u/McDowdy

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6031396-trump-targets-el-sayed-truth-social/

The weakening of the law comes as the Trump administration has prioritized domestic investigations into money laundering, particularly in states led by Democrats. Earlier this year, Mr. Bessent unveiled an initiative to root out fraud and the misuse and potential laundering of federal funds in Minnesota. The Treasury Department has also expressed concern about the use of shell companies around the world as tools for evading sanctions.

Andrea Gacki, who resigned last month after serving for three years as director of FinCEN, had been a major proponent of the merits of the Corporate Transparency Act.

In a 2024 speech, she pointed to shell companies that were involved in crimes, including a Chicago flooring contractor that rigged bids and fixed prices, as well as the Sinaloa drug cartel’s $16.5 million transnational money laundering operation. She also made the case that beneficial ownership information could have made it easier for Treasury Department investigators to track the funds of Russian oligarchs who use shell companies to illegally hide assets in the United States.

“Beneficial ownership information reporting can make these types of investigations more efficient by providing a direct resource for law enforcement, national security and intelligence officials,” Ms. Gacki said. “It can give law enforcement an advantage over illicit actors, diminish the head start that corporate anonymity provides and ultimately level the playing field for legitimate American businesses.”

It is not clear that Mr. Bessent needed to curtail the law so dramatically to make it workable for businesses.

Alex Zerden, the founder of the risk advisory firm Capitol Peak Strategies and a former official in the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said the law provided leeway for the department to create exemptions to make compliance easier for small businesses.

“This is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water,” Mr. Zerden said.

Alan Rappeport is an economic policy reporter for The Times, based in Washington. He covers the Treasury Department and writes about taxes, trade and fiscal matters.

https://archive.is/20260813065815/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/12/us/politics/treasury-scrutiny-shell-companies.html

The weakening of the law comes as the Trump administration has prioritized domestic investigations into money laundering, particularly in states led by Democrats. Earlier this year, Mr. Bessent unveiled an initiative to root out fraud and the misuse and potential laundering of federal funds in Minnesota. The Treasury Department has also expressed concern about the use of shell companies around the world as tools for evading sanctions.

Andrea Gacki, who resigned last month after serving for three years as director of FinCEN, had been a major proponent of the merits of the Corporate Transparency Act.

In a 2024 speech, she pointed to shell companies that were involved in crimes, including a Chicago flooring contractor that rigged bids and fixed prices, as well as the Sinaloa drug cartel’s $16.5 million transnational money laundering operation. She also made the case that beneficial ownership information could have made it easier for Treasury Department investigators to track the funds of Russian oligarchs who use shell companies to illegally hide assets in the United States.

“Beneficial ownership information reporting can make these types of investigations more efficient by providing a direct resource for law enforcement, national security and intelligence officials,” Ms. Gacki said. “It can give law enforcement an advantage over illicit actors, diminish the head start that corporate anonymity provides and ultimately level the playing field for legitimate American businesses.”

It is not clear that Mr. Bessent needed to curtail the law so dramatically to make it workable for businesses.

Alex Zerden, the founder of the risk advisory firm Capitol Peak Strategies and a former official in the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said the law provided leeway for the department to create exemptions to make compliance easier for small businesses.

“This is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water,” Mr. Zerden said.

Alan Rappeport is an economic policy reporter for The Times, based in Washington. He covers the Treasury Department and writes about taxes, trade and fiscal matters.

https://archive.is/20260813065815/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/12/us/politics/treasury-scrutiny-shell-companies.html

Barely 100 years ago in the United States, a company could work you 12 to 16 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week, and not even pay you in US currency.

​You would be paid in company scrip that was only good at company stores. You would live in company housing that was subject to the wrath of the employer at all times. They would work you in the most horrific conditions, and then when you got hurt or your back finally gave out, they would kick you right out of that company housing. And where were you going to go? You don't have any money at all.

​So the next time that you think a company wouldn't do that, oh yes they would. Yep, they—they definitely would do that to you right now if we didn't have laws against it. Remember that the next time you go into a voting booth or you think about voting a billionaire into office.

​Don't forget your labor history.

Over 22 days, 249 articles were written about his plagiarism controversy. He resigned on 5th August, and the media responded with a vicious smear campaign consisting of 188 articles. Dr Jason Arday has been found dead in his home on 14th August.

Transcript: Hey, everybody. I wanna tell you about Todd Blanche's first official act as Attorney General. He papered over a whole bunch of future legal problems for Donald Trump. Let me explain.

​I'm Liz Oyer, the former Pardon Attorney for the Department of Justice. Just hours after Blanche was sworn in, DOJ issued a 21-page memo that massively expands the scope of executive privilege. That is a legal doctrine that allows the president and his advisors to keep their communications secret from the public, from Congress, and from the courts.

​In the past, the Supreme Court has said that executive privilege is only a limited privilege. It is not absolute, and it must be balanced against other interests. For example, if the president's communications are relevant to a criminal investigation or to a congressional inquiry, that might outweigh the privilege.

​Executive privilege has been unsuccessfully asserted by two past presidents with something to hide. One was Richard Nixon, who wanted to cover up his role in Watergate. The other is Donald Trump in 2021. He tried to assert the privilege to cover up his role in the events of January 6th. A court said no, he could not claim that his communications related to January 6th were protected from disclosure.

​So, back to yesterday's memo. Here's what it does. It lays out the Justice Department's new interpretation of the presidential communications privilege. It says that this privilege is actually so broad that it applies to all of the president's communications, even with people who don't work for the White House or who don't work for the federal government at all.

​This is an unprecedented and dubious legal interpretation, but here's why it's important. It now gives Donald Trump legal cover to refuse to produce any documents in response to congressional subpoenas. If Democrats win the midterms, there will be lots of investigations into the misconduct and corruption of this administration. Todd Blanche is trying to get ahead of those investigations with this memo, which Trump can now use as a shield.

​And it's not limited to Trump himself. The memo gives everyone who has ever spoken to Donald Trump a claim of executive privilege. For example, if Trump's sons are subpoenaed to testify before Congress or in court, the administration can squash their testimony by claiming executive privilege.

​So, is this really legal? Well, the existing case law suggests that it is not. But here's the thing: the current Supreme Court has taken such an expansively broad view of executive power that they just might go for it. Remember, this is the same court that gave Trump absolute immunity from prosecution just two years ago.

​And even if it doesn't hold up in court, the memo will help Trump delay and obstruct, potentially for years, by tying things up in litigation.

​Thanks, Bill Cassidy.

People come to New York City from all over the world to experience Broadway. The kids who grow up here should be able to do the same. We’re partnering with @tdfnyc to give away over 2,000 free Broadway tickets to NYC High School students through a free-to-enter lottery. Break a leg, high schoolers! Enter the lottery now at on.nyc.gov/broadway

sources

1. Gawande, Atul. "The Human Cost of DOGE's War on U.S.A.I.D." Interview by David Remnick. The New Yorker, 12 June 2026.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/the-human-cost-of-doges-war-on-usaid?hl=en-US

2. Daniel, Ari, David Augustine, Kazeem Olawale Nasiru, and Lameck Nyagudi. "Trump's Team Says 'No Children' Died from USAID Cuts. Consider These 3 Cases." NPR, 17 July 2026.

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/20/nx-s1-5886209/the-trump-administration-said-no-kids-died-from-usaid-cuts-consider-these-3-cases

3. Emanuel, Gabrielle, and Jonathan Lambert. "Marco Rubio Said No One Has Died Due to U.S. Aid Cuts. This Mom Disagrees." NPR, 28 May 2025.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/05/28/g-s1-69186/marco-rubio-usaid-death-sickle-cell-nigeria

4. Kristof, Nicholas. "Really, Secretary Rubio? I'm Lying About the Kids Dying Under Trump?" The New York Times, 31 May 2025.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/31/opinion/rubio-usaid-africa.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

5. Kristof, Nicholas. "Musk Said No One Has Died Since Aid Was Cut. That Isn't True." The New York Times, 15 Mar. 2025.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/15/opinion/foreign-aid-cuts-impact.html?smid=nytcore-android-share