Connect with us

Business

Trump Met PGA Commissioner About Saudi Golf Tour Deal

Published

on

Trump Met PGA Commissioner About Saudi Golf Tour Deal

President Trump met this week with the PGA Tour commissioner, the tour said on Thursday, as the Justice Department considers whether to approve a venture between the United States’ premier golf circuit and one backed by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund.

The meeting at the White House on Tuesday was an unusual foray for an American president into global sports diplomacy but squared with his decades-long ambitions to act as a sports power broker. It was also the latest expression of his closeness to LIV Golf, the Saudi-backed tour.

In addition to the PGA Tour commissioner, Jay Monahan, Mr. Trump hosted Adam Scott, who won the Masters Tournament in 2013 and sits on the PGA Tour’s board.

During the Oval Office meeting, Mr. Trump also spoke by telephone with Yasir al-Rumayyan, the Saudi wealth fund’s governor and one of the most influential figures in Saudi Arabia, according to two people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private talks.

“We asked the president to get involved for the good of the game, the good of the country and for all the countries involved,” Mr. Monahan, Mr. Scott and Tiger Woods said in a joint statement on Thursday afternoon after The New York Times asked on Wednesday night about the meeting. “We are grateful that his leadership has brought us closer to a final deal, paving the way for reunification of men’s professional golf.”

Advertisement

Mr. Woods, the most celebrated player of his generation and another member of the tour’s board, had been scheduled to attend but did not participate because of the death of his mother, according to one of the people briefed on the meeting.

Mr. Woods’s agent did not respond to a request for comment. The wealth fund did not comment.

Since LIV thundered onto the professional golf scene three years ago, Mr. Trump, stung by the professional golf establishment’s distancing itself from him after his entry into politics, has been one of its most steadfast supporters and one of its most essential vendors.

His company has hosted LIV tournaments at courses up and down the East Coast — the circuit is scheduled to return to Trump National Doral, near Miami, in April — and Mr. Trump has been a regular presence. As he played in LIV’s professional-amateur competitions, he would routinely denigrate the PGA Tour and praise its rival and its Saudi patrons to anyone who would listen.

Now Mr. Trump is acting as something of a mediator for the prestigious American tour and the Saudi upstart that defied legions of naysayers to become a force in the sport. On Wednesday, the U.S. Open’s organizer announced a smoother pathway for LIV players to compete at the event, one of the sport’s four major tournaments.

Advertisement

Only two years ago, such a détente seemed improbable. The PGA Tour and LIV had spent 2022 and the first months of 2023 at bitter odds, as the Saudi league swept in to sign well-established stars to some of the most lucrative deals in sports history. LIV encouraged the Justice Department to investigate the PGA Tour for potential violations of antitrust law, and the tour spent months denouncing LIV and its Saudi financiers.

But in June 2023, after about two months of secret talks that stretched from San Francisco to Venice, the tour and LIV abruptly announced a plan to try to combine their businesses. The tentative agreement led to a truce of sorts in their clash over power, money and morality in global sports.

The two sides have yet to close a final deal, though. Federal antitrust officials have been reviewing a term sheet that called for the wealth fund to put $1.5 billion into a commercial arm that the PGA Tour and a group of top American sports investors created.

Justice Department officials have been particularly attuned to whether LIV and the PGA Tour, whose tournaments differ in format and length, are direct rivals and whether a deal might stifle competition in the United States.

In December, Mr. Woods said the talks were “very fluid,” though he also described them as “constructive.”

Advertisement

Mr. Trump, an avid golfer, has spent years predicting some kind of deal between the PGA Tour and LIV. But even as he enjoyed rounds with top players, Mr. Trump has had a complex relationship with America’s golf elite in recent years.

The PGA Tour, which used to hold events at the Trump property in Doral, Fla., ended its relationship with Mr. Trump’s company during the 2016 campaign. Tim Finchem, who was then the tour’s commissioner, said the move was not “a political exercise” but “fundamentally a sponsorship issue.”

Mr. Trump also had a particular falling-out with the P.G.A. of America, which pulled its men’s championship tournament from a Trump course after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. The Trump Organization and the group, which is distinct from the PGA Tour, later reached a settlement.

Soon after his election in November, Mr. Trump signaled his continued interest in the fate of professional golf’s negotiations. As president-elect, Mr. Trump hosted Mr. Monahan for a round of golf at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Fla. The next day, he saw Mr. al-Rumayyan at an event in New York.

Asked in November whether Mr. Trump could perhaps break the logjam, Rory McIlroy, one of the world’s top players, replied, “He might be able to.”

Advertisement

“Obviously Trump has a great relationship with Saudi Arabia,” added Mr. McIlroy, a former PGA Tour board member who played with Mr. Trump in 2017. “He’s got a great relationship with golf. He’s a lover of golf. So, maybe. Who knows? But I think as the president of the United States again, he’s probably got bigger things to focus on than golf.”

But for at least a short time on Tuesday, the day he publicly floated an American takeover of Gaza, Mr. Trump was firmly focused on golf.

Business

Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns

Published

on

Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns

A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.

The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.

The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.

“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”

Advertisement

Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.

It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.

Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.

“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.

Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.

Advertisement

“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”

Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.

In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.

In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.

Advertisement

A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”

“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.

Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.

L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.

Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.

Advertisement

Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.

“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”

The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.

“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.

Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.

Advertisement

Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.

The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.

Continue Reading

Business

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Published

on

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Dear Mr. Pelley:

I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.

Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.

Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.

Sincerely,

Nick Bilton

Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

Continue Reading

Business

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

Published

on

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.

The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.

Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.

Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.

Advertisement

Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.

In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.

The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.

The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.

Advertisement

The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending