President Donald Trump paid more in taxes to China through his business ventures between 2013 and 2015 than he did in the US in the years 2016 and 2017, according to tax records obtained by The New York Times.
The tax records reviewed by The Times showed an account controlled by Trump International Hotels Management LLC in China "paid $188,561 in taxes in China while pursuing licensing deals there from 2013 to 2015," according to The Times report.
Trump also operated an office in China and held a partnership with a government-controlled company in the country, The Times reported.
"The tax records do not include details on how much money may have passed through the overseas accounts," The Times reported, "though the Internal Revenue Service does require filers to report the portion of their income derived from other countries."
In an earlier report published by The Times analyzing Trump's tax records, the president paid $750 in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017 respectively.
Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, told The Times that the company "opened an account with a Chinese bank having offices in the United States in order to pay the local taxes" in association with the company's business efforts.
"No deals, transactions or other business activities ever materialized and, since 2015, the office has remained inactive," Garten told The Times. "Though the bank account remains open, it has never been used for any other purpose."
Trump has accused Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of being lenient on the Chinese government, citing his son Hunter Biden's business dealings in the country.
Read the full story at The Times »
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
Ingraham: Keeping schools closed is psychologically damaging kids
‘The Ingraham Angle’ host examines the potential dangers virtual learning poses for children
President Trump could make gains among women by pointing out Joe Biden's support of teachers' unions who have pushed to keep schools closed to in-person instruction amid the coronavirus pandemic, Laura Ingraham suggested Tuesday.
"The Ingraham Angle" host cited a recent New York Times poll that showed Trump leading Biden among likely male voters by six percentage points, but trailing by 23 percentage points among women.
"If that poll is anywhere near accurate, the president would have a hard time closing that gap with women but he could narrow it," said Ingraham, who added that many media members and public health authorities have "frightened and misled" women across the country about the nature of COVID-19.
"They are afraid the kids will go to school and they will get sick or they will bring sickness back to their own communities and back to their own homes," she said, "when any honest adult knows virtual learning is a train wreck for almost every kid out there, especially for those who are poor.
"But Biden and his handlers don’t care about the kids," she continued. "They keep concerning themselves with what their political allies think: The teachers' union. They need to keep them happy."
Ingraham pointed out that in Fairfax County, Va., one of the richest school districts in America, the local union has pushed to keep classrooms closed until August of 2021.
"This is child abuse," she alleged. "My hope is school officials see how damaging it will be to children but my expectations are low."
"The left," Ingraham went on, "doesn’t care about the science it invokes if it conflicts with their goals … Teachers' unions are ignoring the science to make absurd demands."
The host later warned that "with Biden in the White House, what we are seeing in Fairfax County will be happening nationwide. You won’t be able to just move across county or state lines to escape. Your child won’t see the inside of a classroom for a very long time.
"What he or she learns online about America will be left-wing propaganda courtesy of the 1619 Project," Ingraham continued. "Under President Biden this scenario might be great for Black Lives Matter and the NEA but horrendous in every other way. How can any parent, especially any mom, support this?
"I think women are naturally protective of our children. That’s just the way we are," she concluded. "For this reason alone, female voters should drop their old hang-ups about Trump. He is not the heartless or mean force in this race. He is the opposite. He wants your sons and daughters in school and learning. He wants you to be free to work for your family."
WASHINGTON ― With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once again extending a self-imposed deadline for a stimulus bill on Tuesday, an already doubtful deal is now running into a new roadblock: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
McConnell has always been an obstacle to an agreement between Pelosi and the White House, with the Kentucky Republican mostly staying on the sidelines as the speaker and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin have tried ― and failed ― for months to find a compromise on another coronavirus relief bill.
But with Pelosi and the Trump administration finally making strides just two weeks before Election Day, McConnell has finally started lobbying against a deal.
A senior GOP aide told HuffPost on Tuesday that McConnell had informed Senate Republicans that he advised the White House not to finalize an agreement before the Nov. 3rd election, warning President Donald Trump that adding a major measure to the legislative calendar now could derail the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Such a warning is, of course, outlandish. Barrett’s confirmation hasn’t been in doubt since even before she was nominated, and it’s looking like the Senate will confirm her next Monday. But keeping senators in town past Oct. 26 will eat into valuable campaigning time for many vulnerable Republicans seeking reelection. And passing $2 trillion in new spending is anathema to McConnell and many Republicans.
“It’s clear Senate Republicans are uncomfortable spending $2 trillion right before an election,” a senior GOP aide told HuffPost on Tuesday.
Many GOP senators have privately said they’d like to avoid voting on new spending, with conservatives rediscovering their debt clocks and penny-pinching ways as the prospects of a Joe Biden presidency grow by the day. If a deal had Trump’s backing, however, it’d be difficult for many Republicans to vote against it, particularly just days before the election.
A recent poll from The New York Times and Siena College suggests that a $2 trillion stimulus is extremely popular: 72% of respondents support such a deal, while only 21% oppose it. So the best-case scenario for Senate Republicans, it seems, is if such a deal never materializes.
“Right now, procedurally, the mechanics of getting the deal done [before the election] would be challenging, to say the least,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters on Tuesday.
“The number I’m less concerned with than the provisions,” added Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) Tuesday when asked if he could support a larger stimulus package. The vulnerable North Carolina Republican opposes providing aid to cities and states but is supportive of other popular items like unemployment benefits and another round of stimulus checks.
GOP senators would certainly prefer not having to publicly oppose a deal or the president. So many have chosen to positively posture about a theoretical agreement while picking apart what’s currently on the table. After passing trillion-dollar tax cuts and spending roughly $3 trillion on coronavirus relief already ― on top of the roughly $3 trillion that the Federal Reserve has spent easing the stock market ― Republicans are once again finding their tea party tricorn hats just in time to handicap the economic recovery under a Democratic president.
Should Biden win, it’s unlikely any Republican senator would go along with a stimulus deal, making it difficult to find 60 votes in the Senate even if Democrats take back the majority. So if Pelosi and the White House can’t reach a deal soon and have Trump pressure Republicans before the election, it’s possible there’s never another stimulus.
But there’s been some sudden hope about the prospects of a deal. White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said Tuesday that it was a “false choice” between confirming Barrett and passing a stimulus deal before the election. “We can actually do both, we will do both,” he said.
And Pelosi said Tuesday she was “optimistic” about a deal before the election, walking back a Tuesday deadline for movement on a stimulus bill.
“It isn’t that this day is the day we would have a deal,” she said. “It’s a day when we would have our terms on the table to be able to go to the next step. Legislation takes a long time.”
A senior aide for Pelosi tweeted that she and Mnuchin had spoken for about 45 minutes Tuesday afternoon and that the deadline that Pelosi set on Sunday “enabled” both sides to see that “decisions could be reached and language could be exchanged, demonstrating that both sides are serious about finding a compromise.”
The aide added that committee chairs would work to resolve differences about funding levels and language and that Pelosi and Mnuchin would talk again on Wednesday.
Still, there is a long way from trading paper and working on language to a final agreement. And with just those two weeks before Election Day, it’s very possible McConnell and other Republicans slow down a deal enough that it’s impossible to do before the election.
And afterward, if Biden does win, those same GOP senators skittish about opposing Trump might finally feel emboldened enough to openly break from the president. Some are already introducing daylight.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the veteran Republican negotiator and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is already expressing concern about the debt and said that passing a bill in the Senate would be difficult even if Trump fully threw his weight behind it at this point.
“I’ve never done that with any president,” Shelby said Tuesday. “I’ve never jumped when somebody wanted something. I think that’s not what a senator or member of Congress should be about.”
The 2021 GMC Yukon is all new and features a long list of improvements aimed at making it roomier and more luxurious than before.
The GMC HUMMER EV will be staking its claim to the self-proclaimed title of “World’s First All-Electric Supertruck” with an impressive arsenal of all-electric drive and tech when it goes on sale next fall.
The battery-powered pickup revealed on Tuesday night will be the first GM product built on its new Ultium electric vehicle platform, which will spawn a lineup of zero-emissions trucks across the automaker’s brands, including a HUMMER EV SUV.
The hulking pickup wears modern styling inspired by the gas-guzzling HUMMER H2. It will launch with a fully-loaded Edition 1 model priced at $112,595 that has all-wheel-drive, three electric motors good for a combined 1,000 hp and the ability to accelerate to 60 mph in around three seconds.
The short-bed crew cab is equipped with removable roof panels that fit in the front trunk for storage on the go, power opening rear window, power tonneau cover and GMC’s six-position MultiPro tailgate. The Edition 1 also comes with an air suspension system that can increase its ride height by six inches and four-wheel steering with a unique CrabWalk mode that allows the vehicle to drive diagonally at low speeds.
A 360-degree camera system provides 18 different views, including from underneath the truck to help when negotiating tough off-road terrain, while power washers keep the lenses clean as the standard 35-inch tires do their best to get them dirty.
The HUMMER EV will offer the latest version of GM’s Super Cruise driver aid, which allows for hands-free driving and lane changes on over 200,000 miles of mapped-out highways. It has the capability to be updated with additional functionality as the software is developed.
The most important attribute, however, could be its range, which GM estimates at 350 miles per charge. The HUMMER EV is also compatible with 350-kilowatt public fast-charging stations, where it can recharge at a rate of 100 miles worth of electricity every 10 minutes.
GM will introduce a $99,995 model with the tri-motor drivetrain in fall 2022 and follow that up with a $89,995 model with two motors in spring 2023 and an entry-level $79,995 version without the air ride or four-wheel-steering in spring 2024.
Reservations are now being accepted for the Edition 1 with a $100 deposit.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling protecting absentee voting rights in the state on Monday by locking 4-4 and thus accepting the lower court’s decision in the case.
While the non-decision is a victory for voting rights advocates, it’s also an ominous warning sign for a court soon to seat a new conservative justice: Conservatives on the court could return to this case soon, with a new majority, and potentially hand the 2020 election to Donald Trump.
For now, Pennsylvania absentee voters will be able to mail their ballots on or before Election Day and have them still count if they arrive up to three days after the election, as the state Supreme Court ruled. Many states allow ballots to arrive after Nov. 3 so that people voting by mail don’t effectively have an earlier election deadline than people who go to the polls.
But four justices ― Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ― voted to prevent the implementation of this new rule and to consider a radical argument that could eviscerate the right to vote granted in 49 state constitutions.
By taking away the power of state courts to interpret what their own state constitutions say about the right to vote, the soon-to-be six conservatives appointed by Republicans on the Supreme Court could become the ultimate arbiters of any expansion of voting rights.
The looming confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who likens her judicial philosophy to the late arch-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, could potentially provide the fifth vote to take up this issue at a later date — or even intervene in Pennsylvania in the days before or after the election.
“A newly seated Justice Barrett casting a fifth vote in this type of case would basically allow the U.S. Supreme Court to impose its restrictive view of the right to vote not only to the U.S. Constitution but also to state constitutions,” said Josh Douglas, an election law expert at the University of Kentucky College of Law.
When the Supreme Court refused to stay the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, it never took up the case or ruled on its merits. The case is technically still live, and the court could theoretically pick it back up prior to the election.
Another possibility is that a close race in Pennsylvania between President Donald Trump and Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden could lead to post-election litigation. “I’m counting on them to look at the ballots, definitely,” Trump said on Sept. 30 about his desire to see Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court before the election.
Trump could then make the same argument presented by Pennsylvania’s Republican legislators that the state Supreme Court’s ruling extending the ballot receipt deadline was unconstitutional and, therefore, invalid. This is one argument that could lead to the invalidation of all ballots postmarked by Election Day and received in the three days afterward.
This provides yet more fuel for a potential post-election nightmare scenario, in which there is no clear winner for weeks as Trump presses his case in the courts, and Republican legislators in key states — like Pennsylvania — seize on the uncertainty to send Trump electors to Congress.
At issue is the argument put forward by Pennsylvania Republican legislators that only a state legislature, and not a state court, may change state election law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the state’s absentee ballot receipt deadline by finding that voters casting their ballots through the mail due to the coronavirus pandemic could be hindered by delayed mail delivery in a manner that violated the state constitution’s right to vote.
Pennsylvania Republicans argued that the court usurped the legislature’s power to change the conduct of the election, since the U.S. Constitution vests the power to appoint state electors for the presidential election “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
This exact argument was made by George W. Bush’s lawyers — who included futureChief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett — in the infamous Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case that determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. Back then, three justices ― then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas ― filed a concurrence agreeing.
“It’s a dangerous idea that a state court applying a state constitution is taking away legislative power, particularly in states like Pennsylvania where the state legislature has itself approved the constitutional provisions being applied,” Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California Irvine, wrote in a piece for Slate in October.
Such an interpretation would run counter to the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in 2015, written by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and finding that the term “Legislature” in the Constitution refers to the whole of a state government and not solely the elected legislature.
It could also mean that the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court could override state courts’ interpretations of what their own state constitutions say about the right to vote.
The high court’s interpretation of voting rights has been increasingly hostile during Roberts’ tenure as chief justice. From his 2014 Shelby County v. Holder decision gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the shadow docket decisions crushing any attempt by the lower judiciary to ease voting restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, the Roberts Court is already deep into its project of dismantling the 20th century’s voting rights expansion.
A future 6-3 court with Barrett seated could take this up as part of that project to prevent any state judicial expansion of voting rights in the future.
“No longer can we feel secure that state constitutions can continue to be more robust than the U.S. Constitution,” Douglas said.
We want to know what you’re hearing on the ground from the candidates. If you get any interesting ― or suspicious! ― campaign mailers, robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know about, email us at [email protected].
The U.S. government’s antitrust assault against Google reveals new details about a secretive, multibillion-dollar deal between the internet giant and Apple Inc., the world’s largest technology company.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday, targets paid deals Google negotiates to get its search engine to be the default on browsers, phones and other devices. The biggest of these is an agreement that makes Google search the default on iPhones and other Apple devices.
The U.S. government said Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook and Google CEO Sundar Pichai met in 2018 to discuss the deal. After that, an unidentified senior Apple employee wrote to a Google counterpart that “our vision is that we work as if we are one company.”
The DOJ also cited internal Google documents that call the Apple search deal a “significant revenue channel” for the search giant and one that, if lost, would result in a “Code Red” scenario. That’s because nearly half of Google search traffic in 2019 came from Apple products, according to the lawsuit.
The details, many of which have not been disclosed before, may support the U.S. government’s allegation that Google uses these agreements to block out search rivals and give consumers less choice. Google called the government’s case “deeply flawed” and said it would hurt consumers because it would “artificially prop up” lower-quality search options.
The Justice Department focused in particular on the deal between Apple and Google, saying it “substantially forecloses Google’s search rivals from an important distribution channel for a significant, multi-year term.”
Google pays Apple billions of dollars a year to make its search product the default option, according to analyst estimates. That means when a user buys a new iPhone or other Apple device, the built-in search engine in the Safari browser is Google. Apple users have the option to manually switch to Microsoft Corp.’s Bing, Yahoo Search or DuckDuckGo, but “few people do, making Google the de facto exclusive search engine” on Apple devices, according to the DOJ.
The DOJ suit cited estimates that Apple gets $8 billion to $12 billion annually from Google through the agreement. Apple’s income from the search deal is believed to be part of the company’s growing Services segment, a key metric Apple has highlighted to investors and analysts in recent years.
“By paying Apple a portion of the monopoly rents extracted from advertisers, Google has aligned Apple’s financial incentives with its own and set the price of bidding for distribution extremely high,” the DOJ said.
As part of the deal, Google is also the default search engine for Siri and system search, replacing a deal Apple had with Microsoft in 2017. Apple does not offer a way for users to switch search engines during the initial setup process for its devices, nor does it suggest to users that they can switch their search engine when they first use Safari on an Apple device.
Apple said that, in addition to being able to change the default search engine after setup, users can access third-party search apps, third-party voice assistant apps or got to another search engine’s website.
In 2019, Apple Chief Compliance Officer Kyle Andeer told a congressional hearing that that the company “conducted an open competition to see what did we think would be best for our consumers, and consumers have always gone to Google.”
Can Gov. Cuomo withhold the COVID-19 vaccine from New Yorkers?
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo threatens to withhold coronavirus vaccine until his team of doctors deem it safe; reaction from Joe Borelli, NYC GOP councilman and spokesman for the NY State GOP.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday said “non-essential” interstate travel between Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania is “discouraged,” amid a spike in cases of the novel coronavirus in the tristate area.
Cuomo, on Tuesday, announced that Arizona and Maryland have been added to New York’s COVID-19 travel advisory, which required individuals who have traveled to New York from areas with significant community spread to quarantine for 14 days upon arrival.
The quarantine, which New York, Connecticut and New Jersey began imposing in June, applies to any person arriving from an area with a positive test rate higher than 10 per 100,000 residents over a 7-day rolling average, or an area with a 10% or higher positivity rate over a 7-day rolling average.
However, Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania “now meet the criteria for the travel advisory,” Cuomo’s office said Tuesday, acknowledging that “given the interconnected nature of the region” a quarantine on those states “is not practically viable.”
“We are now in a situation where 43 states meet the criteria for our travel advisory. This is a really bizarre outcome, considering New York once had the highest infection rate,” Cuomo said in a statement Tuesday.
“There is no practical way to quarantine New York from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut,” he continued. “There are just too many interchanges, interconnections, and people who live in one place and work in the other.”
Cuomo said a quarantine on those states “would have a disastrous effect on the economy,” and noted that “while we’re fighting this public health pandemic, we’re also fighting to open up the economy.”
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL SLAMS NY GOV. CUOMO OVER 'HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE' COMMENTS ON COVID VACCINE
“However, to the extent travel between the states is not essential, it should be avoided,” Cuomo said.
As of Tuesday, Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming are on New York’s mandatory quarantine list.
It is not clear, at this point, what limiting tristate travel will look like, or how Cuomo will enforce it.
Meanwhile, on Monday, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said he would change his state’s quarantine criteria, saying that a state must hit a positivity rate of 5% to land on the list.
We will use your email address only for sending you newsletters. Please see our Privacy Notice for details of your data protection rights.
Benefit claimants commit fraud when they deliberately fail to report a change in theory circumstances or are dishonest about their benefit claim information. It is a form of welfare fraught wherein Government benefits are paid fraudulently to an individual. But how exactly are benefit frauds caught?
What is benefit fraud?
Benefits fraud is an offence which may be committed in several ways including:
Making false representation for claiming benefits or tax credits.
Making dishonest representation for claiming benefits or tax credits.
There are special rules which happen during an investigation and the prosecution where people are suspected of benefit fraud.
Common examples of benefit fraud include:
Faking an illness or injury to get unemployment or disability benefits
Failing to report income from a business or employment to make income seem lower than it actually is
Living with someone who contributes to the household income without declaring that income to the authorities
Falsifying accounts to make it seem like a person has less money than they say they do.
How do fraud investigations work?
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), local authorities and HMRC have powers to launch investigations to detect and prevent benefit fraud.
Official authorities may share information about you with one another.
They may have the right to gain access to your place of work as part of the investigation.
You may be able to avoid an official formal investigation by talking to the benefits office.
DON’T MISS Does Carer’s Allowance affect PIP? [INSIGHT] Attendance Allowance: What other benefits can I claim with Attendance Allowance? [EXPLAINER] Carer’s Allowance: Can I claim carers allowance for myself? [ANALYSIS]
If you are suspected of committing benefit fraud, you will be contacted by the DWP, HMRC, the Service and Personnel and Veterans Agency or your local authority.
You may be asked to visit the Fraud Investigation Officers for an interview or asked to attend an interview to talk about your claim.
You may be interviewed under caution, but can bring someone with you or seek advice from a solicitor.
In addition, your benefit may be stopped while you are investigated.
Following an interview under caution, in some cases, you may be offered a formal caution as an alternative to persecution.
But you are advised to seek specialist advice before accepting a caution.
Which benefits can be stopped if you commit benefit fraud?
The following benefits can be stopped if you commit benefit fraud:
Bereavement Support Payment
Child Tax Credit
Disability Living Allowance
Graduated Retirement Benefit
Industrial Injuries Constant Attendance Allowance (where a Disablement Pension is payable)
Industrial Injuries Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance (where a Disablement Pension is payable)
Personal Independence Payment
Social Fund Payments
War Pension Constant Attendance Allowance
War Pension Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance
War Pension Mobility Supplement
None of the following payments can be stopped or reduced:
Statutory Adoption Pay
Statutory Maternity Pay
Statutory Paternity Pay
Statutory Sick Pay.
What happens if you are found guilty of committing benefit fraud?
If you’ve committed or attempted fraud, one or more of the following may happen:
You will be told to pay back the overpaid money
You may be taken to court or asked to pay a penalty, between £350 and £5,000
Your benefits may be reduced or stopped.
The maximum penalty for false representation is a £5,000 fine, three months imprisonment or both.
The maximum penalty if convicted for dishonest representation is a £5,000 fine, six months imprisonment (12 months in Scotland) or both.
If you are convicted in a higher court, you may receive an unlimited fine, seven years in prison or both.
Melania Trump is reportedly canceling her return to the campaign trail this week due to continued symptoms after contracting the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).
A spokeswoman for the 50-year-old first lady said she is still improving despite a "lingering cough," causing her to avoid a rally for her husband's re-election campaign as a precaution, according to the Associated Press. President Donald Trump and Mrs. Trump announced on Oct. 2 that they had tested positive for the coronavirus.
"Mrs. Trump continues to feel better every day following her recovery from COVID-19, but with a lingering cough, and out of an abundance of caution, she will not be traveling today," her chief of staff, Stephanie Grisham, said in a statement to USA Today, which noted that Mrs. Trump had been expected to appear at an event in Erie, Ohio, on Tuesday.
Grisham did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment.
The first lady said last Wednesday that, after days in recovery in the White House, “I am happy to report that I have tested negative and hope to resume my duties as soon as I can.”
In her statement last week, Mrs. Trump also said she had "experienced body aches, a cough and headaches, and felt extremely tired most of the time."
She remained in private recovery while her husband was hospitalized for three days.
"I chose to go a more natural route in terms of medicine, opting more for vitamins and healthy food," she said last week. "We had wonderful caretakers around us and we will be forever grateful for the medical care and professional discretion we received from Dr. Conley and his team."
Never miss a story — sign up forPEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
The first lady also revealed then that her 14-year-old son, Barron, tested positive for COVID-19 and has since recovered. "As so many parents have thought over the past several months, I couldn’t help but think 'What about tomorrow or the next day?' " Mrs. Trump said in her previous statement. "My fear came true when he was tested again and it came up positive."
She said Barron showed "no symptoms" and later recovered, testing negative, though the White House has not said when.
"Luckily he is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms," the first lady said, adding, "In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so we could take care of one another and spend time together. He has since tested negative."
President Trump, 74, was hospitalized with the virus earlier this month and received a mix of steroids, antivirals and experimental antibody treatments.
The first lady has encouraged Americans “to continue to live the healthiest life they can,” though her statement last week gave no mention of wearing masks or practicing social distancing, which federal health experts have said are leading efforts all people can take to slow the spread of the virus.
The president has frequently shown his disdain for wearing masks, either by not complying or mocking them.
“We are in unprecedented times — and with the election fast approaching, it has been easy to get caught up in so much negative energy,” Mrs. Trump said last week.
At least 220,000 people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, according to a New York Times tracker. More than 8.2 million people across the country, including the Trumps, have contracted the virus this year.
As information about thecoronavirus pandemic rapidly changes, PEOPLE is committed to providing the most recent data in our coverage. Some of the information in this story may have changed after publication. For the latest on COVID-19, readers are encouraged to use online resources from the WHO andlocal public health departments.PEOPLE has partnered with GoFundMe to raise money for the COVID-19 Relief Fund, a GoFundMe.org fundraiser to support everything from frontline responders to families in need, as well as organizations helping communities. For more information or to donate, clickhere.
Two of three judges on a Washington appeals court appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s renewed efforts to prevent accounting firm Mazars USA LLP from turning over his financial records to House Democrats.
At a hearing Tuesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals, two judges appointed by Democratic presidents seemed to dispute claims by Trump lawyers that the House subpoena failed to meet new standards outlined in May by the Supreme Court, including that the request for records advances a valid legislative purpose.
U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, who was appointed by Barack Obama, said U.S. lawmakers need Trump’s records as they pursue possible legislation on issues like financial disclosures by public officials or presidential self-dealing in government contracts.
“They can’t shoot in the dark,” Millett said during the hearing. “They really need to understand the nature of this precise problem because overshooting could have its own constitutional consequences.”
U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, took issue with another of Trump’s claims — that the case should return to a lower court before the appeals panel takes it up again. “There’s nothing in the Supreme Court decision that suggests we need a different record to decide this case,” Tatel said.
The judges didn’t indicate when they’d rule. The hearing was the latest chapter in a long-running legal fight. The appeals panel authorized the House subpoena in October 2019, arguing that the Democrats had legal authority to demand Trump’s financial records.
But in May, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the House could not compel the release of those records, at least for the time being. The case was sent back to the appeals court to assess whether the Democrats should narrow the scope of the information sought under the new standards devised by the Supreme Court, including that the subpoena should be “no broader than reasonably necessary.”
The third judge on the appeals panel is Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee who has ruled in favor of the president in a series of high-profile cases. She dissented in the panel’s previous ruling authorizing the subpoena.
At the hearing, Rao appeared skeptical of the House’s argument that obtaining the president’s financial information was crucial to its legislative duties.
“You could pass such legislation without knowing the details of any particular problems you might be suspicious of,” she said.
In August, Representative Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, sent a lengthy memo to committee members arguing that the original subpoena satisfied the requirements laid out by the Supreme Court.
Much of the hearing on Tuesday focused on whether the appeals court could consider that memo in making a determination about the subpoena, or whether the case should return to the district court first.
Trump’s lawyer, Cameron Norris, said the judges shouldn’t consider the memo because it was drafted more than a year after the House issued the subpoena.
The lawyer for the House Democrats, Douglas Letter, argued that an earlier memo by a different Democratic congressman showed that the subpoena met the Supreme Court’s new standards. But he insisted that the Maloney memo could also factor into the court’s thinking.