Connect with us

News

As Governor, Burgum Promised to Manage Conflicts. They Still Cropped Up.

Published

on

As Governor, Burgum Promised to Manage Conflicts. They Still Cropped Up.

On the day after Doug Burgum became governor of North Dakota in 2016, he addressed questions about what he would do about all of his wealthy investments.

They included extensive real estate developments benefiting from state programs that he was suddenly in a position to oversee. His answer was that he would “manage” his conflicts of interest, but he would not divest from his holdings in the state.

“The issue here is to make sure that I have no conflict of interest relative to many state programs and decisions,” he said at the time in an interview with a local newspaper.

Since then, however, his range of holdings, which include extensive urban real estate development in the state, tens of millions in technology investments as well as oil and gas leases, intersected with his policy decisions as governor, a New York Times review has found.

That is particularly true for extensive development efforts in downtown Fargo that have been the beneficiaries of targeted state and federal tax benefits. But at the time, he did not disclose the specifics of any potential conflicts or how he managed them.

Advertisement

Now, as Donald J. Trump’s pick for secretary of the interior, Mr. Burgum could face questions about how he plans to avoid conflicts in leading an agency with vast influence over the use of public lands in ways that reverberate for landholders, energy producers and others.

Rob Lockwood, a spokesman for Mr. Burgum, said in an email to The New York Times: “Everyone who knows Doug Burgum knows that he is a man of outstanding character and ethics who complied with all guidelines as governor.”

Mr. Burgum, whose confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday, said in an agreement with the Office of Government Ethics that he would divest from a few holdings that include oil and gas and mineral leases that could pose conflicts.

But he also said he would hold on to other investments that he had been advised might be financially affected by particular matters that could come before the interior secretary. These investments include a range of venture capital funds and some of his Fargo real estate developments, though he will resign from managerial duties in his companies. In those cases, he said, the ethics office had determined that he would be able to recuse himself from decisions that had an impact on those entities or get a waiver.

The Interior Department has long been susceptible to ethical concerns. It has influence over how vast tracts of mineral-rich federal land can be used. During Mr. Trump’s first term, the department became a center of allegations and investigations about conflicts of interest involving high-ranking officials, including the two men who served as its secretary.

Advertisement

Federal law has much stricter disclosure and recusal standards than Mr. Burgum operated under as North Dakota’s governor. It also has criminal prohibitions against officials becoming involved in decisions that could personally benefit themselves or family members.

Mr. Burgum previously disclosed his detailed financial assets for the first time in 2023 as a presidential candidate. An updated version he submitted recently was released by the government ethics office on Wednesday ahead of his hearing, showing a range of assets that could puts his net worth well over $100 million.

While Mr. Burgum was governor, his policies included expanding a state tax program targeted narrowly at real estate development firms like his own that were seeking to revitalize aging downtowns.

His firm, called Kilbourne after his mother’s maiden name, was one of a handful of developers in the state relying in a significant way on such tax breaks and by far the largest in Fargo, according to local officials. He also gave final approval to the zones that benefited from a federal tax credit program, which included areas with his company’s projects in them.

Mr. Burgum was not paid a salary by Kilbourne and “had zero operational authority,” Mr. Lockwood said.

Advertisement

Still, Mr. Burgum continued to have investments in the company’s projects and maintained formal positions in their entities, financial disclosure forms show.

While Mr. Burgum was in office, questions about other ethical choices emerged, including his use of a luxury box at the Super Bowl provided by a regional electricity utility.

After the tickets were reported by The Associated Press, Mr. Burgum said he accepted them to have “quality time” with company executives and he repaid the utility $37,000.

The controversy prompted the governor’s office to enact an ethics policy stating that office officials should “take great care to avoid conflicts of interest or even the perception of a conflict of interest,” including in cases of overseeing policies that involve personal business interests. But the guidelines did not state what actions should be taken when an appearance of a conflict arose.

More enforceable state ethics rules requiring disclosures of potential conflicts of interest did not go into effect until 2022, the result of a 2018 ballot initiative.

Advertisement

Ethics experts in North Dakota and outside the state say that under generally understood norms, Mr. Burgum probably should have made more disclosures about potential conflicts and how he would mitigate them.

“Even a small appearance is enough to trigger an obligation to be open to the public,” said Kedric Payne, a government ethics expert with the Campaign Legal Center.

In his first State of the State address, in 2017, Mr. Burgum laid out an unusual plan for a state that was one of the most sparsely populated in the country: Go urban.

“It takes safe, healthy cities with vibrant, walkable main streets and downtowns to attract and retain a skilled work force,” he said.

In Mr. Burgum’s vision — built upon his mother’s reverence for historic buildings — North Dakota towns would grow upward rather than outward.

Advertisement

His dream also aligned with his business strategy.

For more than a decade, he had been focusing his development interests in downtown Fargo, eventually becoming one of the state’s biggest urban developers. He also became one of the most reliant on a government tax incentive program called Renaissance Zones.

The program gave state tax incentives for companies that invested in neglected neighborhoods. Mr. Burgum quickly made use of them as well as other similar tax break programs, through acquiring and renovating a turn-of-the-century manufacturing building that was scheduled for demolition, and then turning it over to the local university.

The program allows for state income tax exemption for five years, offering investors in big projects to save up to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year per project in property tax savings.

Twenty Kilbourne projects worth about $300 million have received the Renaissance designation, Jim Gilmour, the city’s director of strategic planning and research, said in an interview. Each of the Kilbourne Renaissance projects was approved individually by a number of city and county entities, with the state’s Commerce Department overseeing the program.

Advertisement

As governor, Mr. Burgum eventually made an expansion of the program a plank in his economic agenda. In his State of the State speech in 2023, he proposed a “Renaissance Zone 2.0.” Among the changes, which were enacted by the Legislature and signed by Mr. Burgum, was a provision to allow for the tax benefits to last an extra three years.

(Kilbourne has not added any new Renaissance Zone projects since then, and Fargo’s county government so far has not agreed to adopt the expansion in benefits.)

Dustin Gawrylow, a longtime Republican critic of the program who unsuccessfully lobbied against the bill, said the perception of a conflict from Mr. Burgum’s status as a top Renaissance developer who could potentially benefit from the expansion was sometimes discussed behind closed doors around the State Capitol.

“It was brought up, but nobody really cared,” Mr. Gawrylow said.

Mr. Lockwood said that “local leaders, the media, and Fargoans are very aware of Doug’s decades-long efforts to revitalize the city.”

Advertisement

While Mr. Burgum was running for governor in 2016, a different state tax break program he used became a subject of discussion on the campaign trail.

Mr. Burgum had founded in 2008 a firm called Arthur Ventures with his nephew, James Burgum, that had invested about $65 million in technology startups up to that point. The firm had taken advantage of a state angel investment tax break program, which provided benefits for certain funds that put money into small startups.

Two funds managed by Arthur Ventures earned investors $800,000 in tax benefits. But the program came under fire from Republican lawmakers for sending a large portion of the investments into out of state startups.

In March 2016, while Mr. Burgum was campaigning, James Burgum testified before the Legislature to try to help save the program that was under attack. The campaign of Doug Burgum’s Republican opponent called him the “poster child” for the problems with the program.

Mr. Lockwood said in his statement to The Times that “job creators being attacked by career-politician opponents for using a law designed to encourage economic investment, innovation and entrepreneurship in North Dakota was a ‘water is wet’ moment.”

Advertisement

Later in the campaign, after Mr. Burgum’s Democratic opponent raised concerns about his ability to manage conflicts of interest, Mr. Burgum said he would “take all the appropriate steps to assure North Dakotans that I’m fully focused on serving them with integrity and transparency.”

After taking office, he explained that meant that he gave up his day-to-day management positions while maintaining his investments under the leadership of others.

But the federal disclosure Mr. Burgum filed to run for president in 2023 revealed that he did not entirely step away. He was listed in various positions ranging from manager and president for various Kilbourne-affiliated limited liability companies and maintained investments of around $15 million to $60 million in several dozen Kilbourne-related entities and funds.

Kilbourne’s managers downplayed his role in the firm, even as they highlighted his affiliation as helping to attract other investors. In an interview with a local publication, Lauris Molbert, Kilbourne’s executive chairman of the board, said the governor’s hefty investments were an important signal to other investors to get on board.

“He personally put his balance sheet to work,” Mr. Molbert said.

Advertisement

In the spring of 2018, a state news release announced that Mr. Burgum had designated 25 neighborhoods in North Dakota to be opportunity zones.

Their designation was part of a new federal program similar to Renaissance Zones but devised to limit federal tax liability in order to help direct investment into struggling neighborhoods.

The idea, Mr. Burgum said, was to “help revitalize our low-income areas in North Dakota.”

Left unsaid, however, was that two of the neighborhoods chosen were ones where his firm owned properties it was hoping to develop. In the years that followed, Kilbourne developed five projects in those areas through two investment funds that offered the tax breaks, with Mr. Burgum’s stake valued between $2 million and $10 million, according to his 2023 financial disclosure.

The structure for the opportunity zones was enacted under the Trump administration, and governors were given leeway in selecting the zones as long as they met certain criteria.

Advertisement

Under the system set up in North Dakota, the city and county of Fargo applied to the state’s Commerce Department for opportunity zone status for 11 areas, including the two containing the Kilbourne properties. Of those, Mr. Burgum designated the two with his properties and three others in the region.

Brett Theodos, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who has studied the federal opportunity zone program, said he had never heard of such a prominent official tasked with designating the areas having a stake in the zones selected.

“A lot of the country qualified, so there were a lot of options for governors to choose from,” he said. “The whole trust-us approach is problematic.”

Tim Mahoney, Fargo’s mayor, said in an interview that initially he had concerns about whether Kilbourne might get favored in its extensive dealings with the city, but he has concluded that the treatment was aboveboard.

The city relies extensively on the approval of state loans and other sources of funding that are under the governor’s purview.

Advertisement

Mr. Mahoney said he had not spoken to Mr. Burgum directly about any of Kilbourne’s business. But, he said, the governor had met with the planning department and pressured him and other city officials repeatedly to make downtown development a major priority, arguing that added properties build a tax base that supports schools, water, the police and city streets.

That fits with Mr. Burgum’s general evangelism for urbanism — and with where he has invested his money.

“The governor was very clear on what his bias was,” Mr. Mahoney said. “His bias is downtown places will make more in taxes for everybody.”

Russ Buettner contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Plane Fire at Denver Airport Forces Passengers to Evacuate Onto Wing

Published

on

Plane Fire at Denver Airport Forces Passengers to Evacuate Onto Wing

An American Airlines plane that was diverted to Denver International Airport on Thursday evening after experiencing “engine vibrations” caught fire while taxiing to a gate, prompting the evacuation of dozens of passengers, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Twelve people were taken to hospitals, all with minor injuries, said Michael Konopasek, a spokesman for the airport.

The flight, a Boeing 737-800 with 172 passengers and six crew members, was traveling from Colorado Springs to Dallas but was diverted to the Denver airport, the airline said. Some of the passengers were evacuated from the aircraft using slides, the F.A.A. said.

“After landing safely and taxiing to the gate at Denver International Airport, American Airlines Flight 1006 experienced an engine-related issue,” the airline said.

Videos posted to social media showed passengers standing on the plane’s wing and climbing down a portable staircase to leave the plane. Light gray smoke filled the air. From other angles, black smoke poured out of the aircraft and orange flames could be seen at the base of the aircraft.

Advertisement

A video taken by Mike Insalata, a Denver resident, showed a large fire under the plane’s right engine. The F.AA. is investigating.

The episode at Denver International Airport was the latest in a recent string of aviation woes. On Feb. 25, two separate airplanes, one at Washington’s Ronald Reagan National Airport and another at Chicago’s Midway International Airport, had to abort landings to avoid collisions.

Earlier last month, a plane at the Toronto Pearson Airport flipped over. And on Feb. 5, the wing of a plane was impaled on the tail of another plane during a collision on the ground at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

Continue Reading

News

Trump tariffs are proving ‘big headache’ for tech giants, says Foxconn

Published

on

Trump tariffs are proving ‘big headache’ for tech giants, says Foxconn

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

The US government’s tariff announcements have become a “big headache” for technology companies such as iPhone maker Apple and cloud service provider Amazon, their manufacturing partner Foxconn said on Friday, in a rare public admission of the disruption caused by President Donald Trump’s erratic trade policy.

“The issue of tariffs is something that is giving the CEOs of our customers a big headache now,” chief executive Young Liu told investors on an earnings call. “Judging by the attitude and the approach we see the US government taking towards tariffs, it is very, very hard to predict how things will develop over the next year. So we can only concentrate on doing well what we can control.”

Liu said the company’s customers were “one after another” hatching plans for co-operating with Foxconn on manufacturing in the US. He declined to give details as those plans were not yet finalised, but said there should be “more and more” manufacturing in the US.

Advertisement

The world’s largest contract electronics manufacturer assembles the vast majority of the world’s iPhones for Apple and also makes a broad range of other electronics products, including laptops, servers, robots, medical equipment and electric vehicles.

Foxconn itself is affected by Washington’s attempts to force more manufacturing to move onshore. The lion’s share of its manufacturing capacity is in China — recently hit by an additional 10 per cent US tariff — India and Vietnam, which are both likely targets for Trump’s planned reciprocal tariffs. Foxconn is also building what it said last October would be the world’s largest factory for Nvidia Blackwell servers in Mexico, where Trump has slapped a 25 per cent tariff on its exports to the US.

Foxconn forecast its information and communication products business, dominated by its contract work for Apple, would be stable this year. “But under the uncertainties related to geopolitics and tariffs, manufacturing will face challenges and demand might also suffer,” Liu said, adding that the company would work closely with customers to adjust its global footprint.  

But the Taiwanese group gave a bullish outlook for AI servers. The company’s server assembly revenue increased 78 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2024 compared with the same period a year earlier, and it said it expected the AI server business to more than double in the current quarter.

Liu said he did not share concerns that cloud service providers might cut spending this year. He said the success of Chinese AI company DeepSeek in developing a large language model with smaller hardware investment was likely to encourage larger numbers of medium-sized companies to develop their own LLMs, further boosting server demand.

Advertisement

Driven by that strong growth, cloud and networking products would account for half the company’s revenue this year, overtaking the consumer electronics business, which has long weighed on Foxconn’s margins with its low-margin smartphone assembly operations.

Foxconn reported a surprise 13 per cent year-on-year drop in net profit for the fourth quarter. Net earnings slid to NT$46.3bn (US$1.4bn) in the three months to the end of December, but the decrease was due to a drop in non-operating income, while operating profit increased by 32 per cent.

Continue Reading

News

Judges threatened with impeachment, bombs for ruling against Trump agenda

Published

on

Judges threatened with impeachment, bombs for ruling against Trump agenda

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy listen as President Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4.

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration this year are confronting a wave of threats, potentially compromising their personal safety and the independence of the judiciary.

The sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett received a bomb threat earlier this month, and lower court judges who hit pause on some of President Trump’s efforts to dismantle federal agencies and programs have been singled out on social media.

Republican lawmakers close to the president even have proposed impeachment proceedings against a few of those judges, who serve for life.

Advertisement

Elon Musk, who oversees the Department of Government Efficiency making cuts to federal agencies, himself has repeatedly posted on social media about impeaching judges who delay or block parts of Trump’s agenda.

Efforts to undermine the judiciary come at the same time the Trump administration has moved to fire lawyers inside the Justice Department and the Pentagon, penalize private law firms who represented clients Trump does not like, and to back away from participation in the activities of the American Bar Association.

Judge Richard Sullivan, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said in his lifetime four federal judges have been killed in retaliation for their work on the bench.

“This is not hypothetical,” Sullivan, who leads a Judicial Conference panel on security issues, told reporters in a news conference this week. The Judicial Conference is a representative body of federal judges that frames policies for courts. “It’s real. It’s happened before. We have to be certain that it doesn’t happen again,” he said.

The Federal Judges Association, a voluntary group of more than 1,000 judges across the nation, said judiciary plays a “critical role in preserving democracy and a law-abiding society.”

Advertisement

“Judges must be able to do their jobs without fear of violence or undue influence,” the group said in a written statement to NPR.

Early threats

One thing stands out to legal experts: these attacks on judges are coming at a very early stage in the legal process — often, before the Supreme Court weighs in as the final decider.

“We have a system of justice that allows for appeals,” Judge Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, told reporters this week. “That’s typically the way it works. Impeachment is not and shouldn’t be a short-circuiting of that process. And so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that.”

Only 15 federal judges have faced impeachment, mostly for allegations of wrongdoing such as bribery, corruption, or perjury, in the past couple of centuries.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the odds of a successful judicial impeachment are pretty low, and to remove a judge from the bench would require a two-thirds vote from the Senate.

Advertisement

“The more that people like Elon Musk are putting on the wall the idea that it’s appropriate to attack these judges for nothing more than ruling against the federal government, the more that we’re normalizing what really are in the main very serious threats to judicial independence,” Vladeck said.

“Jeopardize the Rule of Law”

But Paul Grimm, who spent 26 years as a federal judge, said even the threat of impeachment can amount to intimidation.

“And if you try to intimidate judges, if that’s your goal, so that they do not do their constitutional duty, then you jeopardize the rule of law,” said Grimm, who leads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. “And without the rule of law, every liberty and every right that we cherish as Americans is vulnerable.”

Grimm said he worries a lot about online posts that display the home and work addresses of judges and their adult children, a step that he said “crosses the line.”

Nearly five years ago, an angry litigant shot and killed the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey.

Advertisement

And in 2023, a state court judge in Maryland was gunned down in his driveway.

Attacks over rulings

The U.S. Marshals say threats against federal judges have doubled in recent years, according to the most recent data. And those threats have been directed at both Democrat and Republican judges.

Justice Barrett came under withering criticism this month from some right-wing political commentators, after she voted alongside Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberals on the high court against Trump’s effort to freeze foreign aid.

Lower court judges have faced online attacks for their early rulings on Musk’s DOGE team, efforts to restore government web pages, and the freeze on foreign aid.

Advertisement

The Marshals protect judges, but they also report to the U.S. Attorney General, not to the courts themselves. That’s got some members of Congress on alert.

“A judge’s security is dependent in many ways on the Marshals Service who the president appoints to protect the judges, and if a president doesn’t like a decision that’s coming from a judge, theoretically they could pull their security,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, said at a congressional hearing this month.

The administration has already yanked protection this year from former military and national security officials who disagreed with Trump in his first term.

Swalwell said Congress should consider giving judges their own security force — one that’s independent from the White House.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending