News
Judge Upholds Trump’s Conviction, Signals No Jail Time
In a significant development on January 3, 2025, New York Judge Juan M. Merchan upheld President-elect Donald Trump’s felony conviction in the hush money case but signaled that he does not plan to impose jail time. This decision marks a pivotal moment in American political and legal history, as Trump is set to become the first U.S. president to take office with a felony conviction.
Key Details of the Ruling
Judge Merchan scheduled Trump’s sentencing for January 10, 2025, just ten days before his anticipated return to the White House. The judge indicated his inclination towards an “unconditional discharge,” a lenient option that would allow Trump to avoid jail time, probation, or fines.

Case Background
Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. These charges stemmed from an alleged scheme to conceal a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the final weeks of his 2016 presidential campaign.
Judge’s Reasoning
In his 18-page ruling, Judge Merchan emphasized several key points:
- Upholding the Jury’s Verdict: The judge stressed the importance of respecting the jury’s decision, calling it “a bedrock principle in our nation’s jurisprudence”.
- Balancing Presidential Duties: Merchan sought to balance Trump’s ability to govern “unencumbered” with the need to uphold the rule of law.
- Rejection of Dismissal: The judge dismissed Trump’s argument that his electoral win should invalidate his conviction.
Implications of the Ruling
- Historic Precedent: This decision ensures that Trump will be the first convicted felon to become president of the United States.
- Legal Challenges: Trump’s legal team has indicated their intention to appeal the ruling, potentially taking the case to a state appeals court.
- Political Ramifications: The conviction and upcoming sentencing add another layer of complexity to Trump’s unique position as he prepares to return to the White House.

Reactions and Next Steps
Trump’s spokesperson announced that the president-elect would continue to challenge the case, which he has labeled as a fabrication. Meanwhile, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, which secured the conviction, has not yet commented on the judge’s decision.
As the January 10 sentencing date approaches, all eyes will be on New York as this unprecedented legal situation unfolds. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the American presidency and the broader political landscape.

Bolanle Media invites businesses and brands seeking to promote their brand and report news to reach out for innovative media solutions. We offer a range of services, including digital marketing, content creation, event coverage, and social media management, all designed to help brands connect with their target audience effectively. With a strong emphasis on storytelling and social impact, our expertise spans various fields, ensuring your brand’s message resonates. For partnership inquiries, contact us at Hello@bolanlemedia.com.
Business
Luana Lopes Lara: How a 29‑Year‑Old Became the Youngest Self‑Made Woman Billionaire

At just 29, Luana Lopes Lara has taken a title that usually belongs to pop stars and consumer‑app founders.
Multiple business outlets now recognize her as the world’s youngest self‑made woman billionaire, after her company Kalshi hit an 11 billion dollar valuation in a new funding round.
That round, a 1 billion dollar Series E led by Paradigm with Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, CapitalG and others participating, instantly pushed both co‑founders into the three‑comma club. Estimates place Luana’s personal stake at roughly 12 percent of Kalshi, valuing her net worth at about 1.3 billion dollars—wealth tied directly to equity she helped create rather than inheritance.

Kalshi itself is a big part of why her ascent matters.
Founded in 2019, the New York–based company runs a federally regulated prediction‑market exchange where users trade yes‑or‑no contracts on real‑world events, from inflation reports to elections and sports outcomes.
As of late 2025, the platform has reached around 50 billion dollars in annualized trading volume, a thousand‑fold jump from roughly 300 million the year before, according to figures cited in TechCrunch and other financial press. That hyper‑growth convinced investors that event contracts are more than a niche curiosity, and it is this conviction—expressed in billions of dollars of new capital—that turned Luana’s share of Kalshi into a billion‑dollar fortune almost overnight.
Her path to that point is unusually demanding even by founder standards. Luana grew up in Brazil and trained at the Bolshoi Theater School’s Brazilian campus, where reports say she spent up to 13 hours a day in class and rehearsal, competing for places in a program that accepts fewer than 3 percent of applicants. After a stint dancing professionally in Austria, she pivoted into academics, enrolling at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to study computer science and mathematics and later completing a master’s in engineering.
During summers she interned at major firms including Bridgewater Associates and Citadel, gaining a front‑row view of how global macro traders constantly bet on future events—but without a simple, regulated way for ordinary people to do the same.

That realization shaped Kalshi’s founding thesis and ultimately her billionaire status. Together with co‑founder Tarek Mansour, whom she met at MIT, Luana spent years persuading lawyers and U.S. regulators that a fully legal event‑trading exchange could exist under commodities law. Reports say more than 60 law firms turned them down before one agreed to help, and the company then spent roughly three years in licensing discussions with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission before gaining approval. The payoff is visible in 2025’s numbers: an 11‑billion‑dollar valuation, a 1‑billion‑dollar fresh capital injection, and a founder’s stake that makes Luana Lopes Lara not just a compelling story but a data point in how fast wealth can now be created at the intersection of finance, regulation, and software.
Entertainment
How The Grinch Became The Richest Christmas Movie Ever

The Grinch didn’t just steal Christmas—he stole the box office. The 2018 animated film The Grinch turned holiday chaos into serious cash, grossing around $540 million worldwide on a modest $75 million budget, making it the highest‑grossing Christmas movie of all time. That is more than seven times its production cost, which is the kind of holiday return every studio dreams about.

Meanwhile, the 2000 live‑action How the Grinch Stole Christmas with Jim Carrey laid the groundwork for this green empire. That version pulled in roughly $345–347 million worldwide on a $123 million budget, turning a prickly Dr. Seuss villain into a perennial box‑office player and a meme‑ready holiday icon. The nostalgia around Carrey’s performance is a big part of why audiences were ready to show up again almost two decades later.
The Money Behind The Mayhem
The 2018 film did not just earn big—it earned smart.
It opened to more than $$67 million domestically in its first weekend and kept playing steadily through November and December, ultimately pulling in about $272 million in the U.S. and roughly $267 million internationally.
Then there is the profit. Trade estimates peg the film’s net profit in the neighborhood of nearly $185 million once theatrical revenue, home entertainment, and TV/streaming deals are baked in. That is before counting years of reruns, licensing, and holiday programming packages—every December, the Grinch gets another quiet deposit while everyone else is wrapping gifts.
Grinch vs. Everyone: Who’s Really On Top?
Here is how the Grinch stacks up against other Christmas heavyweights by worldwide box office:
| Film | Year | Worldwide Gross (approx.) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Grinch (animated) | 2018 | $510–540 million | Highest‑grossing Christmas movie ever |
| Home Alone | 1990 | ~$476 million | Longtime champ, now second place |
| How the Grinch Stole Christmas (live‑action) | 2000 | ~$345–347 million | Built the modern Grinch brand |
| The Polar Express | 2004 | ~$315 million | Holiday staple, trails both Grinch movies |
Different sources list slightly different totals, but they all agree: the 2018 Grinch sits at the top of the Christmas money mountain.
Why The Grinch Keeps Printing Money
The secret sauce is that the Grinch is more than a movie—he is a business model. Every version of this character hits a different emotional lane: Jim Carrey’s 2000 Grinch is pure chaotic energy and quotable nostalgia, while the 2018 Grinch is softer, cuter, and perfectly engineered for modern families and global audiences. Together, they keep the character relevant across generations, which is exactly what studios want from an evergreen holiday IP.
On top of box office and home sales, the character feeds theme‑park attractions, holiday events, branded specials, apparel, toys, and seasonal marketing campaigns. The Grinch went from “I hate Christmas” to “I own Christmas,” quietly turning grouchiness into one of the most profitable holiday brands on the planet.
News
US May Completely Cut Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.

What Trump Is Saying
Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.
How Taxes Work Now
Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.
Questions From Experts
Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.
What Congress Must Do
The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.

What It Means Right Now
For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.
Entertainment1 week agoWicked Sequel Disappoints Fans: Audience Verdict on For Good
Entertainment4 weeks agoAfter Party: Festival Winner for Best Romantic Short
News3 weeks agoCamp Wackapoo – Rise of Glog Takes Center Stage
News2 weeks agoYolanda Adams Questions Traditional Views on God’s Gender, Audience Reacts
Politics4 weeks agoTrump’s $2,000 Tariff Dividend Plan: Who Gets Paid?
Entertainment3 weeks agoFrancisco Ramos Takes Top Mockumentary Award at Houston Comedy Film Festival
News2 weeks agoEpstein Files to Be Declassified After Trump Order
Film Production4 weeks agoWhy China’s 2-Minute Micro Dramas Are Poised To Take Over The U.S.























