Business
Column: Trump-friendly billionaires are taking aim at the federal agencies that protect workers and consumers
“If the law is against you, talk about the evidence. If the evidence is against you, talk about the law, and, … if the law and the evidence are both against you, then pound on the table and yell like hell.”
Thus the poet Carl Sandburg’s version of an ancient lawyer’s adage in his epic poem, “The People, Yes.” It isn’t his fault that his rendering is incomplete, since he was writing in 1936 and the modern legal mind has cooked up a further advisory, applicable when the entity against you is a government agency: If pounding the table and yelling won’t succeed, then get your adversary declared unconstitutional.
That’s the weapon being wielded at this moment against the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The first was created by Congress in 1935 to protect workers’ organizing and bargaining rights, the second in 2010 to protect consumers from ripoffs by financial service firms.
The NLRB and the courts have recognized for years that delay to a union certification and the bargaining process causes irreparable loss of support among employees.
— Teamster attorney Julie Gutman Dickinson
Those agencies are under assault by two of the richest men in the world: Elon Musk, who controls Tesla and SpaceX, among other enterprises, and Jeff Bezos, the founder and executive chair of Amazon. To put it succinctly, these are agencies devoted to serving the little guy by fighting battles against Big Business. Is there any mystery about why they’re targeted by billionaires?
I reported in January on the effort by SpaceX to persuade a federal judge to declare the NLRB unconstitutional.
Amazon is pursuing the same goal in its own fight with the NLRB, in which it’s trying to stave off an order that it enter into contract negotiations with 8,000 workers at a warehouse in Staten Island, N.Y. Amazon is also trying to overturn the victory in the workers’ 2022 vote by a union that subsequently affiliated with the Teamsters.
As for the CFPB, Musk on Nov. 26 tweeted, “Delete CFPB…. There are too many duplicative regulatory agencies.” He was responding to a fatuous spiel by venture investor Marc Andreessen, who in an appearance on Joe Rogan’s webcast called the CFPB “Elizabeth Warren’s personal agency, which she gets to control.” Sen. Warren (D-Mass.) conceived of the agency and pushed for its creation after the recession of 2008, but she has zero “control” over it.
As Helaine Olen of the American Economic Liberties Project has observed, what really sticks in Andreessen’s craw about the CFPB is that it has worked to protect consumers from financial services outfits, including fintech firms in which Andreessen, along with other Silicon Valley bros, has invested. (I asked Andreessen via his substack column to expand on his claims, but haven’t heard back.) Rogan, wearing his persona as a babe-in-the-woods naif, listened to this nonsense in slack-jawed stupefaction.
“Duplicative”? What makes the CFPB so important is that it’s virtually unique among federal agencies in possessing the explicit responsibility to protect ordinary Americans from the depredations of financial snake-oil sales forces.
In its more than 13 years of existence, the bureau has secured more than $17.5 billion in compensation and other relief for consumers mulcted by the financial services industry and built up a victims relief fund worth more than $4 billion.
Musk’s campaign against these two agencies warrants notice because of his elevated role within the coming Trump administration. Along with Vivek Ramaswamy, another right-wing activist, he has been anointed as head of a Department of Government Efficiency, with the goal of rooting out supposed sources of government waste. If Musk uses that perch to wage his personal campaign against the NLRB, that could make things, um, complicated for Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, the pro-union Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
That brings us to the claims that the agencies are unconstitutional. I asked SpaceX and Amazon to comment on their lawsuits. SpaceX hasn’t replied. Amazon, through spokesperson Eileen Hards, said it filed its lawsuit raising the issue “because we believe the NLRB is acting beyond its mandate, including by having its Members serving as both prosecutors and judges on the same case. This is a clear violation of separation of powers, and furthermore, they feel emboldened to do so because they are unconstitutionally insulated from removal.”
The company said further that it doesn’t believe the “election process was fair, legitimate, or representative of what the majority of our team wants…. We’ll continue to use all legal avenues available to us as we believe the decision will be overturned when it’s reviewed by an unbiased court.”
The unconstitutionality charge was laid against the CFPB by payday lending firms, supported by credit unions, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a passel of right-wing legal organizations, which based their case on the fact that the bureau’s funding comes from the Federal Reserve rather than the U.S. Treasury.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument by a 7-2 vote in May.
The claims against the National Labor Relations Board are different. In separate lawsuits, SpaceX and Amazon assert that because the board members and the board’s administrative law judges are insulated from at-will removal by the president, it’s in violation of several constitutional principles and provisions.
SpaceX’s case arose from an NLRB accusation that it improperly fired nine employees in 2022 for publishing an open letter complaining about safety provisions at the company’s plants. union organizing activities, among other illegal acts. Its lawsuit has had a complicated procedural history.
SpaceX originally filed its lawsuit in federal court in Brownsville, Texas, where it had a 50-50 chance of drawing a Trump-appointed judge but where appeals go to the notably conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in what appeared to be a flagrant example of forum-shopping.
As it happened, the case came before Rolando Olvera, an Obama appointee. He didn’t think much of a Hawthorne-based company suing the NLRB, which is located in Washington, D.C., over the firings of employees who mostly worked in California. (The lone exception was an employee located in Washington but whose supervisors were in California.)
“It is undisputed that no party resides in the Southern District of Texas,” Olvera ruled. He ordered the case transferred to federal court in Los Angeles. SpaceX appealed to the 5th Circuit Court, which obligingly ordered the case returned to Texas. The case is currently held in abeyance while the appeals court ponders various issues.
Amazon filed its case against the NLRB in September in San Antonio federal court, where three of the five judges are Republican-appointees but appeals also go to the 5th Circuit, even though the company’s dispute with the NLRB involves Teamster-represented workers in Staten Island, N.Y. It was assigned to Xavier Rodriguez, an appointee of George W. Bush.
One can’t overstate the stakes in this battle for the company and the union. The Staten Island warehouse was the first Amazon facility to win a union representation campaign.
Amazon is seeking an injunction blocking the NLRB from “pursuing unconstitutional administrative proceedings,” asserting that the board members are “insulated from removal in contravention of Article II of the Constitution.” The NLRB’s structure, the company argues, “violates the constitutionally mandated separation of powers and Amazon’s due process rights.”
The Teamsters, which represents the Staten Island workers, sees the quest for an injunction as nothing but an effort to use the courts to delay the company’s obligation to meet the workers at the bargaining table.
“Granting the injunction would send the message to all these workers that it’s irrelevant that their bargaining representatives have been certified by the NLRB,” which creates a duty to start bargaining, Julie Gutman Dickinson, the Los Angeles labor attorney representing the Teamsters, told me.
“The NLRB and the courts have recognized for years that delay to a union certification and the bargaining process causes irreparable loss of support among employees,” Dickinson says. “The chilling effect goes far beyond the Amazon employees in the New York facility but extends to hundreds of thousands of employees across the country, many of whom are involved in organizing campaigns to seek union representation, who will see that the NLRB’s legal process is completely futile.”
Oral arguments in a second case, involving unionized drivers and dispatchers at a warehouse in Palmdale that the workers maintain is jointly operated by Amazon and a labor subcontractor, are scheduled for Dec. 18 in Los Angeles federal court.
The Teamsters argues that Amazon appears to be a recent convert to the idea that the NLRB is unconstitutional. For more than two years, or since the Staten island election, Amazon pursued the NLRB’s administrative process to overturn the vote.
“At no time did Amazon assert any constitutional claims or allege the NLRB or its processes were constitutionally deficient,” the union said in a legal filing. Not until September, when it was facing an order to explain why it hadn’t bargained with the union, did the company raise the constitutional question.
It’s worth noting that the constitutionality of the NLRB has already been reviewed by the Supreme Court. That happened in 1937, with a 5-4 vote (the minority votes came from the cadre of reactionary justices known then as the Four Horsemen).
The majority opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes didn’t explicitly address the president’s authority to remove the board members at will, but he did find that the “procedural provisions” of the National Labor Relations Act, which created the NLRB, met constitutional muster.
Amazon may be right to believe that it will prevail before what it calls “an unbiased court.” If it’s referring to the Supreme Court, it’s in with a chance, given the overt hostility the current court majority has shown toward organized labor. But declaring the NLRB to be unconstitutional, some 90 years since it was created by Congress, would be a big step indeed.
Business
After Warner Bros. merger, changes are coming to the historic Paramount lot. Here’s what to expect
With Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. expected to saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, Paramount executives are looking to do away with redundant assets including real estate — and there is a lot of that.
Chief in the public’s imagination are their historic studios in Burbank and Hollywood, where legendary films and television show have been made for generations and continue to operate year-round.
“Both of these studios are in the core [30-mile zone,] the inner circle of where Hollywood talent wants to be,” entertainment property broker Nicole Mihalka of CBRE said. “It’s very prime real estate.”
When Sony and Apollo were bidding for Paramount in early 2024, their plan was to sell the Paramount property, but there is no indication that Paramount would part with its namesake lot.
For now, Paramount’s plan is to keep both studios operating with each studio releasing about 15 films a year, but the goal is to eventually consolidate most of the studio operations around the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank in order to to eliminate redundancies with the Paramount lot on Melrose Avenue, people close to Chief Executive David Ellison said.
A view of the Warner Bros. Studios water tower Feb. 23, 2026, in Burbank.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
Paramount would not look to raze its celebrated studio lot — the oldest operating film studio in Los Angeles — because of various restrictions on historic buildings there. Paramount also has a relatively new post-production facility on site and will likely need to the studio space.
Instead, the plan would be to lease out space for film productions, including those from combined Paramount-HBO streaming operations. Ellison also is considering plans to develop other parts of the 65-acre site for possible retail use, as well as renting space for commercial offices.
The studios’ combined property holdings are vast, and real estate data provider CoStar estimates they have about 12 million square feet of overlapping uses, including their studio campuses, offices and long-term leases in such film centers as Burbank, Hollywood and New York.
Century-old Paramount Pictures Studios is awash in Hollywood history — think Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond desperately trying to enter its famous gate in “Sunset Boulevard,” and other classics such as “The Godfather,” “Titanic” and “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”
The lot, however, is a congested warren of stages, offices, trailers and support facilities such as woodworking mills that date to the early 20th century. The layout is byzantine in part because Paramount bought the former rival RKO studio lot from Desilu Productions to create the lot known today.
Warner Bros. occupies 11 million square feet and owns 14 properties totaling 9.5 million square feet, largely in the United States and United Kingdom, CoStar said. About 3 million square feet of that commercial property is in the Los Angeles area.
The firm’s portfolio also includes the sprawling Warner Bros. Studios Leavesden complex in the U.K. and Turner Broadcasting System headquarters in Atlanta.
Paramount Skydance occupies 8 million square feet and owns 14 properties totaling 2.1 million square feet, according to CoStar. In addition to its Hollywood campus, Paramount’s holdings include prominent buildings in New York such as the Ed Sullivan Theater and CBS Broadcast Center.
Warner Bros. operates a 3-million-square-foot lot in Burbank with more than 30 soundstages — along with space for building sets and backlot areas — where famous movies including “Casablanca” and television shows such as “Friends” were filmed. Paramount’s 1.2-million-square-foot Melrose campus anchors a broader network of owned and leased production space, CoStar said.
Paramount’s lot is already cleared for more development. More than a decade ago, Paramount secured city approval to add 1.4 million square feet to its headquarters and some adjacent properties owned by the company.
The redevelopment plan, valued at $700 million in 2016, underwent years of environmental review and public outreach with neighbors and local business owners.
The plan would allow for construction of up to 1.9 million square feet of new stage, production office, support, office, and retail uses, and the removal of up to 537,600 square feet of existing stage, production office, support, office, and retail uses, for a net increase of nearly 1.4 million square feet.
The proposal preserves elements of the past by focusing future development on specific portions of the lot along Melrose and limited areas in the production core, architecture firm Rios said.
The Warner Bros. and Paramount lots “are two of the most prime pieces of real estate in the country,” Mihalka said. “These are legacy assets with a lot of potential to be [tourist] attractions in addition to working studios.”
Hollywood is still reeling from previous mergers, in addition to a sharp pullback in film and television production locally as filmmakers chase tax credits offered overseas and in other states, including New York and New Jersey.
Last year, lawmakers boosted the annual amount allocated to the state’s film and TV tax credit program and expanded the criteria for eligible projects in an attempt to lure production back to California. So far, more than 100 film and TV projects have been awarded tax credits under the revamped program.
The benefits have been slow to materialize, but Mihalka predicts that the tax credits and desirability of working close to home will lead to more studio use in the Los Angeles area, including at Warner Bros. and Paramount.
“These are such prime locations that we’ll see show runners and talent push back on having shows located out of state and insist on being here,” she said. “I think you’re going to see more positive movement here.”
Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.
Business
How our AI bots are ignoring their programming and giving hackers superpowers
Welcome to the age of AI hacking, in which the right prompts make amateurs into master hackers.
A group of cybercriminals recently used off-the-shelf artificial intelligence chatbots to steal data on nearly 200 million taxpayers. The bots provided the code and ready-to-execute plans to bypass firewalls.
Although they were explicitly programmed to refuse to help hackers, the bots were duped into abetting the cybercrime.
According to a recent report from Israeli cybersecurity firm Gambit Security, hackers last month used Claude, the chatbot from Anthropic, to steal 150 gigabytes of data from Mexican government agencies.
Claude initially refused to cooperate with the hacking attempts and even denied requests to cover the hackers’ digital tracks, the experts who discovered the breach said. The group pummelled the bot with more than 1,000 prompts to bypass the safeguards and convince Claude they were allowed to test the system for vulnerabilities.
AI companies have been trying to create unbreakable chains on their AI models to restrain them from helping do things such as generating child sexual content or aiding in sourcing and creating weapons. They hire entire teams to try to break their own chatbots before someone else does.
But in this case, hackers continuously prompted Claude in creative ways and were able to “jailbreak” the chatbot to assist them. When they encountered problems with Claude, the hackers used OpenAI’s ChatGPT for data analysis and to learn which credentials were required to move through the system undetected.
The group used AI to find and exploit vulnerabilities, bypass defences, create backdoors and analyze data along the way to gain control of the systems before they stole 195 million identities from nine Mexican government systems, including tax records, vehicle registration as well as birth and property details.
AI “doesn’t sleep,” Curtis Simpson, chief executive of Gambit Security, said in a blog post. “It collapses the cost of sophistication to near zero.”
“No amount of prevention investment would have made this attack impossible,” he said.
Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment. It told Bloomberg that it had banned the accounts involved and disrupted their activity after an investigation.
OpenAI said it is aware of the attack campaign carried out using Anthropic’s models against the Mexican government agencies.
“We also identified other attempts by the adversary to use our models for activities that violate our usage policies; our models refused to comply with these attempts,” an OpenAI spokesperson said in a statement. “We have banned the accounts used by this adversary and value the outreach from Gambit Security.”
Instances of generative AI-assisted hacking are on the rise, and the threat of cyberattacks from bots acting on their own is no longer science fiction. With AI doing their bidding, novices can cause damage in moments, while experienced hackers can launch many more sophisticated attacks with much less effort.
Earlier this year, Amazon discovered that a low-skilled hacker used commercially available AI to breach 600 firewalls. Another took control of thousands of DJI robot vacuums with help from Claude, and was able to access live video feed, audio and floor plans of strangers.
“The kinds of things we’re seeing today are only the early signs of the kinds of things that AIs will be able to do in a few years,” said Nikola Jurkovic, an expert working on reducing risks from advanced AI. “So we need to urgently prepare.”
Late last year, Anthropic warned that society has reached an “inflection point” in AI use in cybersecurity after disrupting what the company said was a Chinese state-sponsored espionage campaign that used Claude to infiltrate 30 global targets, including financial institutions and government agencies.
Generative AI also has been used to extort companies, create realistic online profiles by North Korean operatives to secure jobs in U.S. Fortune 500 companies, run romance scams and operate a network of Russian propaganda accounts.
Over the last few years, AI models have gone from being able to manage tasks lasting only a few seconds to today’s AI agents working autonomously for many hours. AI’s capability to complete long tasks is doubling every seven months.
“We just don’t actually know what is the upper limit of AI’s capability, because no one’s made benchmarks that are difficult enough so the AI can’t do them,” said Jurkovic, who works at METR, a nonprofit that measures AI system capabilities to cause catastrophic harm to society.
So far, the most common use of AI for hacking has been social engineering. Large language models are used to write convincing emails to dupe people out of their money, causing an eight-fold increase in complaints from older Americans as they lost $4.9 billion in online fraud in 2025.
“The messages used to elicit a click from the target can now be generated on a per-user basis more efficiently and with fewer tell-tale signs of phishing,” such as grammatical and spelling errors, said Cliff Neuman, an associate professor of computer science at USC.
AI companies have been responding using AI to detect attacks, audit code and patch vulnerabilities.
“Ultimately, the big imbalance stems from the need of the good-actors to be secure all the time, and of the bad-actors to be right only once,” Neuman said.
The stakes around AI are rising as it infiltrates every aspect of the economy. Many are concerned that there is insufficient understanding of how to ensure it cannot be misused by bad actors or nudged to go rogue.
Even those at the top of the industry have warned users about the potential misuse of AI.
Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has long advocated that the AI systems being built are unpredictable and difficult to control. These AIs have shown behaviors as varied as deception and blackmail, to scheming and cheating by hacking software.
Still, major AI companies — OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, and Google — signed contracts with the U.S. government to use their AIs in military operations.
This last week, the Pentagon directed federal agencies to phase out Claude after the company refused to back down on its demand that it wouldn’t allow its AI to be used for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.
“The AI systems of today are nowhere near reliable enough to make fully autonomous weapons,” Amodei told CBS News.
Business
iPic movie theater chain files for bankruptcy
The iPic dine-in movie theater chain has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and intends to pursue a sale of its assets, citing the difficult post-pandemic theatrical market.
The Boca Raton, Fla.-based company has 13 locations across the U.S., including in Pasadena and Westwood, according to a Feb. 25 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach division.
As part of the bankruptcy process, the Pasadena and Westwood theaters will be permanently closed, according to WARN Act notices filed with the state of California’s Employment Development Department.
The company came to its conclusion after “exploring a range of possible alternatives,” iPic Chief Executive Patrick Quinn said in a statement.
“We are committed to continuing our business operations with minimal impact throughout the process and will endeavor to serve our customers with the high standard of care they have come to expect from us,” he said.
The company will keep its current management to maintain day-to-day operations while it goes through the bankruptcy process, iPic said in the statement. The last day of employment for workers in its Pasadena and Westwood locations is April 28, according to a state WARN Act notice. The chain has 1,300 full- and part-time employees, with 193 workers in California.
The theatrical business, including the exhibition industry, still has not recovered from the pandemic’s effect on consumer behavior. Last year, overall box office revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.8 billion, up just 1.6% compared with 2024. Even more troubling is that industry revenue in 2025 was down 22.1% compared with pre-pandemic 2019’s totals.
IPic noted those trends in its bankruptcy filing, describing the changes in consumer behavior as “lasting” and blaming the rise of streaming for “fundamentally” altering the movie theater business.
“These industry shifts have directly reduced box office revenues and related ancillary revenues, including food and beverage sales,” the company stated in its bankruptcy filing.
IPic also attributed its decision to rising rents and labor costs.
The company estimated it owed about $141,000 in taxes and about $2.7 million in total unsecured claims. The company’s assets were valued at about $155.3 million, the majority of which coming from theater equipment and furniture. Its liabilities totaled $113.9 million.
The chain had previously filed for bankruptcy protection in 2019.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Wisconsin4 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland5 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida5 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Oregon7 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling