Business
Trump Maintains 104% China Tariffs as U.S. Officials Signal Openness to Talks

President Trump’s next round of punishing tariffs on some of America’s largest trading partners was set to go into effect just after midnight on Wednesday, including stiff new levies that will increase import taxes on Chinese goods by at least 104 percent.
Mr. Trump acknowledged on Tuesday that his tariffs had been “somewhat explosive.” But throughout the day he continued to defend his approach, saying that it was encouraging countries with what he calls “unfair” trade practices to offer concessions.
“We have a lot of countries coming in to make deals,” he said during remarks at the White House on Tuesday afternoon. At a dinner with Congressional Republicans in Washington later that evening, he said other countries wanted to make a deal with the United States but he was happy just collecting the revenue from tariffs, which he claimed would reach $2 billion a day.
“I know what the hell I’m doing,” he said, adding that he would announce “a major tariff on pharmaceuticals” very shortly.
The president and top administration officials signaled on Tuesday that the White House was ready to negotiate deals, saying that 70 governments had approached the United States to try to roll the levies back. Mr. Trump said officials would begin talks with Japan, South Korea and other nations.
The president, whose punitive and successive tariffs on China have triggered a potentially economically damaging trade war, also said he was open to talking to Beijing about a deal.
“China also wants to make a deal, badly, but they don’t know how to get it started,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media. “We are waiting for their call. It will happen!”
On April 2, the president imposed a 10 percent global tariff on hundreds of countries and promised far steeper “reciprocal” tariffs on April 9 for nations that he maintains have “ripped off” America. Much of his anger has been directed at China, which exports far more into the United States than it buys. Since February, the president has imposed successive rounds of tariffs on China. On Wednesday, the minimum tax on Chinese imports will hit 104 percent. Some products may face even higher levies if they are subject to tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed during his first term.
The president’s approach has prompted retaliation from China and caused other countries to draw up their own plans to hit American exports. As a result, economists have raised their expectations for a recession in the United States, and many now consider the odds to be a coin flip.
Mr. Trump has dismissed those concerns and said he will not back away from his trade agenda. The president says his approach is necessary to return manufacturing and industrial production to the United States. He and his economic advisers have pointed to recent offers by countries to lower their own tariffs, though some officials have given mixed signals about how willing the president will be to negotiate.
News that the administration was considering reaching agreements with trading partners helped to buoy stock markets after three days of punishing losses. But by Tuesday afternoon the S&P 500 had given up any gains and closed down for the fourth consecutive trading day.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a briefing on Tuesday afternoon that Mr. Trump had spoken with the prime minister of Japan on Monday and that the United States would be seeking deals. She said that the president had asked his advisers to “have tailor-made trade deals with each and every country that calls up this administration to strike a deal.”
But Ms. Leavitt rejected the idea that the request represented an “evolution” from aides’ earlier comments that there would not be a negotiation over tariffs. She said the president was not planning to pause his plan. “He expects these tariffs are going to go into effect,” she said.
Ms. Leavitt also insisted that the United States had the upper hand when it came to negotiations. “America does not need other countries as much as other countries need us, and President Trump knows this,” she said.
Mr. Trump’s Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, made similar comments on Tuesday as he assailed China for retaliating against the United States with tariffs of its own and warned that America had more leverage in a trade war with the world’s second-largest economy.
“What do we lose by the Chinese raising tariffs on us?” Mr. Bessent said on CNBC. “We export one-fifth to them of what they export to us, so that is a losing hand for them.”
Jamieson Greer, Mr. Trump’s top trade official, defended the administration’s aggressive tariff moves before a Senate committee on Tuesday morning, arguing that the U.S. economy was facing “a moment of drastic, overdue change” after decades of factories moving overseas and hurting the American working class.
Mr. Greer said that the president had imposed the tariffs to achieve “reciprocal treatment from other countries.” He added that the policy was already working, citing announcements that companies have made in recent weeks of investments in the United States.
He declined to say how long the tariffs would be in effect, saying that the administration was looking at it “country by country.” But he implied that there might not be quick remedies.
“Our large and persistent trade deficit has been over 30 years in the making, and it will not be resolved overnight, but all of this is in the right direction,” Mr. Greer said.
Mr. Bessent, who will oversee negotiations with Japan along with Mr. Greer, also indicated an openness to negotiating deals.
“I think you are going to see some very large countries with large trade deficits come forward very quickly,” Mr. Bessent said. “If they come to the table with solid proposals, I think we can end up with some good deals.”
Other officials have been less optimistic about the possibility of countries finding a way to avoid the tariffs.
“This is not a negotiation,” Peter Navarro, a White House trade adviser who is a strong supporter of tariffs, wrote in an opinion essay on Monday. “For the U.S., it is a national emergency triggered by trade deficits caused by a rigged system.”
Mr. Trump’s aggressive tariffs have prompted sharp blowback from Democrats in Congress and increasing nervousness from Republicans, who are under pressure from constituents to defend their export markets.
A bipartisan group of senators — including Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the committee; the minority leader, Chuck Schumer of New York; and one Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky — plans to introduce a resolution later this week that would terminate the national emergency the president declared to introduce his tariffs.
But the measure would face a tough path to passage. If the House approves it, Congress will need enough votes to override the president’s veto. And the House may take action so it is not forced to vote on the resolution.
Last week, the Senate approved a similar measure to scrap the tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed on Canada, but House Republicans moved pre-emptively to shut down the requirement that they vote on such a measure.
Representatives Don Bacon of Nebraska and Jeff Hurd of Colorado, both Republicans, introduced a bipartisan House bill on Monday that would give Congress the final say on any proposed tariffs. The measure, cosponsored by two Democrats, Representatives Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Gregory W. Meeks of New York, has not yet drawn any other Republican supporters.
But Mr. Bacon said on Monday that he had spoken to several other colleagues — “like, 10 to 20” — who said they liked the proposal but wanted to wait and hear from Mr. Greer on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, Mr. Greer will testify before the House Ways and Means Committee.
Several Senate Republicans had forceful exchanges with Mr. Greer on Tuesday about whether the tariffs were a negotiating tool and whether businesses that depend on imported products might find relief.
“We need to think strategically about tariff policy, including how to minimize unnecessary costs on American families,” Senator Michael D. Crapo, the Republican chairman of the finance committee, said. “I also recognize that although it is easy to see the costs arising from tariffs, it is far more difficult to assess the cost of denied market access opportunities.”
Senator Steve Daines, a Republican from Montana, said he was concerned about the inflationary effect of tariffs on consumers. But he said he was encouraged that other countries were approaching the United States to negotiate. He said that stock markets were rebounding Tuesday because “there’s hope that these tariffs are means and not solely an end,” he said.
Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, one of the few Republicans who have signed on to legislation opposing Mr. Trump’s tariffs, said that agriculture “is usually the first place of retaliation.”
During the trade fight with China in Mr. Trump’s first term, U.S. agricultural exports plummeted after China imposed high retaliatory duties on soybean, corn, wheat and other American imports, and the United States spent about $23 billion to support American farmers.
Mr. Grassley said that he supported the president generally but believed that Congress had delegated too much authority to him over trade. He said he had taken a “wait and see” approach to tariffs because he believed Mr. Trump and Mr. Greer were using them as a tool to get fairer trade.
“If that’s not the case, level with me,” Mr. Grassley told Mr. Greer.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents major companies like Walmart, Target, Starbucks and Best Buy, released a statement ahead of Mr. Greer’s testimony saying that the tariffs had caused “disruption and uncertainty in the markets and with consumers” and could drive up prices for products like baby clothes, handbags and paper plates.
“Americans elected President Trump to lower inflation and grow the economy,” the group said. “Instead, these broad-based tariffs threaten family pocketbooks and risk destabilizing confidence in the economy.”
For Democrats, the tariffs have provided plenty of fodder to argue that Mr. Trump is mismanaging the economy.
“The U.S. economy has gone from the envy of the world to a laughingstock, in less time than it took to finish March Madness,” Mr. Wyden said on Tuesday. “Through it all, Donald Trump and his advisers have yet to provide any understandable explanation at all for what his tax hike on the American people is supposed to accomplish.”
“Donald Trump is single-handedly driving this economy off a cliff with no evidence to back him up,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts.
Maya C. Miller, Tony Romm and Tyler Pager contributed reporting.

Business
Sweetgreen’s CEO on Robots, RFK Jr. and Why Salads Are So Expensive

When Jonathan Neman was a student at Georgetown in the mid-2000s, he and some friends wanted to start a restaurant. A fast-food restaurant, but it would be healthy. And cool.
The documentary “Super Size Me” had made waves, and “we were going to be rejecting the fast food of the previous generation,” Mr. Neman said.
He and his business partners, Nicolas Jammet and Nathaniel Ru, opened the first Sweetgreen in 2007, on the edge of campus on M Street in Washington. As they expanded, they decided against franchising the brand, keeping control of every new location. Soon it became a buzzy millennial lifestyle brand. It sponsored an annual music festival. It went public in late 2021.
Sweetgreen now has more than 250 restaurants across the United States. The chain is known for its endlessly customizable salads — and for how quickly the cost of all those extra toppings and dressings can add up. (A recent lunch there cost me $16.28.)
The company also runs a growing number of locations that include what it calls the Infinite Kitchen, with salad-slinging robots that assemble bowls faster than human workers.
With great fanfare, Sweetgreen recently put fries on its menu — air-fried in avocado oil, to make customers feel better about adding a side of carbs to a salad. Much of its food is sourced locally, including avocados from California, which will limit the hit the company takes on tariffs, executives have told investors.
And Sweetgreen doesn’t cater just to office workers eating salads at their desks. Mr. Neman, 40, said he had heard that teenagers were “obsessed” with the salads, which wasn’t the case when Sweetgreen started. “The fact that they think that eating healthy is cool is something that we envisioned,” he said at his office in Los Angeles, where the company is now based.
Back in Washington, the Trump administration is also thinking about what goes into food. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the standard-bearer of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, recently declared that “sugar is poison” and pushed to ban artificial dyes in foods.
Some of those aims resonate with Mr. Neman, whose company worked with the former first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign. But he — like many other company leaders — is trying to talk about the company’s priorities (like eliminating seed oils) without being pulled into the polarized politics of the moment.
“We say we’re not red or blue, but we’re green,” he said.
This interview was condensed and edited for clarity.
Sweetgreen is all about healthy ingredients. Now, there is the “Make America Healthy Again” movement and R.F.K. Jr. pushing to ban artificial dyes in food. What are your thoughts on that?
As it relates to “Make America Healthy,” funny story: In 2016, during a festival, we had a campaign that was a joke, a play on “Make America Great Again.” We made “Make America Healthy Again” hats.
Wow.
We are on the team of anyone who wants to help make America healthier. Back in the days of the Obama administration, we partnered very closely with Michelle Obama.
With R.F.K. Jr., I’ll speak to the parts related to our world. I think bringing more transparency to our food system is great. I think some of those dyes are bad. Sweetgreen has never sold soda very intentionally. We’d make a lot more money if we did. A lot of people wish we did. We never have and I don’t think ever will.
We don’t like to get involved in the rest of it. So we’re not trying to insert ourselves politically, either me personally or as a brand.
Have you communicated with the White House about healthy foods?
We haven’t been directly involved at this point. But if there’s a place for us to help, we’re totally up for it.
There have been cuts at the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees food safety. Do you have any concerns around food safety in the U.S. right now?
I think some of the things I’ve seen could be a little bit alarming. Others seem great.
What are the things that concern you?
I’d want to be careful to have certain guardrails around food safety, for example. And to be careful that there are not any adverse impacts to moving too fast. But overall, I think more transparency around the food system, promoting more real food, getting rid of these artificial chemicals that are allowed in our food and removing any conflicts of interest in people that are regulating our food are all good things.
Let’s talk about the robots. Will they help with profitability?
Absolutely. So what we’ve seen is at the store level, the Infinite Kitchen adds at least seven points of margin. So if you look at our store, right now we’re about a 20 percent margin business. An Infinite Kitchen store should be at least seven points better.
So as more robots make more salads, can people expect prices to come down?
We are very conscious of making sure that Sweetgreen can be something for everyone. I think automation does give us a hedge as labor costs continue to go up, to be able to drive more value and offer that to our customer.
How much is too much to pay for a salad?
It really depends what you put in it. When you think about the cost of something, you have to sometimes think about the total cost. There’s the cost to you, but when you eat certain things, what’s the cost to your health? What’s the cost to the environment? People are paying not only for the quality of the taste in the food, but the fact that it’s made by hand, the fact that we pay our farmers and our team members fairly.
What’s your back story? Tell me about your parents and growing up in Los Angeles.
My parents immigrated here in 1979. They were Iranian Jews who came during the revolution. And that was a big part of my story growing up because I think about how fragile your life and reality can be.
I’m the oldest of four boys. Being Jewish is a big part of my identity. I’ve always been very connected to Israel and my Jewish faith and big family.
My dad has four siblings. They each have four kids, so 20 cousins. Shabbat every Friday. A lot of us Persian Jews came to Los Angeles during that time.
Entrepreneurship is really a part of the culture. Growing up, I knew very few people who worked for big companies. Everybody was a small-business owner in some way. My dad and his brothers worked together. They started a textile business.
I always knew I wanted to be in business. From a very early age my dad would take me to work with him. One of my earliest memories was that I’d want to put on a suit — because he put on a suit — and go to his factory and walk around.
You had this great network of entrepreneurs during the start-up process. Were you calling your dad?
I had a lot of mentors in the community, including my dad. Always was and still is. I always give my dad a lot of credit because I don’t think he expected me to go to Georgetown and then to, like, start a little salad shack.
What was it like to be an entrepreneur in Washington at that time?
Entrepreneurship has become a lot sexier over the past 20 years. At the time, especially at Georgetown, that wasn’t the culture. The cool thing was going to get a job in government or consulting or banking.
I got accepted to what I thought was my dream job, at Bain & Company, the consulting firm.
I would have had to leave D.C. The restaurant was up and running. I spoke to my partners, like what should I do? Should I stay? Should I go? They’re like, “It’s one restaurant now. Why don’t you go and get these skills and then see what happens?” I went and realized consulting wasn’t really for me, especially after being an entrepreneur.
Finally, it was actually a conversation with someone at Bain. I always remember this conversation because he’s like: “Listen, you have two big opportunities to take huge risks in your life. One is now. The other is after your kids are out of school. You don’t have anything to worry about right now.”
I remembered this phrase: “You can’t fall from the floor.”
Time for the lightning round. Do you have any secret Sweetgreen menu tips?
The big unlock to the secret menu is the mixing of dressings. Putting two together, like spicy cashew with a green goddess. You have this whole different experience.
Do you use A.I.? If so, what was the last question you asked a bot?
I do use A.I. a lot. The last thing I did was not a work thing. It was personal. I have two kids, a 2-year-old and a 4-year-old. I put a picture of them in and asked what they’re going to look like when they grow up. It has blown my mind because I can’t unsee it now.
What other C.E.O. do you admire?
I’d always looked up to Howard Schultz. I think what he did at Starbucks was amazing.
Do you work on a plane, or do you zone out?
I work a lot on the plane. It’s this amazing quiet time where I can do a lot of the work that I can’t do day to day.
How do you sign off your emails?
Usually just “JN.” If it’s a more inspirational message, I’ll write, “Onward.”
Business
Elon Musk's conflicts of interest: $2.37 billion in potential federal penalties, report says
Elon Musk and his companies faced at least $2.37 billion in potential federal fines and penalties the day President Trump took office, according to a congressional report released Monday that highlights the possible conflicts of interest posed by the billionaire’s cost-cutting work in government.
The 43-page memo by the minority staff of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is the most exhaustive attempt yet to detail Musk’s alleged conflicts as an advisor to Trump and chief promoter of his team called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
Based on publicly available documents, media reports and the committee’s own calculations, the memo found that as of Jan. 20, Musk and his companies were “subject to at least 65 actual or potential actions by 11 different federal agencies” and that 40 of those created $2.37 billion in potential liabilities.
“Mr. Musk has taken a chainsaw to the federal government with no apparent regard for the law or for the people who depend on the programs and agencies he so blithely destroys,” the memo stated. “The through line connecting many of Mr. Musk’s decisions appears to be self-enrichment and avoiding what he perceives as obstacles to advancing his interests.”
The memo notes that Musk’s companies have received more than $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits going back more than 20 years. And it notes that SpaceX, as of Friday, had $10.1 billion in federal contracts.
“President Trump could not have chosen a person more prone to conflicts of interest,” states the memo, which calls on the president, executive departments and regulatory agencies to “take coordinated action to address Elon Musk’s threat to the integrity of federal governance.”
In a statement, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said the claims were baseless.
“Mr. Musk has never used his position for personal or financial gain, and any assertion otherwise is completely false and defamatory. Dick is clearly suffering from a debilitating and uncurable case of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Cheung said.
Blumenthal signed letters sent Sunday to Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Co. and x.AI Corp. — Musk’s artificial intelligence company, which acquired his social media platform X Corp. — demanding more information about any federal investigations, litigation and regulatory actions involving each company.
The letters also requested to know what measures they had taken to deal with any possible conflict of interest involving Musk, who has majority stakes or controlling interests in the companies.
None of the companies immediately responded to emails for comment, nor did DOGE.
Musk has previously stated in a joint interview with President Trump on Fox News, that he would “recuse myself if it is a conflict,” while the president said, “He won’t be involved.”
Last week, Musk also said during a Tesla earnings call that he was stepping back from DOGE to focus on his electric car maker, though he would remain involved with the cost-cutting effort likely through Trump’s entire term.
The once-cutting-edge Austin, Texas, company has seen its profit and share price plunge amid Trump’s looming tariffs that Musk has opposed and a brand crisis precipitated by his prominent role in the administration.
The committee’s memo found that Tesla created most of the potential penalties for Musk — a cumulative $1.89 billion — due to investigations, lawsuits and other issues involving eight agencies.
The largest single liability was a potential $1.19-billion fine due to a reported criminal investigation opened by the Department of Justice into allegedly false or misleading statements made by Musk and the company about its Autopilot and Full-Self Driving Features since as early as 2016.
The Times previously reported the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is probing the Full-Self Driving technology after reports of four collisions in low-visibility conditions, including one in which a pedestrian was killed.
However, doubts have been raised about the Justice Department’s commitment to any prosecution. The memo notes that in February the department dismissed a lawsuit it filed against SpaceX for allegedly discouraging asylum seekers and refugees from applying for jobs or hiring them because of their citizenship status. It calculated the lawsuit could have exposed SpaceX to $46.1 million in liabilities.
The second single largest liability of $462 million facing Musk also involved Tesla. It arose out of a 2023 lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the company’s alleged toleration of widespread racial harassment of Black employees at its Fremont, Calif., factory. Tesla has denied the allegations. In January, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners and the agency’s general counsel.
A third major potential liability of nearly $240 million involving the company stemmed from a media report that the company was subject to a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation due to a whistleblower claim that it didn’t disclose fire risks posed by its solar panel systems.
The other large potential liability, according to the memo, involved Neuralink, a company developing a brain-computer interface that allows paralyzed people to communicate via their thoughts or brain waves.
The memo notes the SEC opened an investigation into the Fremont, Calif., company after Musk allegedly overstated the safety of its implants while raising some $240 million from investors. A physician’s group filed a complaint that the implants had caused the deaths of at least 12 monkeys.
Neuralink has said it is committed to treating test animals humanely.
Another major alleged liability noted in the report involves a complaint the SEC filed against Musk accusing him of failing to make a timely disclosure in 2022 that he had acquired a 5% stake in Twitter.
The agency estimated Musk saved an estimated $150 million from unsuspecting investors unaware of this as he built up his stake in the company he ultimately acquired and renamed X. Musk has criticized the lawsuit, which is pending.
Other potential liabilities faced by Musk’s companies include a $633,000 fine the Federal Aviation Administration levied against SpaceX in September for alleged license violations during two Florida launches of its rockets. The agency said the case remains open.
Three of Musk’s companies also face allegations they violated Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, including 26 violations contested by Tesla creating $583,000 in liabilities, according to the memo.
With Republicans in control of the Senate, the Democrats on the investigations committee have minimal power, since they can’t hold hearings or subpoena witnesses. The committee has previously requested information from Musk’s companies on potential conflicts of interests, but Blumenthal said it hasn’t gotten a satisfactory response.
This memo calls on Trump and his administration to respond to congressional information requests regarding Musk’s “federal entanglements,” conduct reviews to ensure “appropriate measures were/are in place to prevent undue influence” and “initiate independent audits of major contracts and awards to Musk-affiliated companies, particularly those with Department of Defense and NASA.”
“No one individual, no matter how prominent or wealthy, is above the law. Anything less than decisive, immediate, and collective action risks America becoming a bystander to the surrender to modern oligarchy — public power in private hands,” the memo concludes.
Business
Titanic Survivor’s Letter, Written Aboard the Ship, Sells for Nearly $400,000

Days before the Titanic struck an iceberg, a first-class passenger, Col. Archibald Gracie, described the vessel in a letter written while on board: “It is a fine ship but I shall await my journey’s end before I pass judgment on her.”
Colonel Gracie’s journey on the Titanic had a catastrophic end, but he fared better than most.
He was on the top deck of the ship, gripping a railing, as it plunged into the sea. He said he was “swirled” under water before he got to a raft, where he spent hours floating on icy waters before being rescued.
The letter he wrote was sold on Saturday at an auction for $399,000 (or 300,000 pounds), according to Henry Aldridge and Son, an auction house in Wiltshire, England.
The auction house said the letter, written in neat, cursive handwriting, was addressed to an unidentified European ambassador, the great-uncle of the seller. The letterhead shows a triangular red flag with a white star and is printed with the words “On board R.M.S. Titanic.”
The letter was dated April 10, 1912, the day the ship set sail from Southampton, England. On April 12, it was postmarked in London, where it was received at the Waldorf Hotel. The Titanic struck an iceberg just before midnight on April 14 and sank the next day.
The buyer of the letter was based in the United States, according to Andrew Aldridge, the managing director of Henry Aldridge and Son. The auction house did not publicly identify the buyer or the seller.
Mr. Aldridge said in an email that the stories of the ship’s passengers “are told through the memorabilia” and that “their memories are kept alive through those items.”
The auction house had initially expected the letter to sell for up to 60,000 pounds, or nearly $80,000.
Colonel Gracie, a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, was a high-profile survivor of the Titanic disaster, in which about 1,500 people perished.
He died eight months later, in December 1912, of complications from diseases, but his doctors and his family said that the real cause was that he had never recovered from the shock of the Titanic disaster, according to The New York Times.
After Colonel Gracie was rescued, he began work on “The Truth About the Titanic,” a book about his experience that was published posthumously. The New York Times review of the book said “there is something effective in the very lack of directness and coherency in the narrative.”
Colonel Gracie said in an interview with The New York Tribune that he had been on the top deck of the ship when it was hit by a wave that sent other people overboard. He managed to stay on and grabbed a brass railing.
“When the ship plunged down, I was forced to let go, and I was swirled around and around for what seemed an interminable time,” he said. “Eventually I came to the surface to find the sea a mass of tangled wreckage.”
He said he grabbed a wooden grating and then saw a canvas-and-cork raft. He made it onto the raft and began trying to rescue others. They eventually reached a rescue ship, R.M.S. Carpathia.
“The hours that elapsed before we were picked up by the Carpathia were the longest and most terrible that I ever spent,” Colonel Gracie said, according to The Tribune. “Practically without any sensation of feeling because of the icy water, we were almost dropping from fatigue.”
Colonel Gracie was an established figure in New York and Washington society.
His father had been an officer in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. Colonel Gracie was also a descendant of Archibald Gracie, who built the New York City mayor’s official residence, Gracie Mansion, in 1799.
After news of the Titanic’s sinking reached the United States, and it was not known whether Colonel Gracie had survived, his wife, Constance Schack Gracie, was reported missing for unrelated reasons.
Mrs. Gracie had not been on the ship, but had left town to avoid being subpoenaed in the lunacy trial of another society woman, Mary E. Gage, according to The New York Times.
In the days after the Titanic disaster, the Gracies’ daughter, Edith Gracie, was asked about the whereabouts of her mother, which she said she did not know, and about the fate of her father, The Times reported.
She said Colonel Gracie had been in Europe recuperating from an operation and had said in a letter that he would return home with a much stronger constitution.
“It is too terrible to think of,” she said, “but I am hoping against hope that he has come through the perils of the accident without harm.”
-
News1 week ago
Harvard would be smart to follow Hillsdale’s playbook. Trump should avoid Biden’s. | Opinion
-
Politics7 days ago
Video: Hegseth Attacks the Media Amid New Signal Controversy
-
Culture5 days ago
New Poetry Books That Lean Into Calm and Joy Amid Life’s Chaos
-
Business1 week ago
Porto's Bakery moving forward in Downtown Disney, replacing Earl of Sandwich
-
Politics1 week ago
Supreme Court blocks new deportations of Venezuelans in Texas under 18th century Alien Enemies Act
-
News1 week ago
Maps: Where Do Federal Employees Work in America?
-
Politics1 week ago
Pope Francis and US presidents: A look back at his legacy with the nation's leaders
-
World7 days ago
New Zealand’s minor gov’t party pushes to define women by biological sex