Business
Column: Disneyland has already turned my hometown into a giant tourist trap. What's next?
Somewhere in my personal papers is a folded up, tattered poster of Mickey Mouse commemorating his long reign as the world’s most famous rodent. It shows scenes from some of his iconic shorts — “Steamboat Willie,” “The Band Concert,” “Brave Little Tailor” — above the legend “Thanks Mickey for 60 Years!”
Signed, Disneyland.
My fourth-grade classmates and I received the posters in the fall of 1988 at Patrick Henry Elementary School in Anaheim, along with a T-shirt of a tuxedoed Mickey wearing sneakers and a free trip to the Happiest Place on Earth for his birthday bash. We cheered alongside kids from around the world and rode rides until the evening. I can still hum parts of the gratingly cheery song from the parade held in Mickey’s honor. (A quick YouTube search confirmed I have the melody right.)
The poster hung on my wall through junior high, even though I was more of a Donald Duck fan. It was a symbol for me that a company whose products and productions I loved cared about us Anaheim kids. How cool was it that one of the world’s most popular theme parks was in my hometown? And how cool was it that they let us kids hang out with Mickey on his birthday for free?
I hadn’t thought about my souvenir for decades until yesterday, when the Anaheim City Council passed yet another Disneyland-friendly ordinance. Zoning regulations will be relaxed so Disney can build new attractions and hotels on its 490-acre campus, and three public roads will be sold to Disney for $40 million.
In return, Disney promises to undertake nearly $2 billion in construction over the next decade, donate $30 million to a yet-to-be-formed public housing trust run by Anaheim, give $8 million toward improving city parks and pay $45 million in “transportation improvements,” according to the website for DisneylandForward, the name Disney has bestowed on its plans.
A Disney-funded study by Cal State Fullerton’s Woods Center for Economic Analysis and Forecasting predicted that the company’s most ambitious proposals — a full build-out of Disneyland and Disney California Adventure, and a new hotel — will create tens of thousands of jobs and generate $244 million in annual tax revenue.
Who could possibly be against this windfall of cash and fun? Me, of course!
The Anaheim City Council unanimously approved the agreement despite the lack of concrete plans from Disney — all it’s revealing right now is “possibilities” inspired by attractions from its theme parks worldwide, according to the DisneylandForward website. There might be more specifics in the Woods Center forecast, but city officials and the public alike can see only a nine-page summary because Disney claims it contains proprietary information.
This cryptic Mouse long ago replaced the Mickey of my childhood memories. By the time I became a reporter, I knew that Disney has long treated Anaheim as a political chamois, looking to squeeze as much as possible out of Orange County’s largest city.
Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger at “Mickey’s 90th Spectacular” at the Shrine Auditorium in 2018.
(Valerie Macon / AFP via Getty Images)
In 1996, the city paid for a $108.2-million parking structure — at the time, the largest in the world — that it leases to Disney for a buck a year, allowing the company to keep all the revenue and eventually assume ownership. A 2017 Times analysis found that Disney had “secured subsidies, incentives, rebates and protections from future taxes” worth more than $1 billion over the previous two decades. Disney has repaid that goodwill with millions of dollars in donations to political action committees that push pro-Mickey candidates.
Two years ago, FBI agents and city-funded independent investigators characterized a Disneyland Resort lobbyist as part of a “cabal” that has undue influence over city politics. Meanwhile, the cost of a one-day pass to the Mouse House has increased from $43 in 2000 to $194 as of last year. Nightly fireworks at the resort scare dogs, set off car alarms in working-class neighborhoods and make the 5 Freeway a smoky mess.
Yet, to paraphrase the most famous quote in “The Usual Suspects,” the greatest trick Disney ever pulled was convincing Anaheimers that its bad side doesn’t exist. The few DisneylandForward skeptics have been easily drowned out by supporters.
Unions? Leaders showed up to support DisneylandForward when the Anaheim City Council first voted on it in April. The council? From Republican Stephen Faessel to progressive Carlos Leon to independent Jose Diaz, they hardly asked any hard-hitting questions. The millions of visitors to the Disneyland Resort, half of whom seem to be my cousins and friends? They’re celebrating like Ewoks at the end of “Return of the Jedi” at the thought of more rides to enjoy and swag to grab.
Only a few of us cranks are pointing to the environmental impact report finding that the construction noise and permanent change in air quality as a result of the expansion would be “significant and unavoidable.” Or pulling out a calculator to crunch the numbers in the Woods Center report.
For instance, the study says that if Disneyland maximizes its acreage and builds a new hotel, that will create 28,352 jobs, translating into $1.8 billion in income for those employees.
Sounds nice and big. But it doesn’t say what kind of jobs and whether they’d be permanent or full time. The $63,487 average yearly salary from those jobs is considered low-income for a one-person household in Orange County, according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. These are hardly the jobs Anaheimers need to be able to afford to live here, let alone live a good life.
I still remember when Anaheim was a city of factories and blue-collar jobs that allowed my immigrant elders and my cousins to buy homes. Near the granny flat where I lived before transferring to Patrick Henry were a lumberyard, a Kwikset factory and a trucking depot where my dad would pick up cargo containers.
All those places vanished decades ago. Now, there are hipster hangouts, beer gardens and high-priced apartments, because Anaheim leaders took Disney’s lead and transformed my hometown into one giant tourist trap, with longtime residents little better than an afterthought.
Which brings me back to that Mickey Mouse 60th anniversary poster. I eventually took it down because the edges were fraying, and I thought it would be a collectors’ item one day. I thought Disneyland had bestowed on me yet another wonderful prize.
I looked up the poster on eBay recently. I can get one for $20. But, hey: At least I got something free from Disney back in the day.
In 2016, the company vowed to give all Anaheim sixth-graders free Disneyland tickets in honor of its 60th anniversary if they did community service projects.
The promotion was supposed to continue for a decade but was discontinued in 2021, during the pandemic. It has yet to be reinstated, even though Disney just announced that its theme park division increased revenue in the second fiscal quarter to $8.39 billion.
Stay classy, Mouse House!
Business
Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon
President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.
In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”
“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.
The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.
Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.
The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.
“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.
Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”
The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.
On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.
The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.
Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.
“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”
Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.
Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.
“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.
Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.
Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.
“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”
Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.
The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”
Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.
The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT