Connect with us

Business

FDIC chair ‘deeply troubled’ by WSJ report on sexual harassment, says review underway on November 14, 2023 at 4:40 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

on

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) chair Martin Gruenberg told lawmakers Tuesday he was “personally disturbed and deeply troubled” over systemic sexual harassment allegations in the agency described in a Wall Street Journal report on Monday.

Current and former employees at the FDIC said the banking regulator fostered a toxic work environment rife with sexual harassment and misogyny that drove women to leave the agency.

“The FDIC is conducting a comprehensive review, including engaging an independent third party to ensure that we understand the nature of these issues and take all appropriate actions to address them,” Gruenberg said in a Senate Banking Committee hearing

“Let me underscore, I have no higher priority to ensure that all FDIC employees work in a safe environment where they feel valued and respected,” he continued.

Advertisement

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) pressed Gruenberg on his knowledge or involvement in the allegations, which he described as “concerning.”

Greunberg said he was not aware of the allegations before they were published.

Rounds also directly asked Gruenberg if he, personally, would be at the center of any future news reports.

“You’d really have to speak to the news organizations, Senator,” Greunberg replied.

Advertisement

Rounds said that he believes additional press reports including allegations about the agency are forthcoming.

In the Journal report, FDIC employees also described a heavy drinking culture at the agency, particularly at a hotel near Washington that hosts out-of-town employees for trainings, and on the road, where agents spend days or weeks at a time examining banks around the country.

The outlet describes various incidents of sexual harassment or improper workplace conduct, ranging from a supervisor inviting employees to a strip club, male examiners sending nude photos to their female colleagues, and various references to sex and women’s appearances.

The agency denounced the alleged conduct in a statement Monday.

Advertisement

“Harassment in any form is contrary to the FDIC’s values and our deep commitment to fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace,” the agency said. “We have various training, reporting, and oversight programs that endeavor to create a safe and equitable environment where all employees can feel valued and respected.”

​Banking & Financial Institutions, Business, Senate, FDIC, Senate Banking Committee, sexual harassment Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) chair Martin Gruenberg told lawmakers Tuesday he was “personally disturbed and deeply troubled” over systemic sexual harassment allegations in the agency described in a Wall Street Journal report on Monday. Current and former employees at the FDIC said the banking regulator fostered a toxic work environment rife with sexual harassment…  

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Business

Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill

Published

on

The “Big Beautiful Bill” (officially the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) is a sweeping tax and spending package passed in July 2025. It makes permanent many Trump-era tax cuts, introduces new tax breaks for working Americans, and enacts deep cuts to federal safety-net programs. The bill also increases spending on border security and defense, while rolling back clean energy incentives and tightening requirements for social programs.

Pros

1. Tax Relief for Middle and Working-Class Families

2. Support for Small Businesses and Economic Growth

  • Makes the small business deduction permanent, supporting Main Street businesses.
  • Expands expensing for investment in short-lived assets and domestic R&D, which is considered pro-growth.

3. Increased Spending on Security and Infrastructure

4. Simplification and Fairness in the Tax Code

  • Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and raises marginal rates on individuals earning over $400,000.
  • Closes various deductions and loopholes, especially those benefiting private equity and multinational corporations.

Cons

1. Deep Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs

  • Cuts Medicaid by approximately $930 billion and imposes new work requirements, which could leave millions without health insurance.
  • Tightens eligibility and work requirements for SNAP (food assistance), potentially removing benefits from many low-income families.
  • Rolls back student loan forgiveness and repeals Biden-era subsidies.

2. Increases the Federal Deficit

  • The bill is projected to add $3.3–4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
  • Critics argue that the combination of tax cuts and increased spending is fiscally irresponsible.

3. Benefits Skewed Toward the Wealthy

  • The largest income gains go to affluent Americans, with top earners seeing significant after-tax increases.
  • Critics describe the bill as the largest upward transfer of wealth in recent U.S. history.

4. Rollback of Clean Energy and Climate Incentives

5. Potential Harm to Healthcare and Rural Hospitals

6. Public and Political Backlash

  • The bill is unpopular in public polls and is seen as a political risk for its supporters.
  • Critics warn it will widen the gap between rich and poor and reverse progress on alternative energy and healthcare.

Summary Table

ProsCons
Permanent middle-class tax cutsDeep Medicaid and SNAP cuts
No tax on tips/overtime for most workersMillions may lose health insurance
Doubled Child Tax CreditAdds $3.3–4T to deficit
Small business supportBenefits skewed to wealthy
Increased border/defense spendingClean energy incentives eliminated
Simplifies some tax provisionsThreatens rural hospitals
Public backlash, political risk

In summary:
The Big Beautiful Bill delivers significant tax relief and new benefits for many working and middle-class Americans, but it does so at the cost of deep cuts to social programs, a higher federal deficit, and reduced support for clean energy and healthcare. The bill is highly polarizing, with supporters touting its pro-growth and pro-family provisions, while critics warn of increased inequality and harm to vulnerable populations.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump Threatens to ‘Take a Look’ at Deporting Elon Musk Amid Explosive Feud

Published

on

The escalating conflict between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk reached a new peak this week, as Trump publicly suggested he would consider deporting the billionaire entrepreneur in response to Musk’s fierce criticism of the president’s signature tax and spending bill.

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk arrives on the red carpet for the automobile awards “Das Goldene Lenkrad” (The golden steering wheel) given by a German newspaper in Berlin, Germany, November 12, 2019. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke/File Photo

“I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday when asked directly if he would deport Musk, who was born in South Africa but has been a U.S. citizen since 2002.

This threat followed a late-night post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he accused Musk of being the largest recipient of government subsidies in U.S. history. Trump claimed that without these supports, Musk “would likely have to shut down operations and return to South Africa,” and that ending such subsidies would mean “no more rocket launches, satellites, or electric vehicle production, and our nation would save a FORTUNE”.

Trump also invoked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a federal agency Musk previously led—as a potential tool to scrutinize Musk’s companies. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump remarked, further intensifying the feud.

Background to the Feud

The rupture comes after Musk’s repeated attacks on Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a comprehensive spending and tax reform proposal that Musk has labeled a “disgusting abomination” and a threat to the nation’s fiscal health. Musk, once a Trump ally who contributed heavily to his election campaign and served as a government advisor, has called for the formation of a new political party, claiming the bill exposes the need for an alternative to the current two-party system.

Advertisement

In response, Trump’s allies have amplified questions about Musk’s citizenship and immigration history, with some suggesting an investigation into his naturalization process. However, legal experts note that deporting a naturalized U.S. citizen like Musk would be extremely difficult. The only path would involve denaturalization—a rare and complex legal process requiring proof of intentional fraud during the citizenship application, a standard typically reserved for the most egregious cases.

Political Fallout

Musk’s criticism has rattled some Republican lawmakers, who fear the feud could undermine their party’s unity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Meanwhile, Musk has doubled down on his opposition, warning he will support primary challengers against Republicans who back Trump’s bill.

Key Points:

As the dispute continues, it has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over government spending, corporate subsidies, and political loyalty at the highest levels of American power.

Continue Reading

Business

Diddy Faces Life Sentence as Jury Deliberates

Published

on

Sean “Diddy” Combs, the influential music mogul and entrepreneur, is facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life behind bars as a New York federal jury continues deliberations in his high-profile sex trafficking and racketeering trial.

After more than five hours of deliberation on Monday, the 12-member jury—composed of eight men and four women—had not reached a verdict and is set to resume discussions today. The panel is tasked with deciding whether prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Combs orchestrated a criminal enterprise that trafficked women for sex and engaged in other serious crimes over a period spanning nearly two decades.

Prosecutors allege that Combs, 55, used his wealth, celebrity, and network of employees to coerce and intimidate two former romantic partners—singer Cassie Ventura and another woman identified as “Jane”—into participating in what were described as drug-fueled “freak offs,” involving commercial sex acts with male escorts while Combs watched or filmed. They further claim he maintained control through threats of violence, kidnapping, and arson, and that he used his business empire as a front for these illicit activities.

Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges, which include:

  • One count of racketeering conspiracy
  • Two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion
  • Two counts of transportation for the purpose of prostitution

If convicted of the most serious charges, Combs faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and a maximum of life in prison. The racketeering charge alone could result in a life sentence if the jury finds he committed at least two of the eight underlying crimes alleged by prosecutors, including sex trafficking, kidnapping, bribery, and narcotics distribution.

The defense argues that the government is unfairly criminalizing Combs’ private sexual conduct, characterizing the events as consensual and part of a swinger lifestyle rather than criminal acts. Combs chose not to testify in his own defense, with his legal team focusing on cross-examining dozens of prosecution witnesses, including former employees who testified under immunity.

Deliberations have not been without drama. The jury sent a note to Judge Arun Subramanian expressing concern that one juror was struggling to follow instructions, prompting the judge to remind all members of their duty to deliberate fairly and according to the law. The panel also sought clarification on the legal standards surrounding narcotics distribution, a key element in the racketeering charge, which the judge is expected to address today.

As the world watches, Combs’ fate now rests in the hands of the jury. There is no set timeline for a verdict, and the deliberations could continue for several days. If acquitted, Combs would be released immediately; if convicted, he could face a life sentence, marking a dramatic fall for one of hip-hop’s most prominent figures.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending