Connect with us

Business

Why did Trump get 18 minutes of prime-time television for a totally partisan, largely inaccurate monologue?

Published

on



When Donald Trump delivered the first White House address of his second presidency Wednesday night, all major U.S. networks beamed his image and voice onto their airwaves, cable feeds and online platforms.

Americans ended up watching the Republican president stand in the Diplomatic Reception Room and deliver 18 minutes of aggressive, politically motivated arguments that misstated facts, blamed the nation’s ills on his predecessor, exaggerated the results of his nearly 11 months in office and amplified his characteristically gargantuan, immeasurable promises about what’s to come.

This was no commander in chief announcing a military action or discussing a critical national issue. It was a politician’s defiant insistence that he’s doing a better job than polls suggest most Americans believe. And the spectacle raises the question of whether network executives should grant airtime to the leader of the free world for a clearly political speech simply because he asks.

“It’s not that the Oval Office and the White House haven’t been used for political speeches before,” said former NBC executive Mark Lukasiewicz, who is dean of Hofstra University’s communications school after more than a decade leading NBC’s special broadcasts, including presidential addresses.

“But, as with a great deal of what Donald Trump does as president, this was outside the norm,” Lukasiewicz said, adding that news executives are reluctant to flout the historical standard that “when the president feels he needs to speak to the nation, you need to let him speak.”

The uneasy dynamics were further intensified because Trump spoke the same day that the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, told members of Congress that his agency, which has regulatory authority over media companies, is not in fact an independent agency as has been understood through generations of Republican and Democratic administrations. That’s on top of Trump’s penchant for browbeating individual journalists who cover him and suing news organizations to the tune of multimillion-dollar settlements, notably from CBS and ABC.

Lukasiewicz, who left NBC soon after Trump’s 2016 election, said “it is hard to imagine that those factors aren’t on the minds of news executives and network executives making these decisions.”

Networks typically give presidents the benefit of the doubt

The White House did not immediately reply to questions Thursday about the process that led to Wednesday’s address. The networks also did not respond to Associated Press inquiries. Spokespeople at MS NOW and CNN, cable networks whose prime-time programming already is oriented to political coverage, declined comment.

Presidential addresses often begin with the White House press secretary or communications director contacting networks’ Washington bureau chiefs, asking for a specific amount of time and offering a general description of the topic. Lukasiewicz recalled that when President Barack Obama told the nation that 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden had been killed on his orders, his aides had told networks the president wanted to discuss a major national security matter.

Such conversations are relayed up to network executives, who must weigh whether to preempt or delay programming, decisions that can affect advertising revenue. Networks typically grant the time, reasoning that they’re relatively rare and historically have involved substantial matters.

Trump, who relishes talking directly to voters via social media and regularly talks to reporters on Air Force One and elsewhere, has made fewer requests for network time than many of his predecessors; he had not asked at all since returning to the White House in January.

Still, it’s not a guaranteed yes, with Obama and President Joe Biden being denied requests in recent decades.

The president disclosed his plans Tuesday on Truth Social, his social media platform. That announcement came hours after his declaration, also on Truth Social, that the U.S. would accelerate its actions against Venezuela and boats the Trump administration insists are running drugs that reach U.S. soil.

Taken together, those posts triggered chatter in Washington and beyond about official wartime actions. Some newsrooms predictably linked his planned speech to his Venezuela commentary. Presidents, after all, regularly make major military announcements in addresses from the White House: John F. Kennedy on the Cuban Missile Crisis, Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam, Jimmy Carter on the Iran hostages, Ronald Reagan on the Cold War and U.S. maneuvers in Latin America.

Presidents also have made plenty of U.S.-centered speeches, many fairly described as a politician pitching his preferred domestic policies with an unchecked megaphone.

Network leaders notably rejected Obama in 2014 when he wanted to talk about immigration policy while Congress was at an impasse over the matter. Lukasiewicz recalled being part of the executive team that rejected Obama’s request to speak during his first term on the Affordable Care Act becoming law.

In 2022, Biden spoke at length on his concerns about American democracy — but several networks did not carry his remarks from Philadelphia. By itself, the topic could be framed as a national concern above partisanship. Biden’s effort, though, was complicated by the fact that he was talking about Trump and Trump’s supporters who ransacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, at a time when they were being investigated and prosecuted.

Trump’s purpose still wasn’t obvious hours ahead of his speech

It’s not clear when — or if — the White House shared the substance of Trump’s remarks with network leaders. People familiar with how the process has worked in previous administrations said it would be defensible, since it was Trump’s first address this term, for networks to grant his request even without clarity about the topic.

By Wednesday afternoon and early evening, White House aides and some executive branch agencies had telegraphed to some journalists that the speech would be more oriented to the state of the nation nearly a year into Trump’s presidency — a framing that would still put the speech within historical norms. Trump, however, went beyond those traditional boundaries.

The United States was “laughed at” before he resumed the presidency in January, Trump insisted. He blamed Biden and Democrats for “the worst (inflation) in the history of our country,” but said “everything … is falling rapidly.” Biden-era inflation was not the worst in history, inflation rates began falling before he left office and, though they are now at or much closer to historically routine levels, that still means prices are rising.

The White House also offered charts that only Fox opted to show.

Trump accused immigrants in Minnesota of stealing “billions and billions” of dollars and used the language of war to call Biden-era immigration levels an “invasion.” He claimed he’d secured $18 trillion in foreign business investments to the U.S. when his own White House puts the number closer to half that. He said he scored a landslide in 2024 — despite his Electoral College vote share ranking in the bottom third through 230 years of victorious presidents.

Asked whether the display could give TV executives pause in the future, Lukasiewicz pointed back to business realities.

“I don’t know,” he said. “Those overlaying factors of the incredible pressure that this president can bring, and has shown himself completely willing to bring on these organizations and their corporate parents when he’s unhappy — that’s still part of part of the equation.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Klarna partners with Coinbase to receive stablecoin funds from institutional investors

Published

on



After staying out of crypto for years, the buy-now-pay-later giant Klarna has been making a flurry of moves in the digital asset space. The latest example came on Friday when the company said it is partnering with the crypto exchange Coinbase to accept stablecoin funds from institutional investors.

Klarna’s business model revolves around supplying consumers with zero-interest loans to buy goods, an arrangement known as buy-now-pay-later, or BNPL. The Swedish firm earns money primarily by charging merchants a small fee to offer its services, and acquires capital via a banking arm that accepts deposits and issues bonds. Its partnership with Coinbase will let institutional investors front capital denominated in stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency pegged to underlying assets like the U.S. dollar.

“Stablecoin connects us to an entirely new class of institutional investors,” said Niclas Neglén, Klarna’s CFO, in a statement.

Friday’s announcement is the latest foray into crypto from Klarna, which went public in September. In late November, Klarna launched its own stablecoin, KlarnaUSD, on a new blockchain backed by the fintech giant Stripe and the crypto venture capitalist Paradigm. About two weeks later, the company said it was working with the crypto wallet developer Privy, which is owned by Stripe, to work on potential crypto products for its users.

Klarna’s crypto integrations come as more fintechs and banks dabble in stablecoins, which proponents say are a faster and cheaper means to send and receive money than existing financial rails.

On Thursday, the neobank SoFi announced that it was launching its own stablecoin. In early December, Sony’s banking arm said it was exploring the issuance of its own dollar-backed token. And even Block, the fintech that’s historically been a devoted Bitcoin booster, said that it will integrate stablecoins into Cash App, the digital wallet the company owns. 

The rush into stablecoins follows a series of landmark moments for the crypto assets over the past year. In February, Stripe closed a $1.1 billion deal to acquire the stablecoin startup Bridge. In June, the stablecoin issuer Circle went public in one of the year’s hottest IPOs. And, in July, President Donald Trump signed into law a new bill that creates a regulatory framework for stablecoins.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

AI hyperscalers have room for ‘elevated debt issuance’—even after their recent bond binge, BofA says

Published

on



The tech giants fueling the AI boom generate so much cash relative to their debt that they have more than enough room to issue more, according to Bank of America.

In a note this week, analysts looked at the top five publicly traded AI hyperscalers: Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and Oracle.

BofA pointed out that while the companies can fund their near-term capital expenditures with cash, they are tapping debt markets for balance-sheet flexibility and better cost of capital. Last month alone, Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon raised tens of billions of dollars in the bond market.

Operating cash flow for the big five hyperscalers is expected to hit $577 billion this year from $378 billion in 2023, while debt should climb from $356 billion to $433 billion.

That means their overall debt burden is actually getting lighter as the debt-to-cash ratio should dip from 0.94 to 0.75.

“Given the hyperscalers’ historically conservative capital allocation and balance sheet policies, elevated debt issuance is possible, as evident by the recent bond deals from Meta, Alphabet and Amazon,” BofA said.

And plenty of additional cash is on the way. By 2029, operating cash flow is seen jumping 95% to $1.1 trillion, while capex is forecast to grow at a much slower pace of 58% to $632 billion.

But then there’s Oracle. Unlike the other AI hyperscalers, it will have negative free cash flow until 2029, meaning its capex will exceed cash from operations, according to BofA. As a result, it doesn’t have much capacity to take on more debt.

Indeed, fears about Oracle’s debt binge have rattled the overall AI stock trade as the company isn’t a cash machine like its AI peers.

Recent earnings guidance was also weak, and the company raised its forecast for fiscal 2026 capex by another $15 billion. In addition, surging lease obligations have spooked Wall Street.

A Financial Times report on Wednesday that said alternative investments firm Blue Owl didn’t team up with Oracle on a data center after all piled on more concerns. Shares fell on the news, though the company’s development partner, Related Digital, said Blue Owl was outbid on the project and didn’t back out of it.

But even though debt may not pose a limit on hyperscalers’ ambitions, they still face physical limits, namely in building enough infrastructure fast enough to meet demand.

Data-center researcher Jonathan Koomey told Fortune’s Eva Roytburg that capital can be deployed instantly, but the equipment that capital must buy cannot. Tmelines for turbines, transformers, specialized cooling systems, and high-voltage gear have stretched into years, he explained.

“This happens every time there’s a massive shift in investment,” Koomey added. “Eventually manufacturers catch up, but not right away. Reality intervenes.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

I’m a CEO who’s spent nearly 40 years talking to presidents, lawmakers and leaders about our long-term care crisis. They knew this moment was coming

Published

on



The long-term care system in our country isn’t on the verge of crisis—it’s already in one. Slowly, but undeniably, it is failing the very people it was meant to support.  

I’ve spent nearly five decades working across financial services, health care, and public  policy. I’ve served on presidential commissions, sat in closed-door briefings with lawmakers, and helped lead organizations working to meet the evolving needs of aging Americans. This crisis didn’t emerge overnight – we’ve seen it building for decades.  

For more than 30 years, commissions under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton,  George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all reached the same conclusion: our entitlement  programs were never built to handle a rapidly aging population. There were moments when  real reform seemed possible—when ideas were on the table and momentum was building. But again and again, the opportunities slipped by with inaction. 

Now we’re living with the consequences. By 2036, the population aged 85+ will more than  double. We’ll need nearly one million new assisted living units to meet demand, but we’re on pace to build only 40% of that.  

Most Americans still don’t understand how long-term care works, what it costs, or how to  prepare for it. And the reality is stark: home care now averages $77,792 per year, assisted living $70,800, and a private nursing home room more than $127,000—and those numbers are rising.  

Nearly 70% of Americans turning 65 will need some form of care, but more than 95% of baby boomers lack private insurance to pay for it. Most will rely on unpaid family caregivers or Medicaid, which only steps in after someone has spent down nearly everything they have.  

We are not prepared. Not families. Not the system. Not the economy. Not the country.  

Let me be blunt: the chance to enact sweeping reforms in time to help the baby boomers has passed.  

Structural reforms to Medicare or Medicaid are unlikely in today’s political climate, and  new federal rules are making it even harder to qualify for the latter. Both programs face  long-term sustainability challenges, but broad reform remains politically difficult—even as  insolvency looms. That’s not defeatism. It’s realism. 

So where does that leave us? 

Focus on the possible

We must focus on what’s still possible. And that begins with rethinking how care is delivered, how we define quality, and how we help people afford it.  

First, we need better planning tools. Today, most families make care decisions in a crisis—confused, overwhelmed, and without clear guidance. We must bring the same clarity to  aging that we do to financial planning: nurse-led evaluations, accessible education, and  unbiased support; not just product sales.  

Second, we need to raise the bar on quality. Too often, care is chosen based on  convenience or cost, not standards. Especially in home and community-based settings,  we must define what good, person-centered care looks like and build networks around  those expectations. This doesn’t require sweeping legislation—just transparency, data, and accountability. 

Third, we must confront affordability. The system punishes the middle class: too poor to  self-fund care, too rich to qualify for Medicaid. We need smarter contracting, vetted  provider networks, and eventually, portable, flexible insurance products that fill the gap.  Memory care, for instance, costs up to 30% more than traditional assisted living. Medicare fully covers just 20 days. Most people are left to cobble together care with out-of-pocket spending and fragile safety nets.  

Fourth, we must shore up the workforce delivering care. Care workers are leaving the  industry faster than we can replace them, driven by low pay, high demands, and little  support. Families are filling the gap, providing approximately $600 billion in unpaid care  each year while balancing jobs and other responsibilities. Nearly 60% of employees have  already provided care to a loved one, and most expect to in the future. Strengthening this  workforce—paid and unpaid—must be part of any serious path forward. 

We should also support bipartisan proposals like the WISH Act, which would create a national backstop for catastrophic long-term care events and their associated costs. At the state level, Washington’s WA Cares program offers a modest but meaningful  foundation. These models, paired with thoughtful private insurance solutions, point to a more realistic path forward.  

Moving beyond identifying the problem

We know what the problem is and who it’s hurting.  

What we need now is courage. Courage to act, to innovate, and to demand more from the system. Because the longer we wait, the more people fall through the cracks.  

The current system cannot stretch to catch everyone. It was never built to. And looking  away because the problem is complex, or politically inconvenient, is no longer acceptable. 

The baby boomers are aging into the final chapter of their lives. We owe it to them, and to  every generation that follows, to stop deferring action and start delivering solutions that meet the scale of the crisis. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.