SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " billionaire " 100 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
ResearchHub: An Answer to “Dysfunction” in Traditional Science Giving?
The platform, cofounded by cryptocurrency billionaire and philanthropy critic Brian Armstrong, aims to eliminate counterproductive incentives that scientists face in traditional grant seeking.
California's billionaire tax promises healthcare relief. The fine print is murkier
It’s unclear how much money Prop. 40 would raise, how quickly the funding would become available, and how lawmakers would spend it.
A California showdown with national implications: From the Politics Desk
Plus, Trump has a new name for AI — but not regulations.
Mark Cuban offers to help Sherrill fix state health benefits program
Gov. Mikie Sherrill is noncommittal on an offer from billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban to help New Jersey rein in the soaring cost of its troubled
HBO’s Billionaire Divorce Drama War Doesn’t Know What It’s Trying to Say
The glossy series has all the elements of prestige TV but no perspective on the world it's depicting
Why are out-of-state billionaires funding a California voter ID measure?
Packaging magnate and Illinois businessman Richard Uhilein and venture capitalists Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss are among the big spenders bankrolling California’s voter ID measure.
Private-equity legend David Rubenstein on owning the Baltimore Orioles, and how sports ownership became big business
The Carlyle co-founder is a billionaire and a giant name in modern finance. His new book looks at sports ownership through a different lens.
UK retail conglomerate acquires minority stake in Under Armour
A U.K. retail conglomerate founded by British billionaire Michael Ashley has become a significant investor in Baltimore-based Under Armour. Frasers Group, the parent company of Sports Direct stores and other
UK politics increasingly funded by billionaires as mega-donations surge
A total £179m has been donated by wealthy individuals since 2019, research reveals
Dave Portnoy defends Robert Kraft’s right to ban Macklemore from stadium
Dave Portnoy rejected claims of censorship, arguing that the New England Patriots billionaire has every right to decide who takes the stage at his Massachusetts stadium.
Beyond Billionaires: Small Business, Taxes, and Who’s Rich in America
Join the Center for American Progress for a conversation on business ownership as the main path to wealth in America, and what that means for the future of tax policy and the American Dream.
A Google co-founder is spending $100 million to defeat California’s wealth tax. It could become one of his best investments
Google co-founder Sergey Brin has funneled just over $100 million to a group trying to defeat a one-time state tax on California’s billionaires this November.
A Chicago billionaire is now a chief foe to both Mayor Johnson and CTU. Just who is Michael Sacks?
For years, Sacks has been a behind-the-scenes fixture in Chicago politics. Now he’s putting his money behind frontrunner mayoral candidate Alexi Giannoulias, as well as anti-Chicago Teachers Union school board candidates in the Nov. 3 election.
OU renames health campus for Harold Hamm after historic $150 million gift
OU Health is now the Harold Hamm Health Campus after the University of Oklahoma received a record $150 million gift from the oil billionaire.
Sports Investing Is for Millionaires Now, not Billionaires
Plus, oil’s up and everything else is down.
Why are out-of-state billionaires funding a California voter ID measure?
Want to know who’s who in Republican politics? Look no further than the megadonors bankrolling California’s voter ID initiative.
Billionaire-led California PAC raises staggering $91M since August
The political action committee set up by billionaires angry about the proposed wealth tax in California has raised $91 million in the last seven weeks from wealthy individuals.
California's proposition 40 aims to fund health care via wealth tax
California's Proposition 40 proposes a one-time 5% tax on billionaires to fund Medi-Cal, schools and food assistance programs.
Aaron Sorkin reveals the one thing he’d ask Mark Zuckerberg: ‘There’s a whole other movie in answering the question’
‘The Social Reckoning’ writer-director has never spoken to the billionaire Facebook founder.
Top Democrats and allies to fight a California billionaire tax
It would impose a one-time, 5% tax on the wealth of Californians whose net worth exceeds $1 billion
Ministers explore limiting political party spending outside UK elections
Concerns over political donations grow after two cryptocurrency billionaires pledged £72mn to Reform UK
Billionaire's political contributions make the Epstein files a focus of Ohio's US Senate race
Billionaire's political contributions make the Epstein files a focus of Ohio's US Senate race
Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's relationship to the rich and powerful has surfaced in congressional contests across the country. In Ohio, it’s an issue that has figured prominently in the...
Trump presents National Medal of Science to billionaire Elon Musk and three other tech leaders
President Trump presented the National Medal of Science to Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Jensen Huang and Lisa Su, and the technology medal to Michael Dell and Satya Nadella, at a White House science summit.
Vanderbilt, Carnegie Mellon show Florida business range
Eight months ago, billionaires Stephen Ross and Ken Griffin spoke to a group of business executives gathered at the Norton Museum of Art in West Palm Beach. The February event was billed as a global finance and policy discussion, but at times speakers talked about South Florida's growing economy.
Illumina’s (ILMN) Sequencing Business Is Recovering, But Is the Stock Getting Ahead of Itself?
Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ:ILMN) has returned 118% over the past six months, compared to a 21.25% return for the Insider Monkey Billionaire Index and 14% for State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust. Illumina has given investors a reason to look at it differently in 2026. After years of dealing with growth challenges and strategic distractions, […]
Billionaire Bill Ackman calls Anthropic 'perhaps the greatest business story I've ever seen'
Billionaire investor Bill Ackman said his hedge fund likely won't invest in AI startup Anthropic (ANTH.PVT) but that it's still an impressive company.
Jessica Pegula Teases Future Role In Billionaire Family’s Sports Empire After Tennis
Jessica Pegula has hinted at a potential sports ownership role in future following her retirement from tennis. Pegula, currently ranked World No.
California entrepreneur warns billionaire wealth tax could drive business leaders out of state
Entrepreneur Eric Schiffer discusses the potential economic consequences of California’s Proposition 40, including concerns that the proposed one-time 5% wealth tax could push wealthy residents and entrepreneurs to leave the state.
California entrepreneur warns billionaire wealth tax could trigger 'giant sucking sound' of business exits
Eric Schiffer warns California's Proposition 40 wealth tax could trigger a mass exodus of billionaire entrepreneurs, draining jobs and tax revenue.
25 Wild Things Only The Ultra Wealthy Can Buy
"I was at Burning Man last year, and some billionaire really wanted pizza from his favorite pizza place in Italy. So, he had them fly in something like 5,000 pizzas, the restaurant crew, and a pizza oven."
Billionaires turned life insurers into cash machines. Now comes the reckoning.
A lucrative Wall Street strategy has funneled billions from life insurers into their owners' other ventures. Now tougher rules and questions about investment risks are putting the model to the test.
What to know about Prop. 40, the billionaire tax
Here’s who supports and opposes it and why.
Bank of America (BAC): Is Its Wealth Business More Valuable Than the Headline Bank Suggests?
Bank of America Corporation (NYSE:BAC) has a wealth franchise that deserves attention beyond lending spreads. Second-quarter 2026 Global Wealth and Investment Management net income reached $1.41 billion, roughly 16% of group earnings. That contribution matters when comparing bank stocks favored by billionaires: advisory fees diversify revenue, although rising markets still influence their value. Bank of […]
Big Tech and Big Business are spending millions to block progressives on the California ballot
Groups funded by Meta, Google, and cryptocurrency billionaires have spent millions trying to sway voters, especially in races with two Democrats on the ballot
Trump SBA to Extend Comment Period After Ranking Member Markey Leads Effort to Rescind SBA Policy that Reclassifies Billion-Dollar Businesses as “Small Businesses”
Trump admin policy would reclassify 114,000 larger businesses as “small” to access small business resources and win federal contracts meant for small businesses Letter (PDF) (Washington, September 23) – This week, the Small Business Administration (SBA) announced its plans to extend the deadline to submit comments on its controversial proposed rule regarding small business size standards until November 20. The Trump SBA’s announcement came shortly after Ranking Member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), alongside 12 of his Senate colleagues, sent a letter to Administrator Kelly Loeffler demanding that the Trump SBA rescind a harmful policy that would dramatically redefine what a small business is. The Administration’s proposed policy would change the small business size standard to designate 114,000 larger companies some with annual revenue above $1 billion—as small businesses, giving these businesses access to small business resources and federal contracts typically set aside for actual small businesses. In the letter, Ranking Member Markey and the lawmakers emphasized that small businesses will be shut out of the federal contracting space as government agencies award contracts to larger businesses, causing small businesses to lose revenue, lay off workers, or close their businesses entirely. “For more than 70 years, SBA’s mission has been clear: promote and protect the interests and viability of small businesses. By proceeding with this proposed methodology and rule, SBA moves further away from its mission of facilitating healthy small business participation in the U.S. economy. We urge SBA to rescind these proposals, meet in earnest with small businesses across the country, and discuss the proposal and methodology with congressional committees of jurisdiction. SBA must be committed to developing measured increases to the size standards that do not reward large, billion-dollar companies but instead helps our small businesses survive, grow, and thrive.” The lawmakers highlighted the following points in their letter: Under the Trump SBA’s new size standards, the highest receipts-based standard would exceed $1 billion in annual revenue—more than 20 times the current $47 million maximum—and the highest employee-based standard would reach 3,600 employees—more than twice the current 1,500 employee maximum. Specific increases include an increase in size of nearly 492% for banks, 1,500% for law firms, and more than 2,051% for private equity firms. Of the 114,000 businesses that would be newly classified as small, more than 37,000 of these businesses have collectively won more than 100,000 federal contracts worth approximately $71 billion in Fiscal Year 2025 alone without a small business designation. If SBA included the awards won by these 37,000 businesses in its Fiscal Year 2025 analysis, small business contracts would have accounted for 38% of all federal contracts, instead of the 27% that SBA announced this summer. The letter was co-signed by Senators Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Christopher Coons (D-Dela.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.). Ranking Member Markey is fighting to protect small businesses in Massachusetts and across the country from the Trump SBA’s harmful policies that put big businesses and billionaires over American small businesses, workers, and families. In August, Ranking Member Markey slammed the Trump SBA’s proposal to overhaul its small business size standards to benefit big businesses over small businesses. In July, Ranking Member Markey and House Small Business Committee Ranking Member Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY-7) introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to rescind the Trump administration’s policy that bans green card holders from accessing essential Small Business Administration (SBA) loans to start and grow their businesses. Also in July, Ranking Member Markey and Senator Hirono submitted a comment letter to the Small Business Administration (SBA) opposing a proposed rule change by Trump’s SBA to the 8(a) Business Development Program that would harm underserved small business owners and entrepreneurs. In June, Ranking Member Markey released a new report highlighting Trump’s drastic reduction in federal contracting dollars awarded to American small businesses. ###
Billionaire boarding school drops $17M on superyacht for science class
Le Rosey in Switzerland, the world's most expensive boarding school, has taken delivery of a $17 million solar-electric superyacht just so that the students can leave campus to study sailing, ocean...
Mark Ruffalo calls Gavin Newsom's billionaire tax stance 'disqualifying' ahead of California vote
Mark Ruffalo slammed Gavin Newsom for opposing California's billionaire wealth tax, calling it "disqualifying" for anyone with ambitions for higher office.
Vanderbilt, Carnegie Mellon show Florida business range
Eight months ago, billionaires Stephen Ross and Ken Griffin spoke to a group of business executives gathered at the Norton Museum of Art in West Palm Beach. The February event was billed as a global finance and policy discussion, but at times speakers talked about South Florida's growing economy.
Billionaire's political contributions make the Epstein files a focus of Ohio's US Senate race
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Billionaire Les Wexner has long been a magnet for political campaigns seeking contributions — especially in his native Ohio, where the retail tycoon directed a generous portion of his giving to candidates from both parties. Then came the Epstein files.
California poll: Voters back a billionaire tax, but the proposal falls short of majority support
A new NBCUniversal Local/Telemundo Station Group poll shows “yes” supporters leading 48% to 38% on the California ballot measure.
SF Billionaire Chris Larsen on AI: “This Is an Incredibly Dangerous Moment”
Larsen once called for a "middle path" on the AI arms race but now says we need to "shut down all the data centers."
Tech billionaires are spending millions to reshape California’s Legislature
Tech billionaires funding PACs have enjoyed recent growth in personal and corporate wealth and are spending it to handpick the Legislature.
How Big Tech money is undermining US democracy
US Author Gil Durán warns that Silicon Valley "billionaires have enough money to buy both sides" in any US election.
The same union supporting a billionaire tax wants voters to limit clinic spending. Here’s what to know about Prop. 44
Prop. 44 would require clinics to spend more money on patient care, but clinics say the measure will bankrupt them.
Gavin Newsom backs measure to kill the billionaire tax and ban future wealth taxes
Gov. Gavin Newsom isn't just fighting the billionaire tax. He's backing Prop. 42, which would ban future wealth taxes in California, too.
Are Democrats Worried About the Wrong Rich People?
As billionaires become a popular political target, a new book urges Washington not to lose sight of a much larger, and quieter, group of wealthy business owners.
Meta's Mark Zuckerberg weighed leaving California over billionaire tax
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg considered leaving California. He's staying on after Meta offered him a new class of shares.
A reclusive GOP billionaire pulls back his money from Senate Republicans
The donor gave nearly $200 million to support President Donald Trump and other Republicans in the 2024 election. Only Elon Musk donated more.
Miami billionaire Ken Griffin adds $25 million to a South Florida hospital gift
The institute named for him is set to open in 2029
AOC tells voters Jackson will get billionaire influence out of politics
The progressive congresswoman called on Mainers to send Jackson to the U.S. Senate.
Billionaire's political contributions make the Epstein files a focus of Ohio's US Senate race
Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's relationship to the rich and powerful has surfaced in congressional contests across the country
How Two Crypto Billionaires Are Making British Politics More American
A pair of low-profile entrepreneurs gave $100 million to Nigel Farage’s Reform U.K. Party. The system may never be the same.
New Mid-Market Arts District Launches With $500K Investment From SF Billionaires
SF business leaders and wealthy donors are funding a new Mid-Market arts district, which launches alongside a free festival Saturday, as a growing number of Bay Area artists call for a boycott of events funded by billionaires.
A Billionaire Wanted a Trump Pardon. His Family Gave Alina Habba a $50 Million Deal.
Julio Herrera Velutini, a prominent Venezuelan, was seeking clemency. He got it not long after his daughter gave Ms. Habba, a lawyer close to President Trump, an extraordinarily lucrative job.
Is metascience being co-opted?
In July, the White House released a report that argued academia is deeply dysfunctional and in need of radical reform.Science: A New Golden Age sets out a litany of problems many academics will recognise: interminable waits for grants; short-term funding rather than support for longer, more ambitious projects; ballooning administrative requirements; pressure to publish, and many more. “The scientific machine is getting bogged down,” it says. At least on the face of it, Science: A New Golden Age is a triumph for the metascience movement, a loose-knit, global group of academics, philanthropists and think tankers that want far more testing and experimentation in how we fund public research and innovation. The report tells US research funders to set up internal metascience units to do just this. But it has also set alarm bells ringing that metascience is being conveniently deployed to help justify the defunding of US universities, which US vice president JD Vance has openly labelled “the enemy.” “Just because you have an issue with your plumbing in your house doesn't mean you light the entire house on fire and burn it to the ground,” said Colette Delawalla, chief executive of Stand Up for Science, a group campaigning against what it says are attacks on scientists by the Trump administration. No one is arguing that academia doesn’t need reform, but there’s debate over how far and how fast the system should be shaken up. Does public R&D need slow and steady evidence-based adjustment, or radical new experiments?One of the key arguments in Science: A New Golden Age is that there’s not enough funding for what it calls “mid-level” science: engineering-heavy projects that require tens of millions of dollars, involve ten to a hundred people, and last around five years. Such a project might develop a brain-computer interface for people with Alzheimer's disease, for example. As such, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) has already announced $1.5 billion to set up so-called X-Labs, effectively new research organisations to pursue breakthroughs in areas such as quantum sensing and new scientific instruments. Funding divertedBut there’s a catch: this money has squeezed NSF budgets for more traditional, fundamental research grants, Science reported in June, likely meaning less cash for university-based scientists. Science: A New Golden Age also makes various swipes at universities, accusing them of extracting overheads from scientists to fund administrative bloat. “We have become dependent on a narrow set of legacy institutions,” it says. The report doesn’t mention it, but the US government is simultaneously seeking greater powers over federal funding, which would allow political appointees at funding agencies to screen or cancel research grants mid-project. The White House is also seeking to slash the NSF’s budget by more than half in 2027, although similar cuts proposed for 2026 were blocked by Congress. Convenient hookThis has worried some that the metascience agenda could be misused as a kind of smokescreen to further weaken universities. James Wilsdon, executive director of the Research on Research Institute at University College London, said that the report contains lots of “interesting ideas” and agrees that in places, academia is a “pretty broken system.” But the risk is that metascience is being deployed as a “convenient hook” to support cuts and a “political land grab” to transfer grant power from scientists to political appointees in US funding agencies.So far, the metascience agenda hasn’t been seized on by radical right parties in Europe. But Wilsdon worries it will cross the Atlantic, politicising research reform efforts and making them more difficult to carry out. The report is already making some in Europe sceptical of the entire idea. “The system is not without flaws, but the metascience discussion is not likely to improve the system but rather to generate munition to undermine it,” said Claes de Vreese, a professor of AI and society at the University of Amsterdam. Peter Thiel protégéOfficially, Science: A New Golden Age has just one named author: Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and a former chief of staff to Silicon Valley mogul Peter Thiel. He also served as chief financial officer of Thiel’s Clarium Capital Management. Since the 1990s, Thiel has criticised US universities for moving away from teaching what he views as the classic works of western civilisation, and drifting towards “anti-Western zealotry.” And since 2011, he has offered two-year fellowships of $250,000 to young people to skip or drop out of university, and instead start companies or pursue scientific research. “College can be good for learning about what’s been done before, but it can also discourage you from doing something new,” according to the Thiel Fellowships website. In other areas, the Trump administration has promoted academics with a longstanding interest in metascience. For example, the head of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, in 2020 co-authored a study arguing the funder backs overly conservative proposals, although he achieved wider prominence as a critic of pandemic lockdowns. Careless talk costs fundingEven before the Trump administration embraced the metascience agenda, some metascientists privately wondered whether they should be careful not to overstate dysfunctions in academia, in case this gets used as ammunition against universities. But others think being cautious with criticism is pointless. After all, last year, the Trump administration sought to cut funding from US universities on an entirely different premise: supposed antisemitism on campus. “I don't think these governments need a technical metascientific excuse to attack the universities, they will want to do so anyway,” said Will Stone, a researcher at Science Works, a new think tank advocating for a “metascience revolution” in the UK. “I think researchers should report what they find, even when the findings may be used to advance policies they disagree with,” echoed Russell Funk, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, who in 2023 co-authored a highly influential paper that argued scientific papers were becoming less disruptive over time. No justificationThat said, Funk thinks that metascientific research certainly doesn’t justify a weakening of universities. Instead, scientists need “time, resources and stability to pursue unfamiliar ideas,” he said. “Taking away those conditions works against the very goal the reforms are supposed to achieve.”The Institute for Progress, a Washington DC-based innovation policy think tank that has championed X-Labs and metascience units, also says that reforms should complement, not supplant, universities. “Unpredictable, unreliable, and reduced federal funding to researchers is destabilising to the very foundations of research and development and is bad,” said Jenn Gustetic, the institute’s director of metascience and R&D policy.Evolution or revolution?This points to a much bigger divide in the metascience community: how far and how fast should public R&D be shaken up? Does it need evolution or revolution? For example, Science: A New Golden Age says the science system relies too heavily on traditional “workhorse” project grants, the type that pay out around $250,000 a year to fund “hypothesis-driven science by small teams on tractable questions.” However, in criticising project grants, the report “decisively picks one side of a debate that is far from settled,” David Hilmer Rex, a metascientist based in Denmark, has written. In June, Pierre Azoulay, a metascientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, defended project grants, saying that the alternative of X-Labs “merits scepticism.”A-B testingOne challenge in metascience is that it’s easier to generate evidence for some types of change than others. Most straightforwardly, research funders can run A-B tests on different ways of awarding money. For example, Germany’s Volkswagen Foundation recently trialled distributed peer review, where applicants rate each other’s proposals, and measured its results against traditional review panels. Distributed peer review made quicker decisions, although awarded money to largely different ideas. However, much of the focus of the metascience movement has been on founding fast-moving and free-acting new research organisations and funders, in contrast to the alleged stodginess of mainstream academia or public innovation grants. A culture of speed and freedom are the animating principles behind Germany’s Sprind or the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria).Related articlesViewpoint: it's time to experiment with how Europe funds science European researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationHowever, while it’s possible to closely study previously successful bodies, such as the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), for historical clues to their secret sauce, it’s impossible to guarantee in advance that the likes of Sprind or Aria will actually work as hoped. But advocates of new organisations say this inherent uncertainly shouldn’t stop us trying. “If we wait for definitive proof that something will work before we try it, I don't know where your proof is coming from,” said Stone. Trade-offsUp until now, experiments in metascience haven’t generally come with hard trade-offs over money. In the US, new ideas such as focused research organisations have often been funded by billionaire philanthropists. In Europe, new innovation agencies such as Sprind and Aria, or the Netherland’s new National Agency for Disruptive Innovation, haven’t needed explicit cuts elsewhere in the research system. But with the $1.5 billion establishment of X-Labs by the NSF, the trade-offs are becoming clearer. Some metascientists privately wonder whether a smaller pilot would have been more appropriate, given that the idea is untested. The Institute for Progress counters that the $1.5 billion X-Labs budget is spread out over a decade, so will account for less than 2% of the NSF’s annual budget. “It’s important to remember that [Darpa] was once an institutional experiment as well. Now it’s one of the most cited innovative funding models in the world,” said Gustetic.As for Europe?The US isn’t the only country placing metascience at the heart of its research strategy. Science: A New Golden Age looks admiringly at the UK, which in 2024 set up a Metascience Unit to scrutinise how it funds research. In Brussels, it’s more of a mixed picture. In 2018, the EU set up the European Innovation Council to funnel grants and equity to start-ups, although it’s sometimes criticised for awarding money too slowly. Recently, the council has started experimenting with challenges, where teams of inventors compete to overcome a technological challenge. The European Commission also wants to experiment with partially randomising grant winners, to cut down on bureaucracy. However, the Commission’s own advisers have said the EU’s own research schemes are too conventional. They want the Commission to establish a new dedicated unit to scrutinise and experiment with funding. But there’s no sign of a such unit emerging in Brussels’ plans for the next Horizon Europe programme, which from 2028 is set to distribute more than €160 billion over seven years. Sam Bogerd, director of breakthrough innovation at the Brussels-based Arq Foundation, an AI-focused think tank that also looks at metascience, says that Europe might have the opposite problem to the US: universities and basic research funding are still reasonably well supported, but there’s not enough experimentation. “We're not taking a close enough look at where this money can achieve the most, and I am worried that the good ideas around metascience will be tainted politically by their association with the Trump administration,” he said. He’s still lobbying for the Commission to set up an experimental unit. But in the meantime, the Arq Foundation plans to do its own research, and is currently hiring two metascience researchers to run the rule over how Brussels spends research funding.
California voters to decide on Props 41 and 42, challenging the billionaire tax
California voters will face two ballot measures this November—Propositions 41 and 42—that aim to challenge the proposed billionaire tax and other future taxes like it.
Trump says his son paid back Russian billionaire who funded parts of wedding celebration
President Donald Trump on Friday claimed his son, Donald Trump Jr., paid back the Russian billionaire who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund parts of Trump Jr.’s wedding celebration in the Bahamas.
Japan’s Nippon To Buy Akzo’s Southeast Asia Decorative Paints Business For $1.35 Billion
The deal gives Nippon Paint—controlled by the family of late Singaporean billionaire Goh Cheng Liang—access to Akzo’s operations across Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea and Australia.
Miami billionaire Ken Griffin boosts hospital gift to $75M. Here’s what to know
Baptist Health breaks ground on the Kenneth C. Griffin Neuroscience Institute in Kendall
2026 Election Preview: Billionaires, AI, and Generational Change
A panel of top political reporters unpack the key races and issues shaping California’s 2026 election.
'They’ve awakened him’: How a wealth tax fight made Brin a political force
After years of sporadic giving, the Google co-founder has unleashed spending that spans from the billionaire tax to housing and environmental policy.
Commentary: Raise taxes on billionaires federally, not state by state
I favor higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy. But I worry that California’s proposed tax on billionaires will inflict lasting damage on the economy and undermine the state’s status as a
Private business fortunes reveal overlooked source of wealth and inequality in America
A majority of Americans blame billionaires for the nation's ever-growing income and wealth divide. But economists Eric Zwick and Owen Zidar say there's a much larger but little-known cadre of very rich ...
The Wall Street Veteran Trying to Solve the Pentagon’s Missile Problem
In his first interview on the job, Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg, a private-equity billionaire, defended his unusual approach.
Whether you like it or not, celebrities have an impact on politics
The global groundswell of support for Macklemore’s pro-Palestinian advocacy serves to remind us that maybe celebrity activism really is that deep after all, writes Cheek’s Varsha Yajman. Subscribe In the last week, publications, podcasts, and influencers that have either rarely or never spoken about Israel’s genocide in Palestine have flooded my social feed. And it was all because singer Ed Sheeran and his team dropped Macklemore as his opener for saying “Free Palestine” on stage. Millions raised, millions speaking up in support of Palestine - all of this confirming my view that, whether I like it or not, celebrities do have an impact on political outcomes. And this is interesting when much of the time celebrity activism can induce an eye roll - I love to see Charli XCX pointing out a Palestinian flag in the crowd, but it’s hardly the bold symbol of allyship that some fans would make it out to be. But there’s a line between healthy scepticism and outright dismissal - and I’d argue that the latter lets the rich and powerful off far too easily. For instance, actress Jennifer Lawrence, once outspoken about her political views, last year told The Times she no longer believes celebrities have a role to play: “Celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for. So then what am I doing? I’m just sharing my opinion on something that’s going to add fuel to a fire that’s ripping the country apart.” While it’s a narrative she might find comfort in, it simply is not true. Grassroots movements often garner worldwide attention when celebrities and other high-profile spokespeople bring a mainstream platform to their causes. And this frustrates me. We have had three years of a live-streamed genocide. Macklemore himself has been calling for a Free Palestine long before he booked the Sheeran concert. Yet it’s the high-profile fallout of the last week that finally seems to have made saying “Free Palestine” socially acceptable in the mainstream. It feels like the collective mood has shifted, where calling out censorship is now the obvious response - not just the business of ‘radical’ activists. To recap, Sheeran’s decision followed an ultimatum from billionaire Robert Kraft, owner of Gillette Stadium, one of the venues Sheeran was scheduled to perform at: either drop Macklemore as your opener after only two of the eight scheduled shows, or you do not play at any stadiums. Sheeran’s disappointing decision to stand on the side of billionaire-led censorship has ultimately seen a surge in support for Free Palestine. It began when all his openers and his backing band pulled out of Sheeran’s tour, in solidarity with Macklemore and with the Palestinian cause. It was met with an uproar of support from those who had never or barely touched politics before: influencers lip-syncing to Macklemore’s music, singers like Jack Antonoff singing “Free Palestine,” and publications and podcasts standing with Macklemore. And finally, we saw material support: Macklemore donated $1 million in profits from his two nights opening for Sheeran’s tour to several Palestinian aid groups and called for Sheeran and Kraft to match it, which they have since promised to do. We’ve also seen children’s entertainer Ms Rachel follow suit with a $1 million donation to Palestinian aid, and publication PopBase has donated $10,000. Anera, a humanitarian aid group working in Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan, said donations since Macklemore’s announcement were more than triple this month’s daily average. The group’s Instagram page has also gained 8,000 followers. Macklemore far from the first celebrity to speak and participate in politics in the Western World. In 1924, singer Al Jolson supported Republican candidate Warren G. Harding for president, and decades later, celebrities such as Harry Belafonte, Lena Horne, and Aretha Franklin voiced their public support for the Civil Rights movement. More recently, in the lead-up to the 2024 US election, ‘The Daily Show with Trevor Noah partnered with the organisation Power the Polls to recruit poll workers to address shortages- a problem disproportionately affecting voters of colour. The campaign saw 170,000 new sign-ups - 35,000 of which came directly through the TV show’s link - resulting in the recruitment of 713,000 total poll workers that year, an almost three-fold increase on the organisation’s goal. Alongside recruiting workers, celebrities in the US (where voting in elections is not compulsory) have made a huge difference by calling for people to register to vote. Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris in 2024 saw over 400,000 visitors on the voter registration site within 24 hours of her Instagram post. In 2023, Swift had urged her fans to register, resulting in 35,000 new voter registrations. Similarly, Ariana Grande promoted voter registration in 2019 by setting up booths at concerts on the American leg of her tour, resulting in over 33,000 voters registering. And the same thing is happening closer to home. This year, musician Jack River successfully called for government action to ensure creatives in Australia do not have their work scraped by generative AI companies. Celebrity as the mediator between the punter and the politician Celebrity activism isn’t just a feel-good news story - research tells us it actually makes a difference. By directing attention to issues affecting the average person, like voting inaccessibility or a lack of action on a genocide, researchers Alfred Archer and Amanda Cawston state that “celebrities can play a useful bridging role between political elites and the people they represent”. Alternatively, in a world where talking about politics is “not cool,” or where people lack exposure or knowledge to engage with politics, celebrities can act as an educational resource or an entry point into the political world - when they speak up about an issue, their audience gets exposed to it. Olivia Rodrigo’s Daisy Chain Fields festival is a perfect example. Rodrigo partnered with twelve organisations focused on women’s issues, such as reproductive rights. These organisations had stalls at the festival for people to meet them and were also featured heavily on social media, giving their issues global attention and raising $20 million for the organisations. We have also seen celebrities at award shows such as the Emmys wearing F*CK ICE pins, referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s treatment and detainment of people - generally people of colour. When celebrities speak up about political issues in public forums, they put the issue at the forefront of mainstream media, rally their supporters, and make it clear that, however much they disagree, the government cannot simply ignore it. Our over-reliance on celebrities versus our politicians As much as I love seeing my favourite celebrity use their platform for a good cause, there is an important question to ask: not whether celebrity activism is good or bad, but whether we should have to rely on celebrities. And the answer would, in an ideal world, be no. In an ideal world, or merely a just world, action on Palestine would’ve happened decades ago, climate change would be taken seriously, and most importantly, people would understand their democratic rights. However, that is not our reality. Only around 28 per cent of Australian Year 10 students reach proficiency in civics and citizenship. In the US, almost two-thirds of people under 30 say high school civics education didn’t prepare them to understand voting deadlines, how to research candidates, or how to vote by mail. When civics education is weak, our trust in these institutions and our understanding of change-making processes also decline. This is where celebrity steps in and becomes our main source of reliance. As Mary R. Connelly notes in _The Tartan, “_Celebrities will always be involved in campaigns in one form or another, but their presence is not what causes people to vote blindly. The lack of political engagement and literacy is what allows celebrities to wield their influence on the political sphere so impactfully.” About the author Varsha Yajman is the Digital Content Producer at Cheek Media. She is a youth advocate and lawyer with a background in climate litigation and is passionate about looking at the intersection between race, climate justice, and mental health. Thanks for reading Cheek Media Co. ! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share
16 industries that have made America's richest people
Some of America's richest billionaires have made their fortunes in not-so-glamorous sectors such as trucking and pest control.
He Picked Up Trash For $4 An Hour. Now He Runs A $1 Billion Construction Business
How a 12-year-old’s door knock connected him with now billionaire mentor —and launched a fast-growing construction empire powering tech giants like Google, Apple and Microsoft.
Mark Cuban offers fix for NJ's health care cost crisis
As New Jersey workers face another double-digit increase in health care premiums, billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban is offering to help.
Prop 40 would create a first-in-the-world tax on billionaires
California voters will decide this November on Proposition 40, a proposal to impose a one-time, 5% tax on billionaires living in the state.
Spotify billionaire’s body scan startup has come to America
Farooq Abbasi, an investor in Neko Health, talked to Equity about the hot health tech company and what's next for it.
NHL’s Texas expansion may be on ice
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman stated that the league is in no rush to decide between Houston and Austin for a potential expansion team following an agreement with Texas billionaire Dan Friedkin.
NWA EDITORIAL | Region’s business behemoths, families keep investing in Northwest Arkansas
They could be called fly-on-the-wall meetings. After all, we'd imagine when billionaire individuals and billionaire companies get together to chat about taking a big step, it's bound to be interesting.
As school board election nears, CPS parents incensed by political group at school event
Some CPS parents say they want a stronger firewall to protect against electioneering on school grounds. It comes after a nonprofit affiliated with the Common Ground Collective, a group heavily funded by billionaire Michael Sacks that opposes the Chicago Teachers Union, paid for the DJ at a back-to-school fair and handed out fliers that directed to endorsements.
Gavin Newsom's first business was a wine shop funded by a billionaire family friend
Before he was in politics, Newsom was building a hospitality empire he still has stakes in today.
New Star-Filled Movie Directed By Hyatt Hotel Heir Filming in San Francisco
Filming for an upcoming movie titled 'Fog City' has taken over two blocks of Steiner Street this week, with a cast that reportedly features Miranda Otto, Cooper Koch, and Angus Imrie. The picture is being directed by billionaire Hyatt hotel heir Daniel Pritzker.
Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm commits $150 million to advance health education, research
The University of Oklahoma announced a $150 million donation from billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm Tuesday.
'Bond King' Bill Gross shares his best and worst investments ever
Pimco billionaire Bill Gross told BI why he's a big fan of pipeline stocks, and walked through a terrible wager he made in 1969.
Tom Cruise digs into uncharted territory in ‘Digger’
Don’t look now, but Tom Cruise’s latest movie, Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Digger, is not your typical Tom Cruise film. The charming, boyish-looking star of Mission: Impossible fame is shedding his familiar action-superstar image. Wearing a fat suit, cowboy boots and disheveled hair, and at one point carrying a dying cat, Cruise portrays Digger Rockwell, an egocentric, fast-talking octogenarian oil billionaire whose irresponsible drilling…
Billionaires want to live in Florida. Eric Silagy wants them to know it's a great place to do business, too
'Economic development is not political.'
Brazil: Lessons from a Disaster
By Antonio Martins (Outras Palavras) Defeats become deeper and more prolonged when we misunderstand what caused them, avoid correcting course, and embrace “solutions” that only compound our mistakes. Lula’s government and the Brazilian left suffered a disaster in Sunday’s election. Contrary to every poll, the president finished the first round 2.2 million votes behind Flávio Bolsonaro—and, more significantly, 3.4 million votes below his total four years ago, when the machinery of the state was working against him and in favor of his opponent. His vote share declined in 98 percent of Brazil’s municipalities. The PL, the main party of the far right, elected 121 deputies and 28 senators, becoming the largest caucus in both houses of Congress. The parties aligned with the Centrão—Brazil’s bloc of transactional center-right parties—were somewhat diminished, but will still hold roughly 250 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate. That will make it easier to assemble the majorities needed to amend the Constitution or impeach Supreme Federal Court justices. If elected, Flávio Bolsonaro could appoint four members of the Court, substantially altering its internal balance of power. What produced these results? How can the far right be prevented from consolidating them into a prolonged political hegemony? And what is the essential change of direction the left now needs? Explaining the Disaster Across the commercial media and the exuberant chaos of digital platforms, interpretations are multiplying. Some focus on specific episodes: Lula’s absence from the Globo debate, his very close relationship with Alexandre de Moraes, or his emphasis on issues supposedly remote from most people’s everyday concerns, such as rare earth minerals. Among the more systemic interpretations, three seem especially questionable. One argues that the principal defeat was not the left’s, since its congressional representation declined only slightly. The decisive movement captured at the ballot box, according to this view, was a shift within the right itself—from the more moderate and transactional forces of the Centrão toward the more ideological and radicalized forces of the PL and Novo. A second interpretation holds that the nature of electoral and political processes has changed. The material interests and aspirations of society, it argues, no longer play the central role they once did; they have given way to forms of subjective self-identification that the left has yet to understand. And a third concludes that, because of these two developments, we should expect a political winter: a prolonged period in which the far right and the broader right dominate Brazilian political life. There are important elements in all three interpretations. The problem lies in what they deny or leave out: Lula’s third government was a small-bore government. It offered the majorities that elected it neither a clearly better life nor reasons to believe again in politics and its power to transform society. These failures flowed from two fatal accommodations, which I will examine below. As a result, the government suffered a slow but steady erosion of support. And, as has happened in so many Western countries, it gave the far right the opportunity to present itself as anti-system and to benefit from popular frustration and distress. The interpretation that emphasizes the migration of votes from the center-right and traditional right toward the far right has been advanced, among others, by the courageous journalist Leonardo Sakamoto. In his UOL column on Monday, October 5, he highlights the miserable behavior of the traditional conservative parties. Over the past four years, they repeatedly joined forces with the “neo”-fascists, helping to “normalize” them—a criticism that could equally be directed at almost the entire corporate media. Believing they could use the far right as a stepping stone, they instead ended up partly devoured by it. This was especially true in the Senate, where the PL’s gain of 13 senators and Novo’s gain of two came at the expense of the PSD, which lost nine; the MDB, which lost two; the PSDB, which lost two; and the PP, which lost one. Sakamoto’s observation is accurate and necessary, but it leaves uncomfortable questions unanswered. Why did the erosion of the Centrão benefit the far right rather than, for example, producing growth for the left—as has happened so many times before, both in Brazil and elsewhere? The answer is not difficult. Throughout its four years in office, Lula’s third government was almost invariably associated with the Centrão. Here lies its first accommodation: accepting the limits imposed by conservative institutions; avoiding, as much as possible, any attempt to strain those limits through popular pressure; and believing only in the modest changes that could be squeezed through openings in Congress. The failure of the campaign to end the six-day workweek is emblematic. Lula could have electrified the presidential race by pairing it with a popular campaign for passage of the measure. Instead, he chose to place his hopes in the hands of Senate president Rodrigo Alcolumbre. He generated no mass mobilization, did not force his opponents onto an uncomfortable defensive, and won no victory. In September 2025, the government squandered the greatest of its many opportunities to shake up conservative power in Congress. Popular opposition to the so-called Shielding Amendment—which, if approved, would have restricted criminal proceedings against members of Congress—brought crowds into the streets, mobilized primarily by artists and social movements. This opened the possibility for a broader political education: a campaign that could begin exposing the limits and dysfunctions of Brazil’s political system while putting Bolsonaro’s movement on the defensive for its predictable support of political privilege. The amendment was defeated. But the executive branch then backed away from the fight. It remained associated with an institutional world widely seen as corrupt, elitist, and indifferent to ordinary people’s struggles. In doing so, it forfeited its credibility as a vehicle for the protest vote. On Sunday, it reaped the bitter fruits. Are We Doomed? Taking a different approach from Sakamoto, the philosopher Moysés Pinto Neto and other writers have drawn attention, in their first analyses of October 4, to the fragmentation of the public sphere produced by Big Tech platforms. Through their algorithms, these platforms present each person with a different view of social reality. As a consequence, it becomes much harder to identify common material problems and demands—for example, the fight for labor rights or for a properly funded public health system. Voters no longer embrace such demands, these authors argue, because they no longer see themselves as part of a collective. Instead, they tend to value the identities assigned to them by neoliberal subjectivity—the role of the entrepreneur, for example. On this interpretation, the left’s possible error lies in clinging to outdated illusions. Moysés’s warning is highly relevant and resonates with arguments such as Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor’s “Apocalyptic Fascism and the Billionaires’ Bet.” Unlike a century ago, the far right no longer promises a radiant future. It concentrates instead on resentment—especially that of young men. “They belong to a generation that fears it may never own a home, but compensates with the pleasure it gets from constantly provoking progressives online. Convinced their future has been stolen, they share memes romanticizing historical authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. But Moysés seems to confuse this danger with inevitability. He fails to see that the left’s answer cannot be adaptation. On the contrary, it must strengthen the possibility of politics as collective action. Nor does he recognize that precisely such a reversal is already becoming possible in some of the most promising mobilizations of the twenty-first century: the election, at the end of 2025, of the young Muslim Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York, on a platform centered on the intensely material fight for an affordable city; the Left Party’s victory in Berlin two weeks ago, built around the demand to expropriate private real-estate corporations; and the very recent wave of demonstrations in Spain—including an occupation of Madrid’s Puerta del Sol—in which tens of thousands of young people mobilized by the Tenants’ Union have demanded limits on rents. By putting itself in the straitjacket of the “fiscal framework” in the first months of 2022, Lula’s third government adopted the second fatal accommodation of its term. Faced with conservative institutions and a country devastated by four years of Bolsonaro, increased public investment was the government’s remaining weapon for offering a more dignified life to the majority and forging an anti-conservative pact with them. The same state that disburses 1 trillion reais a year to enrich a small class of rentiers could instead spend money to extend the Family Health Strategy to every Brazilian, at a cost of 30 billion reais; provide full-day public schooling and childcare to all adolescents and children—and, especially, relief to their mothers; achieve universal sanitation while cleaning up polluted urban rivers; multiply metro systems; begin transforming the urban peripheries; and undertake many other urgently needed projects. In April 2023, an article in Outras Palavras warned that the fiscal framework could “shrink the Lula government and preserve the forces that condemn the country to inequality and regression.” A year later, another article showed that restraints on public spending were strangling policies vital to ordinary people and undermining the president’s popularity. In November 2024 came a reality check, in the form of the government’s humiliating defeat in the municipal elections. Even then, the fiscal lock was neither removed nor loosened. On the contrary: throughout the government’s four years, fiscal restraint remained central to its political narrative. The administration proudly proclaimed that it had “put the state’s accounts in order,” without grasping either how misleading that phrase was—given the payment of 1 trillion reais in interest—or how badly the message was hurting it politically. Lula finally woke up in September 2026. The increase in Bolsa Família benefits, after four years of being frozen; the announcement that anti-obesity drugs would be offered through Brazil’s public health system; and the ban on online betting showed that the state has the power to act decisively on behalf of the majority when those in government are willing to confront obstacles. The huge marches that closed the campaign in Fortaleza, Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo on the eve of October 4 showed how such initiatives can mobilize activists and the broader public. But it was too late—and too little to change the outcome of the first round. History has not ended The possibility of a turnaround in the three weeks leading up to November 25 cannot be ruled out. It will not be simple or easy. Lula must not only make up a deficit of 2.2 million votes; he must also offset the movement of voters who backed other right-wing candidates in the first round, most of whom are likely to move toward Flávio Bolsonaro. Pulling that off will require a broad, grassroots effort to win over voters, potentially reinforced by new initiatives from Lula. The coming hours and days will be decisive. If Bolsonaro’s movement also wins the presidency, the result will create a high-risk situation for Brazilian sovereignty and democracy. The enormous challenges posed by such an outcome would require the left to reexamine, in depth and with a genuine willingness to engage in self-criticism, its political projects—or its lack of them—and its practices. But would that mean we are condemned to the long winter of far-right hegemony that some analyses are beginning to forecast? It is far too early to say, suggests a recent text by Álvaro García Linera, the thinker who served as vice president of Bolivia under Evo Morales. His central hypothesis is that this political current will prove short-lived. At a moment when the entire world is once again talking about sovereignty and protecting national economies, the far right offers a stale, recolonizing neoliberalism. Its submission to the United States is as blatant and pathetic as Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro’s overtures to Donald Trump. Its project amounts to something like every man for himself: greater inequality, capitalism without limits, devastation, and supremacism. Will it work? In the United States, just two years into his second term, Trump himself is reaching record levels of unpopularity and may be on the verge of losing Republican control of both the House and Senate in November. Every new beginning is difficult. Whatever the outcome of the second round, the defeats of October 4 show how profoundly the Brazilian left will have to rethink and rebuild. But just as it would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of its mistakes, it would be equally foolish to conclude that rebuilding a political project is no longer possible. History has not ended. The times are moving faster than ever. Originally published in Portuguese by Outras Palavras. English translation by Eric Blanc; I’ve added the subtitles. More We can’t stop the far right at home or abroad without a revitalized labor movement, which is yet another reason why you should become a sustaining supporter of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) — one of US labor’s pivotal bright spots. Relatedly, Jacobin published a short piece of mine reflecting on a decade of Bernie Sanders inspiring a whole new generation of young worker organizers.
Crypto Billionaire Chris Larsen Is Spending Millions to Shape US Politics
The crypto billionaire has given at least $22.5 million to federal candidates and super PACs this cycle — and plans to go even bigger.
Brooklyn Beckham 'building business empire with help from billionaire father-in-law'
Brooklyn Beckham is reportedly planning to build a business empire based around "everyday products". The 27-year-old son of Sir David Beckham and Lady Victoria Beckham - who is estranged from his pare...
Crypto billionaire seeking to reshape politics runs against zeitgeist — and donates to Sherrod Brown
“I’ve had a lot of conversations with him," Chris Larsen says of Brown, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio. "He is not anti-crypto.”
Billionaire's political contributions make the Epstein files a focus of Ohio's US Senate race
Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's relationship to the rich and powerful has surfaced in congressional contests across the country.
Johnson casts re-election fight as ‘billionaires versus the Brandon Johnson coalition’
The mayor cast his reelection campaign as a fight against billionaires and City Council opponents while defending his record on crime.
Tech billionaires trying to live for ever? That’s a waste of time, says physicist
Exclusive: Prof Jim Al-Khalili says he will offer solution to ‘arrow of time’ problem in Royal Institution lectures
Billionaire's political contributions make the Epstein files a focus of Ohio's US Senate race
Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's relationship to the rich and powerful has surfaced in congressional contests across the country. In Ohio, it’s an issue that has figured prominently in the
Billionaire Mark Cuban’s 5-step plan to make healthcare affordable targets drug middlemen’s ‘contractual terrorism’
The Cost Plus Drugs cofounder told Texas lawmakers that insured patients are often better off paying cash—and laid out five fixes built around price transparency.
Imprisoned tech fraudster Elizabeth Holmes to be moved to halfway house
Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced onetime youngest self-made billionaire whose health care startup Theranos turned out to be a fraud, will be moved from her current minimum-security prison to a halfway
Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm commits $150M to advance health education, research
The University of Oklahoma announced a $150 million donation from billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm Tuesday.
Hiltzik: The politics of wealth taxes
The billionaires' attack on California's wealth tax initiative shows why it's needed.
Katie Porter: Prop 40 won’t help fix our broken healthcare system
OPINION: Progressives who have long fought for “Medicare for All” should resist a billionaires tax that entrenches a troubled for-profit healthcare system, rather than dismantling it.
Billionaire tax is dividing California healthcare system it's designed to support
California's proposal to tax billionaires more, known as Proposition 40, is dividing the healthcare system, which it is supposed to help.
Reform and the UAE – a threat to British politics
By Alex Carlen The United Arab Emirates likes to present itself as part of the solution to the climate crisis. The oil-rich Gulf state has committed to Net Zero by 2050, hosted COP 28, and even declared “championing climate action” as one of three strategic objectives for this week’s session of the United Nations General Assembly. But behind the scenes the UAE has quietly built one of its closest political relationships in Europe with the party most hostile to climate action in Britain: Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. There is no evidence that the UAE is funding Reform. But a new FairSquare report, Petro-populism: the UAE–Reform threat, published today, documents a growing political relationship that should concern anyone interested in the integrity of British democracy. Reform’s leaders have embraced the UAE’s political model and promoted positions that align closely with the Emirati government’s priorities, while the UAE has given Farage and his party unusually warm access and public backing. What is emerging is not simply a relationship between British politicians and a wealthy Gulf state, but a channel through which an authoritarian government can cultivate political influence here, and abroad. Democracy for Sale relies on its readers. If you already support us, thanks so much. If you don’t, sign up to support fearless independent investigative journalism. Subscribe Back in January, Nigel Farage appeared at a GB News event in Dubai. On the 50th floor of a tower overlooking the luxury resorts and upscale residences of Palm Jumeirah, the Reform leader declared: “I want Clacton to look like this.” At the event – which Farage never declared on his official register of interests – senior Emirati officials mixed with British expats. Farage was keen to flatter. “We recognise you are our friends”, he said, assuring them that “a Brexit London, a Reform London, will remember you.” Controversy surrounding Reform’s finances and its susceptibility to foreign influence have centred around high-profile donations from billionaire crypto donors, and the jailing of Nathan Gill, Reform’s former leader in Wales, for accepting bribes to give pro-Russia speeches. Far less attention has been paid to Reform’s blossoming new alliance with the UAE, an oil-rich authoritarian state with a track record of ruinous anti-democratic interventions. Farage wasn’t always so fond of the UAE. Back in 2023 he called it an “absolute monarchy with an abysmal human rights record.” Now Reform’s hierarchy calls the UAE home. Deputy leader Richard Tice splits his time between his constituency and Dubai and has called on the UK to learn from the UAE. The party’s treasurer Nick Candy runs a firm which has been in partnership with a UAE-state linked firm since 2024. Nadhim Zahawi sits on the board of an Abu Dhabi think tank alongside an array of the most senior UAE officials and is reportedly close to three brothers of the country’s despotic ruler Mohammed Bin Zayed. Reform’s leading lights have effusively praised the UAE’s governance model, defended it from criticism, and advanced its political agenda in the UK. GB News, whose two major shareholders – the Legatum Foundation and Paul Marshall – have strong links to the UAE, has been more than happy to broadcast UAE propaganda and was forced to pay damages in 2025 after airing a false claim about a UK charity by the UAE “disinfluencer” Amjad Taha. The UAE has responded in kind. When the UAE Minister for Foreign Affairs conducted an official visit to the UK in May, Farage was the only non-government figure granted an audience. UAE state media publicised the meeting, and said that they discussed “the strategic relations between the two countries and ways to enhance them in a manner that serves mutual interests.” For the UAE these ‘mutual interests’ largely concern its paranoia over political Islam, and in this regard the UAE-Reform alliance is part of a broad and troubling pattern. Following a crackdown on dissent at home in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the UAE has offered material and political support to a range of violent and authoritarian actors willing to oppose the Muslim Brotherhood with no regard for the consequences. Its meddling in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and most notably Sudan, have been devastating. The UAE’s strategy of seeking out partners on the political fringes who it believes will advance its interests is not unique to Britain – it extends beyond the Middle East to Europe and the US. In France, it has offered clandestine support to Marine Le Pen through secret meetings, as well allegedly funding trips to the region after which Le Pen returned with a renewed focus on the UAE’s perceived enemies – Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. Left-wing opposition leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon has accused the UAE of smearing him and of “encouraging discrimination, hatred or violence”. In the US, the UAE actively supported the rise of Donald Trump, establishing itself as a key ally during both his first and second terms. Around these relationships sits a wider ecosystem of figures willing to amplify UAE narratives, that even extends to Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson. Subscribe In Britain, the UAE has used a combination of aggressive diplomacy and illicit, disruptive tactics to achieve its policy goal of eliminating any perceived threat from political Islam. In 2012, for instance, it threatened to block billion-pound arms deals with the UK and stop inward investment if David Cameron did not act against the Muslim Brotherhood and rein in the BBC’s coverage of the group – going so far as to suggest, with no supporting evidence, that the group had infiltrated the BBC. It has financed smear campaigns against a high-profile UK charity and funded a mercenary to secretly surveil, and possibly assassinate, a British national on British soil. In Reform UK, the UAE has finally found an ally willing to not only ban the Muslim Brotherhood, but to publicly vilify the group and repeat the UAE’s claims that dangerous Muslims are a fifth column in British society, a narrative that aligns with the Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiments that underpin Reform’s populist politics. The Rycroft review into foreign interference concluded that “hostile states and non-state actors have a clear incentive to attempt to undermine UK democracy.” The UAE’s network and alliance with Reform must be understood within that framework. It is a powerful, disruptive and deeply authoritarian actor with the resources and networks to intervene in our politics, and a track-record of doing so in a multitude of other countries. The evidence of the threat the UAE poses is overwhelming. The question is whether parliamentarians are willing to call the UAE out and demand action using the tools that the government has to respond. Placing the UAE on the “Enhanced Tier” of the Foreign Registration scheme alongside Russia and Iran would send a powerful signal to the UAE that its meddling will no longer be tolerated, and would place Farage’s next trips to the UAE under the scrutiny they deserve. Alex Carlen is research and advocacy manager at London based human rights organisation FairSquare and author of its new report Petro-populism: the UAE–Reform threat. Subscribe
7 US multimillionaire donors gave $189 million to universities in 2026, far more than Africa’s 23 billionaires publicly gave to science and research
Africa’s universities and research institutions continue to operate with far less funding than those in developed economies, even as several of the continent’s richest individuals have added billions of dollars to their fortunes in 2026
California’s Billionaire Tax Promises Healthcare Relief. The Fine Print Is Murkier.
An initiative on the California ballot would levy the nation’s first wealth tax on billionaires. Supporters say the proceeds would help offset President Donald Trump’s sweeping healthcare cuts. But critics argue that the temporary infusion of cash is a giveaway to politicians.
Billionaires abound in California. Why not tax their wealth?
No state may be a more natural fit for a tax on billionaires than California. It leans left and its 250 billionaires are worth nearly $2 trillion. But a ballot initiative to impose a one-time 5% tax might not pass.
Ranking Member Markey: SBA Administrator Loeffler, Trump Administration are Refusing to Answer to America’s 36+ Million Small Businesses and Workers, Leaving Main Street Behind
Loeffler canceled her scheduled Sept. 30 appearance before the Senate Small Business Committee, has not appeared before SBC in more than a year (Washington, September 28) – Ranking Member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today released the following statement after Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator Kelly Loeffler canceled her scheduled Wednesday appearance before the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. Administrator Loeffler has not appeared before the committee in more than a year and has consistently refused to provide substantial answers to committee members in person, in writing, or via requested briefings. In June, Ranking Member Markey led every Democratic member of the committee in calling on Administrator Loeffler to appear before the committee to answer for the Trump administration’s cruel attacks on American small businesses, entrepreneurs, and workers. The Democratic lawmakers still have not received a response from Administrator Loeffler. “It is unacceptable that Administrator Loeffler chose to cancel her appearance before the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. The Trump administration is once again ignoring the more than 36 million American small businesses, entrepreneurs, and workers who drive our economy and enrich our communities by refusing to answer questions about this administration’s reckless economic policies. It has been more than a year since Administrator Loeffler has appeared before our committee and answered questions from both Democrats and Republicans. Since then, the Trump administration’s attacks on Main Street have only worsened. “Small businesses are facing record high gas and diesel prices, skyrocketing healthcare costs, and never-ending uncertainty from Trump’s trade war with the world. Trump has terrorized Main Streets across the country with violent ICE raids, destroying families, communities, and local economies. Meanwhile, Administrator Loeffler and the Trump SBA have been in a Witness Protection Program, ignoring the Pain on Main Street that they have created. They have chosen to make drastic cuts to SBA funding and essential, bipartisan programs, including the closure of the SBA office in Springfield and removal of the SBA office from Boston; directly attacked immigrant small business owners and destroyed the promise of the American Dream; and proposed shortsighted small business size rules that would benefit billion-dollar businesses over actual small businesses. “It’s clear that Administrator Loeffler, President Trump, and their CEO billionaire buddies want to turn the Small Business Administration into the Big Business Administration, tear down our economy, and abandon Main Street. If that is indeed this administration’s goal, Administrator Loeffler must answer to the millions of small businesses, workers, and families in Massachusetts and across the country that this administration is leaving behind.” ###