the Houston station and KABC-TV in Los Angeles, two years before any of them were set to expire. The FCC said the review was part of the agency’s year-old inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.

In its Thursday petition, ABC said it had fully complied with the FCC’s request for documents related to its diversity and hiring.

The company has produced more than 11,000 pages of documents to comply with the request, Disney said.

The same week that Disney sent documents to the FCC, Kimmel made a joke on his show about Melania Trump, comparing her glow to that of “an expectant widow.” On April 25, a gunman tried to breach security at the Washington Hilton, where the first couple were on stage for the White House Correspondents’ Assn. Dinner. Shots were fired outside the ballroom.

Three days later, the FCC announced it was requiring early license renewal applications for the Disney-owned stations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

U.S. Targets Iran’s Missile and Drone Program With Sanctions

Published

on

U.S. Targets Iran’s Missile and Drone Program With Sanctions

The United States on Friday announced a flurry of new sanctions intended to increase pressure on Iran’s economy, targeting people and companies in China and Hong Kong that have been helping the Iranian military gain access to supplies and war equipment.

The sanctions came ahead of a major summit between President Trump and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, in Beijing next week. China’s support for Iran has become a flashpoint with the Trump administration, which has been trying to compel independent Chinese refineries to stop purchasing Iranian oil.

China is Iran’s biggest buyer of oil, and the Trump administration has said that it is sponsoring terrorism by propping up the Iranian economy.

The new sanctions are aimed at Iran’s military industrial supply chain, and are intended to make it harder for Iran to secure access to the material it needs to build drones and missiles. In addition to China, the sanctions also target people and companies based in Belarus and the United Arab Emirates.

“Under President Trump’s decisive leadership, we will continue to act to keep America safe and target foreign individuals and companies providing Iran’s military with weapons for use against U.S. forces,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has been looking for ways to squeeze Iran’s economy and pressure the Iranian government to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for the flow of global oil. Oil tankers have had sporadic access to the critical waterway since the war started earlier this year, and the United States and Iran have been fighting over who should control it.

U.S. warships that have been trying to transit the strait have been attacked by Iranian forces. The United States on Friday fired on and disabled two Iranian-flagged oil tankers as they tried to reach an Iranian port.

The Treasury Department has also imposed sanctions on the Chinese “teapot” refineries this month. The independent refineries are major purchasers of Iranian oil. But China invoked a domestic policy ordering its companies to disregard the sanctions.

Mr. Bessent said earlier this week that he expected Mr. Trump to urge Mr. Xi to use the country’s leverage over Iran to pressure it to allow oil cargo to travel.

“Let’s see if China — let’s see them step up with some diplomacy and get the Iranians to open the strait,” Mr. Bessent told Fox News on Monday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

General Motors to pay $12.5 million to settle claims that it illegally sold California driver data

Published

on

General Motors to pay .5 million to settle claims that it illegally sold California driver data

General Motors has agreed to pay $12.5 million dollars to settle claims that the automaker illegally sold location and driving data of hundreds of thousands of Californians, state officials said Friday.

The settlement is an example of how automakers are facing more scrutiny over allegations that they share driver data with the insurance industry, influencing how much people pay for coverage. California, though, has a law that bars insurers from using driving data to set rates.

“If we get word that a company is illegally collecting, storing or selling consumer data, we won’t hesitate to look under the hood and hold them accountable to the law,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a news conference.

The settlement is the largest California Consumer Privacy Act penalty in the state’s history, Bonta said.

The act gives California consumers the right to request that businesses disclose what data they collect. They can also opt out of the sharing or sale of their personal information and request that businesses delete their data.

Advertisement

Investigators found that from 2020 to 2024, GM sold driver data, including names, contact information, location data and driving behavior data, to data brokers Verisk Analytics Inc. and LexisNexis Risk Solutions. The data came from a driver’s use of OnStar, which is owned by GM and provides roadside assistance, navigation and other services.

GM said the agreement addresses a product called OnStar Smart Driver that the company discontinued in 2024. The product was meant to help improve people’s driving but faced privacy concerns from consumers. In 2024, GM also ended its partnership with the two data brokers and said it would enhance privacy controls.

“Vehicle connectivity is central to a modern and safe driving experience, which is why we’re committed to being clear and transparent with our customers about our practices and the choices and control they have over their information,” a GM spokesperson said in a statement.

Various district attorneys throughout the state, including in Los Angeles and San Francisco, were involved in the investigation and settlement.

Technology has been playing a bigger role in the auto industry, but the data collected from drivers can reveal personal information about people’s daily habits, including where they drop off their kids and doctor visits.

Advertisement

The California Privacy Protection Agency in 2023 started investigating the privacy practices of connected cars. As the state was looking into the automakers, the New York Times reported in 2024 that GM was sharing consumer driving behavior with insurance companies. Nationwide, GM reportedly made roughly $20 million from selling data to Verisk and LexisNexis.

The state’s privacy protection agency has taken action against other automakers before. Ford Motor Company was fined $375,703 in March and Honda was fined $632,500 in 2025 for privacy violations.

Under the GM settlement, which still needs court approval, the automaker would delete any driving data the company kept within 180 days and request that the two data brokers do the same. They would also stop selling driving data to consumer reporting agencies for five years and develop a privacy program that includes assessing and mitigating the risks of data collected from OnStar.

California’s settlement with GM came after the Federal Trade Commission in 2025 also took action against the automaker and OnStar for its privacy practices, barring them from disclosing location and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies for five years.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending