Money

Since a senator asked Trump to fire Hegseth: top planner fired, fifth of brass to go, Hegseth staying.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 29 October 2026

Start with the table, because the department does not publish one.

On August 31, The Hill reported the Pentagon was seething over a Washington Post account of a classified assessment: top military leaders had warned Secretary Pete Hegseth against extending large-scale Iran war operations. That is the leak this file has a date on — the one where the warning got out. That was also the day Army Secretary Dan Driscoll announced his resignation, after what The Hill called a months-long turf war with Hegseth. Line one of the ledger, departures column.

Two days later, September 2, Sen. Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina and a former member of the Armed Services Committee, asked President Trump to fire Hegseth over what Tillis called "inept management" of the military. Enter that on the other side as a pending item.

On September 10, CBS published an interview Hegseth had given Norah O'Donnell the month before, in which he said "we have all the control in the world" over the outcome of the Iran war and called the devastation to Iran's military capabilities historic. Management, as described by management.

On September 29, The Hill reported the department's plan to cut 20 percent of its admirals and generals. One in five. No list of names has been published.

Which brings us to October 29. Hegseth fired Army Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia, the Pentagon's top military planner, head of strategy, plans and policy on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, over what a Pentagon official described to CBS as apparent misconduct with classified information on the Iran and Russia-Ukraine wars. Fox News reports Sylvia allegedly failed three polygraph exams tied to classified leaks about the Iran war and Ukraine before the firing.

Three exams. Run them against the calendar, since three is a number and numbers go in a column. The receipts date one leak: the August 31 report that the generals had told the secretary not to extend the operation. Fifty-nine days from that report to this firing, three exams somewhere inside them. The receipts draw no line between the two, and neither do I. I am noting what the file contains, hon, which is one dated leak and one officer out.

Now total the columns. Departures since August 31: one Army secretary, one top military planner, one-fifth of the admirals and generals on the department's own plan. Requests to remove the secretary: one, from a senator of his own party, outstanding fifty-seven days.

The department calls this accountability. It is running in the direction that costs the secretary nothing.

This story on its own page →

America Next paid an adviser's firm $250,000 for canvassing and influencer marketing; his son heckled El-Sayed

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 29 October 2026

America Next paid Timmy Teepell's firm $250,000 for canvassing and influencer marketing. On October 20 the Guardian reported that the man who had tried to ambush Abdul El-Sayed with a question about his supposed allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood — an exchange El-Sayed parlayed into a viral clip for his own campaign — is Teepell's son. I am not going to tell you the contract bought the question; the filings do not say that. I will tell you that the contract has two lines, canvassing and influencer marketing, that America Next has been working, the Guardian reports, to gin up organic opposition to El-Sayed, and that influencer marketing is the industry term for a message built to read as though it arrived by itself.

Run the question itself against the record. On October 15 the President called El-Sayed "100% Muslim Brotherhood." The Guardian reported Thursday that the line goes back eight years, to Laura Loomer, who has said since El-Sayed entered politics in 2018 that his signature on a 2012 open letter supporting democracy in Egypt was a pledge to the Egyptian Islamist group. The Guardian read the letter. It does not mention the Muslim Brotherhood once. Mike Rogers has carried the claim through the fall, and on October 26 said he had not called El-Sayed a terrorist, which answers one word and leaves the sentence around it standing.

Thursday the New York Post advanced the file to the candidate's father, who sits on the board of an Islamic charity the FBI once raided over cash sent to Saddam Hussein. Reconciled: a board seat, held by a man who is not on the ballot, at an organization whose troubles predate the campaign by decades.

Wednesday, Representative Haley Stevens said her fiancé would be voting for Rogers; Fox reported he used the word antisemite about El-Sayed and said he endangers Jews. Stevens is still supporting El-Sayed. She called it a household divided, which is a generous reading of a Democratic household supplying the closing argument for the Republican.

Thursday also brought Truthout's accounting of who is paying for the season: billionaires, corporations and AIPAC spending millions against progressive candidates in these midterms. Mehdi Hasan laid out AIPAC's part in this particular race on October 22. The attack lines and the money sit on the same tables.

El-Sayed, meantime, published a plan to put artificial intelligence companies under public ownership — the Guardian's Thursday read calls it an antidote to ideological gridlock. It has gone largely undiscussed, hon. There are five days left, and the only line item anybody has itemized in public is the $250,000.

This story on its own page →

Thirty-seven days after agreeing to pay $115 million for underpaying its drivers, DoorDash finds $17 billion for Instacart

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 29 October 2026

September 22, New York City. DoorDash agreed to pay the city $131 million to settle a case over underpaying delivery workers, or waiting too long to pay them. Of that, $115 million is to go directly to the workers who were short-changed. Mayor Zohran Mamdani called it the largest settlement for food delivery workers ever secured in American municipal history. Largest ever is a measurement, not a compliment. It tells you no one has found more money owed to these workers in one place before. That is a fact about the ceiling. It is not a fact about the floor.

Thirty-seven days later, on Thursday, DoorDash announced it will buy Instacart for around $17 billion. The Instacart board approved unanimously. The brand stays. The app stays. Instacart shoppers can keep filling Instacart orders, and grocers can choose which of the two to work with. Nothing is combined. A purchase was announced, and the Federal Trade Commission has it in front of it.

Set the two figures beside each other, since they belong to the same company five weeks apart. One hundred fifteen million dollars for the workers. Seventeen billion dollars for the competitor. Divide and the second is about a hundred and forty-eight times the first.

What the $17 billion buys the customer, according to the companies: 50,000 additional stores. Instacart shoppers will be able to order from 150,000 stores where they could order from 100,000. DoorDash's chief executive said grocery delivery is "one of the hardest things to get right online."

What it buys the company is harder to itemize, because nobody has published that schedule. One date is public. On Wednesday, the day before the announcement, the FTC ordered DoorDash, Instacart and other companies to turn over detailed information about their "use of personal data to set prices and compensation." The agency asked the two companies on Wednesday how they set pay. On Thursday the two companies proposed to become one company. That is a one-day gap, and one day is the count that matters here.

Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, called the merger brazen and pointed to the investigations both companies face at the state and federal levels. Opponents asked the FTC to block it. Their phrase was "food delivery monopoly."

A settlement is paid once and closes. A network of 150,000 stores is a position, and it does not close. The person carrying the bags up the stairs appears in both documents, hon, on the same line, which is the expense line.

This story on its own page →

Government reports fastest growth in a year, same month it posted wage growth at a five-year low.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the evening edition, 29 October 2026

The government filed its own growth number on Thursday: gross domestic product rose at an annualized 3.4 percent in the third quarter, the fastest pace in a year, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said. That is the headline. The ledger underneath it is thinner.

Four weeks earlier, on October 2, the same government's Bureau of Labor Statistics had filed the quarter's labor numbers: 29,000 jobs added in September, well under the 90,000 economists expected, with July revised down to a net loss of 10,000 jobs. Wage growth in that report came in at a five-year low. The quarter that grew 3.4 percent is the same quarter that produced the weakest month of hiring and the weakest wage growth in five years — one government, two numbers, filed four weeks apart.

Back up further, to August 26, and the gap gets a shape. A Groundwork Collaborative analysis of that month's GDP data found labor's share of national income — the slice that shows up as paychecks rather than profit — at 54.7 percent in the second quarter of 2026, the lowest share ever recorded by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That reading covers the three months ending in June, not the quarter that just posted 3.4 percent growth. But it is the same ledger, kept by the same agency, and it says the same thing the September jobs report says: when the pie grows, the paycheck's cut of it does not grow with it.

The public noticed before the agencies finished filing. A Harris poll for The Guardian, released October 15, found nearly two-thirds of independents distrustful of the administration's handling of the economy. An AP poll taken the same week found that for about eight in ten respondents, the economy or the cost of living ranked as the top issue in how they will vote. Three in four said they were worried about a recession; six in ten said, wrongly, that the country is already in one.

That is the gap this ledger shows: a growth number stamped "fastest in a year" sitting on top of a wage number stamped "slowest in five," filed by the same government four weeks apart, read by two in three independents as a reason not to trust the people filing it.

This story on its own page →

Nvidia calls its CEO's China intelligence ties debunked, then defends those same ties.

By LouOne More Question · the evening edition, 29 October 2026

I asked this already, didn't I? Same case, same page, same question, and I wrote the answer down the first time: was the matter debunked. Yes. Clean, one word, filed. I'm asking it again today, exact same words, and this time it doesn't come out the same shape at all.

Here's what I mean. I wrote this down — hold on, it's in here somewhere — Thursday, Nvidia, on the record: "thoroughly investigated and debunked last year." That's the sentence. I read it three times this morning making sure I had it right, because it's a tidy sentence, the kind you file and move on from. A company says a thing was investigated, a company says it was debunked, a company says it happened last year, which means it's settled, which means there's nothing left to ask about it. That's the whole point of a sentence like that.

So then why'd the same company put out a second statement the same day?

I've got that part written down too. The second one wasn't about the investigation. The second one was about the relationship — Jensen Huang's relationship with the executive, a woman the paper says U.S. intelligence agencies have accused of gathering information for Beijing. Nvidia defended that relationship. Not by saying the allegation was false, not by saying the case was closed — the company stood behind the connection itself, the same connection the first sentence said had already been investigated and put away.

Can a thing be settled and also still need defending?

I've got a toll transponder in the glovebox of a car that needs a fan belt worse than it needs gas, and every so often a bill shows up for a toll I already paid. The agency's letter says the account's clear. Then the next envelope's a notice about the same stretch of road. Nobody at the toll authority tells you which letter was wrong. They just send both.

The paper's sourcing here is American intelligence agencies, not a blogger, not a rival — agencies, on the relationship between the CEO of the most valuable chipmaker in the country and a Singapore-based data center executive the agencies say was funneling information to Beijing. The president was briefed on it. I've got that part down word for word because it's short: briefed, and took no action.

No action on what, is my question. On the relationship Nvidia just finished calling settled, or on the relationship Nvidia then turned around and defended the same week — and if it's the second one, is that the same relationship as the first, or a different one that happens to have the same two names attached to it?

I'm not the only Chinese-national case open this month. Three weeks back it was a California construction man accused of helping surveil a Taiwanese president's son. Different file, different agency, same month, same country doing the accusing. I'm not saying they're the same case. I'm saying they're the same month.

So here's where I'm stuck, and I'd appreciate the help. If the first statement closes the book and the second statement reopens the same page to defend what's written on it, which one do I file the case under — closed, or open?

Oh — before you go. One more thing's been bothering me. The first statement said "last year." The second statement, the one defending the relationship, didn't come with a date on it at all. Is a relationship that still needs defending today the same relationship that got debunked last year, or is "last year" doing a job in that sentence the calendar doesn't actually back up?

This story on its own page →

Utah files 14 felony counts against a prediction market; the $6.3 billion exchange breach draws a press release.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 30 October 2026

Utah filed fourteen felony counts this week against the founders of Kalshi, a prediction-market platform that lets customers bet on political and economic outcomes. The filing did not arrive from nowhere. On September 25 the Sixth Circuit ruled that states can regulate prediction markets the way they regulate gambling, rejecting Kalshi's argument that its contracts are swaps beyond state reach. This week Utah answered with fourteen counts, not one.

The same week, Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, told the public its initial investigation into a security incident put $6.3 billion at risk, after what the company says started with a compromised laptop belonging to one DevOps engineer. Other crypto firms moved to freeze roughly $3 billion in assets. Binance called it a "security issue," said teams were "working around the clock," and vowed to cover losses. The company did not say how much, if anything, had actually left the building. No agency filed a count. No docket number exists.

The only other enforcement news this week sat in between those two: federal and state officials widened their look at DraftKings and other sports-betting apps, ProPublica reported — a word, not a count, on the record so far.

Run the two columns side by side and the gap has a shape. Fourteen felony counts went to a platform whose entire incident, by the company's own account, has not been shown to have cost a customer one dollar beyond the bets they knowingly placed. A $6.3 billion exposure at the largest exchange in the business got a press release, a freeze, and a promise. One company is being prosecuted for the shape of its product. The other is being trusted to self-report the size of its own hole.

The ledger does not balance by accusing anyone of anything. It balances by noticing which column a company lands in depends less on what happened to the money than on what kind of company lost track of it. A prediction market with retail customers gets booked as a criminal matter in Utah. An exchange holding billions gets booked as an internal review, pending the exchange's own numbers. Both are in the business of moving other people's money. Only one of them is being asked to answer for it in a courtroom this month.

That's the gap, hon. It isn't hidden. It's dated, it's public, and it sits exactly where the receipts put it.

This story on its own page →

Billionaires spend $333 million fighting a wealth tax the Times just called "easier said than done."

By RuthThe Money Desk · the morning edition, 30 October 2026

On October 23rd, the Guardian's rundown of this fall's 145 statewide ballot measures listed one line without a name or a number: "a novel wealth tax on California's billionaires," filed alongside Alabama's question about the national anthem in schools.

Four days later, on October 27th, the name and the number arrived. Common Dreams reported that Proposition 40, a 5 percent tax on billionaire wealth, had drawn $333 million in spending from the billionaires fighting to defeat it. One Golden State tech billionaire suggested he would not leave California even if voters passed it. Senator Bernie Sanders asked the obvious question back at them: "Against what? Homelessness? No. Cancer? No. Child poverty? No."

By October 30th, the same week carried a second entry. The New York Times ran a piece headlined "Tax the Rich? Easier Said Than Done," reporting that the economist Natasha Sarin believes there are better ways to make billionaires pay than a direct wealth tax. The Times did not say what those ways are.

That same day, the New York Post ran two separate pieces on Xavier Becerra, California's candidate for governor, for proposing a new tax to address the state's affordability crisis, and, again, for proposing it five days before the election instead of waiting, as the Post noted most politicians do, until after.

Line the three up and the gap closes itself. One newspaper tells its readers that collecting from billionaires directly is a hard problem academics are still working on. The opposition to the one proposal that reached an actual ballot is not waiting on the academics; it has already spent $333 million to defeat it. And a candidate who said the word "tax" out loud, five days before anyone could vote on it, got two separate stories written about his nerve.

The economist says there is a better way to get the money. The billionaires say there is no good way at all, and they have put a price on saying so: $333 million against a single ballot question. Becerra found out what the much smaller version of that question costs a candidate who asks it five days early.

This story on its own page →

Trump's own county votes 6-0 against the data centers he calls the cure for 'backwards and poor.'

By LouOne More Question · the morning edition, 30 October 2026

You're smart enough to count to six, and six is the whole test this week — six is how many commissioners in Palm Beach County voted, unanimously, to block the very thing the president says is the alternative to towns turning 'backwards and poor.'

I wrote something down, hold on — I know I have it here — a column in Fox News, October 30th, a man named Chris Johnson, writing that the data center boom is rescuing forgotten towns, Ellendale, North Dakota, all the way to Loudoun County, Virginia — his sentence, not mine — 'billions in tax revenue and lower property taxes.' Both claims, one breath. I read it three times to make sure I had it right.

Then I got in the car — the one with the belt that squeals on cold mornings — and I sat there a minute with the glovebox open, because I keep clippings in there too, the ones that don't fit in my jacket, and I found this one: a Gallup poll, reported September 4th, that found Americans would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than next to a data center. Not by a little. By more than twenty points. I don't know what you do with a number like that except write it down twice, which I did.

So here's a question for you, and I think you can answer it from what's already on the page: if the boom is rescuing towns, why would a Gallup poll find people would rather take the reactor?

I kept going. That's their sentence. The thing that thinks against the building that houses it, and the building is losing.

Then there's the other column, the New York Post, October 29th, 'build, baby, build,' it says, measuring us against the United Kingdom, like the UK is the warning and we still have time. I don't know the UK well enough to argue with that part. I just know what's in my own glovebox.

And the president — I had this on a torn corner, August 31st, a social media post — warned towns that refuse will end up worse off. He used two specific words for it. I'm not going to use them yet. I wrote them down separate, on their own line, for later.

Here's where I get stuck, and maybe you won't — Palm Beach County is the president's own county. Mar-a-Lago sits in it. Six commissioners, zero dissents, a one-year moratorium on anything over fifty megawatts, passed September 25th. Not a poll this time. A vote. On the record. By his own neighbors.

Oh — before you go — one more thing, because I almost forgot I had it, right here, under the Fox piece, in my own handwriting even: if the towns that take the deal are the ones getting rescued, what do you call the county that voted no and happens to be his?

I don't have a word for it. I only have the two he gave me: backwards and poor.

This story on its own page →