'Outlandish': Trump shocks with demand DOJ pay him $230M for grievances

FUNNY THAT, SAME COST AS WHITE HOUSE RENO?!

David Edwards
October 21, 2025
RAW STORY


President Donald Trump has reportedly demanded that his Justice Department pay him $230 million in taxpayer dollars as compensation for past actions that he disagreed with.

Trump submitted claims to the Justice Department beginning in 2023, alleging that his rights were violated by investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, The New York Times reported Tuesday. A complaint submitted last year accused the Department of Justice of privacy violations that occurred during an FBI search for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago in 2022.

Ethics experts said the situation was unparalleled in U.S. history because many people tasked with approving the payments were Trump's personal lawyers and supporters, whom he installed at the Justice Department after being re-elected.


"What a travesty," Pace University ethics professor Bennett L. Gershman told the Times. "The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don't need a law professor to explain it."

"And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not, and these are the people who serve him, deciding whether he wins or loses. It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."

Trump seemed to acknowledge that he had asked the Justice Department to pay him during an Oval Office event with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the president's former criminal attorney.

"I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president. I said, I'm sort of suing myself. I don't know, how do you settle the lawsuit?? I'll say give me X dollars, and I don't know what to do with the lawsuit," Trump said at the time. "It sort of looks bad, I'm suing myself, right? So I don't know. But that was a lawsuit that was very strong, very powerful."

Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin declined to say whether Blanche would recuse himself from approving payments to Trump.

"In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials," Gilmartin said.


Trump under fire over demand DOJ cut him $230M check: 'Straight up looting taxpayers'

Sarah K. Burris
October 21, 2025 

RAW STORY


President Donald Trump is demanding that the Justice Department give him $230 million to cover his legal fees for the investigations into him over the Russia probe, for stealing classified documents, and for the Jan. 6 attack and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

While the Times cited experts who say there's no ambiguity when it comes to the ethics of the matter, others fear the U.S. Supreme Court's decision giving Trump complete control over his branch of government could give him a pass here, too.

"A nice illustration that the unitary executive theory violates nemo iudex in causa sua, since it holds that he could just order this to be approved (which is de facto what he's going to do)," said Jacob T. Leavy, Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory at McGill University.

"This isn't complicated, he's just straight up extorting the Justice Department and looting taxpayers to put $230 million in his own pocket. Don't hold your breath waiting for any Republicans in the party to speak up about this either," complained the anti-Trump group The Lincoln Project.

"Not taking a salary, but demanding 575x his salary as tribute from DOJ," commented Media Matters fellow Matthew Gertz.


"This would be the most corrupt act in presidential history. No complicated schemes, no outside actors, just a straight up looting of the taxpayers to put $230 million in Trump's pocket," said former State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller.


Political scientist David Leheny posited that the DOJ might kick in an extra $50 million "to thank him for the opportunity to serve."

"Looking forward to the roar of silence from elected Republicans about this truly shocking, unprecedented display of corruption, and of course the MAGA ditto heads breaking their backs trying to come up with some whatabout comparison to a Democrat," said senior political science lecturer Damon Linker.

"Democrats should be drawing up legislation right now, this very minute, to bar Trump from helping himself to $230 million in taxpayer funds from DOJ. Challenge Republicans to hold a vote on it. Push this so hard in the media that every GOP Senate and House candidate is pressed to comment on it," demanded New Republic columnist Greg Sargent.


National security analyst Marcy Wheeler replied, "Sure, fine. But let's focus on Todd Blanche's criminal liability and how if he does this it's bc he needs a pardon. There is literally zero reason to focus primarily on Dems here. It's fighting the wrong adversary."


'Might as well rob Fort Knox!' ‘Extortionist in chief’ slammed by ex-FBI attorney

Sarah K. Burris
October 21, 2025 

RAW STORY

Former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann slammed President Donald Trump for the proposal that the Justice Department give him $230 million to make up for the investigations into the 2016 Russia matter, the classified documents case, and the investigation into Trump's role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Tuesday after the story broke from the New York Times, Weissmann said, "essentially the president of the United States is now the extortionist in chief. We saw it with ABC. We saw it with CBS. We saw it with the law firms. And now, he might as well just go ahead and rob Fort Knox and take the gold out."

He explained that in a "normal time," Justice Department leaders would identify a conflict because the people overseeing whether Trump would get $230 million in taxpayer dollars are Trump's former personal lawyers in that matter. Typically, those individuals would step aside and appoint an independent counsel.

"And you know what would happen? There would be a hearing. The last thing that Donald Trump wants," said Weissmann.

Trump has spent years attacking Weissmann because he also served on Robert Mueller's special counsel team. So, Weissmann suggested that all of it be part of a larger public conversation.

"Let's have a hearing on the Russia case. Let's have a hearing on Mar-a-Lago. All of the things that he has tried to avoid," continued Weissmann. "Remember, he always said in the Russia case, Oh, I'm happy to testify. Yeah, no. He wasn't. Never happened. The Mar-a-Lago case? He tried to put that off. Let's have a hearing so he can have his day in court to show why he actually has the 'right side' of this and let the independent people at the department show why he's wrong."


That, however, is the last thing that Trump wants, Weissmann added.

He noted that Trump pardoned former Rep. George Santos (R-NY), realizing, "Who's going to stop me here?"

"And there really does need to be a sort of political cost to him when this is coming at the expense of our taxpayer money, as you noted at the outset. This is not something that is free," he told Wallace.

Trump accused ​of 'shaking down' his own government by judiciary member

Nicole Charky-Chami
October 21, 2025

RAW STORY


A House Judiciary Committee member accused President Donald Trump on Tuesday of "shaking down" his own government and called on GOP lawmakers to stand up.

Trump reportedly demanded that his Justice Department pay him $230 million in taxpayer dollars as compensation for past actions that he disagreed with. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) shared his reaction to Trump's latest move with CNN anchor Kasie Hunt.

"We are combining the weaponization of the Department of Justice by him putting his political lackeys there — with his grift and corruption — to make money off of the presidency. It is completely absurd. Donald Trump would have been convicted at trial in both of those cases. The only reason they went away is because he won the election, and a president cannot be tried," Goldman said.

"And the notion that there was anything wrong with those investigations is preposterous," he added. "But even more so, to then demand of his own Justice Department and his own appointees that they pay him $200 million — for who knows what — is a shakedown... of his own government, where he is literally just digging into the coffers of his own government and saying, let's just put $230 million into my own pocket. When are the Republicans going to stand up for anything?"

MEGLOMANIAC GRIFTER VANITY PROJECT

White House begins demolishing part of East Wing for Trump's ballroom


The White House began demolishing part of its East Wing on Monday to build President Donald Trump’s new ballroom, despite lacking approval from the federal agency that normally oversees such projects. Photos showed a backhoe tearing into the façade as reporters watched from a nearby park near the Treasury Department.


Issued on: 21/10/2025 
By: FRANCE 24

Workers at the White House prepare to construct a new ballroom, September 16, 2025, Washington, DC. © Andrew Leyden, Reuters

The White House on Monday started tearing down part of the East Wing, the traditional base of operations for the first lady, to build President Donald Trump's ballroom despite lacking approval for construction from the federal agency that oversees such projects.

Dramatic photos of the demolition work showed a backhoe tearing into the East Wing façade and windows and other building parts in tatters on the ground. Some reporters watched from a park near the Treasury Department, which is next door to the East Wing.

Trump announced the start of construction in a social media post and referenced the work while hosting 2025 college baseball champs Louisiana State University and LSU-Shreveport in the East Room. He noted the work was happening “right behind us”.

“We have a lot of construction going on, which you might hear periodically,” he said, adding, “It just started today.”

The White House has moved ahead with the massive construction project despite not yet having sign-off from the National Capital Planning Commission, which approves construction work and major renovations to government buildings in the Washington area.

Its chairman, Will Scharf, who is also the White House staff secretary and one of Trump's top aides, said at the commission's September meeting that agency does not have jurisdiction over demolition or site preparation work for buildings on federal property.

“What we deal with is essentially construction, vertical build,” Scharf said last month.

Work begins on the demolition of a part of the East Wing of the White House, Monday, October 20, 2025, © Evan Vucci, AP


It was unclear whether the White House had submitted the ballroom plans for the agency's review and approval. The White House did not respond to a request for comment and the commission's offices are closed because of the government shutdown.

The Republican president had said in July when the project was announced that the ballroom would not interfere with the mansion itself.

“It’ll be near it but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” he said of the White House. “It’s my favourite. It’s my favorite place. I love it.”

The East Wing houses several offices, including the office of the first lady. It was constructed in 1902 and and has been renovated over the years, and a second story was added in 1942, according to the White House.

© France 24
01:41

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said those East Wing offices will be temporarily relocated during construction and that wing of the building will be modernised and renovated.

“Nothing will be torn down,” Leavitt said when she announced the project in July.

Trump insists that such a ballroom has been desired for 150 years and that he's adding the massive 90,000-square-foot, glass-walled space because the East Room, which is the largest room in the White House with an approximately 200-person capacity, is too small. He also has said he does not like the idea of hosting kings, queens, presidents and prime ministers in pavilions on the South Lawn.

The ballroom will be the biggest structural change to the Executive Mansion since the addition of the Truman Balcony overlooking the South Lawn in 1948, even dwarfing the building itself.

At a dinner he hosted last week for some of the wealthy business executives who are donating money toward the $250 million construction cost, Trump said the project had grown in size and now will accommodate 999 people. The capacity was 650 seated people at the July announcement.

The clearing of trees on the south grounds and other site preparation work started in September. Plans call for the ballroom to be ready before Trump's term ends in January 2029.

(FRANCE 24 with AP)

Trump demolishes part of White House for new ballroom


By AFP
October 20, 2025


Heavy machinery began tearing down a section of the East Wing of the White House as construction commenced on President Donald Trump’s planned ballroom - Copyright AFP/File Leonardo MUNOZ
Danny KEMP

Donald Trump has often been dubbed a political wrecking ball for his unorthodox style — and now the US president has literally started demolition work on the White House.

Work crews began tearing down part of the East Wing on Monday as the former property mogul said work had formally commenced on a huge new $250-million ballroom.

A mechanical excavator had ripped through the facade of the East Wing, leaving a tangle of broken masonry, rubble and steel wires, AFP journalists at the scene saw.

Republican Trump said as he hosted college baseball players at the White House on Monday that “right on the other side you have a lot of construction that you might hear occasionally.”

The 79-year-old billionaire later officially announced that work had started on the ballroom, the biggest addition to the US presidential mansion in more than a century.

“I am pleased to announce that ground has been broken on the White House grounds to build the new, big, beautiful White House Ballroom,” Trump said on his Truth Social network.

Trump said the East Wing was being “fully modernized as part of this process, and will be more beautiful than ever when it is complete!”

The East Wing is where US first ladies have traditionally had their offices. The president works in the West Wing and the couple live in the Executive Mansion.



– ‘Generous Patriots’ –



But while Trump said that the East Wing is “completely separate from the White House itself,” it is in fact physically joined to the main mansion by a covered colonnade.

Trump says the new 90,000-square-foot ballroom with a capacity of 1,000 people is needed to host large state dinners and other events that currently have to be held in a tent.

The former reality TV star held a glitzy dinner at the White House last week for donors to the ballroom.

The guests included representatives from tech firms like Amazon, Apple, Meta, Google, Microsoft and Palantir and defense giant Lockheed Martin — all companies with significant contracts or other dealings with the government.

They also included twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the founders of crypto platform Gemini, who were made famous as jilted investors in the movie “The Social Network” about the birth of Facebook.

“The White House Ballroom is being privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly. This Ballroom will be happily used for Generations to come!” he said on Monday.

It is the largest part of the huge makeover Trump has given the White House since returning to power in January, including covering the Oval Office with gold decor and paving over the Rose Garden.

Trump has also unveiled plans for a huge triumphal arch in Washington, which was dubbed the “Arc de Trump” after AFP first revealed the proposal.

'Losers': White House rages as shock demolition of East Wing gets furious backlash

Adam Nichols
October 21, 2025
RAW STORY




Ongoing construction on the East Wing of the White House, where U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed ballroom is being built, in Washington, D.C., October 20, 2025. REUTERS/Jessica Koscielniak


The White House reacted late Monday to deafening criticism of its shock move to pull down part of the White House's historic East Wing to make way for a massive ballroom.

President Trump defended the massive project, declaring, "They've wanted a ballroom for 150 years. And I'm giving that honor to this wonderful place. You're gonna see a ballroom the likes of which... I don't think it'll be topped."

Demolition crews moved in on Monday, ripping off the face of the White House wing to begin building the 90,000-square-foot ballroom, designed to accommodate 999 people and be covered in bulletproof glass. California Governor Gavin Newsom dramatically stating Trump is "Ripping apart the White House just like he's ripping apart the Constitution."

But White House officials aggressively defended the renovation. Communications Director Steven Cheung argued, "Construction has always been a part of the evolution of the White House. Losers who are quick to criticize need to stop their pearl clutching and understand the building needs to be modernized."

He also hit out at a Democratic critic, calling him "moronic" and a "buffoon."

Trump emphasized that the project is being privately funded by rich donors — including himself. He recently held an exclusive dinner to thank donors who contributed millions. "A couple of you sitting here [were] saying, 'Uh, sir, would $25 million be appropriate?'," Trump noted. "I said, 'I'll take it.'"

The White House's official response repeatedly stressed that taxpayers would not bear the cost, with its official X account claiming the ballroom "will be cherished for generations."

Critics, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Tina Smith, lambasted the project. CNN commentator Karen Finney called the timing "fairly grotesque," especially during a government shutdown and high inflation.

In contrast, CNN's conservative commentator Scott Jennings praised the renovation, saying, "Donald Trump is all about hospitality... This is going to give us a place in the White House to do the biggest and best hospitality we've ever done."

'Bad timing': Trump scolded by Senate Republican for ballroom construction during shutdown

Matthew Chapman
October 21, 2025

RAW STORY


Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC). Image via the Tillis for Senate campaign.

At least one Republican senator is dismayed to see President Donald Trump begin construction on his controversial new White House ballroom: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC).

Speaking to HuffPost's Igor Bobic, Tillis said that the "timing is bad" for Trump to do something so lavish.

“We’re in the middle of a shutdown," said Tillis. "Got a couple of other things going on that we should probably focus on ahead of a building project.”

The Trump administration's ballroom project, which they boast will be paid for entirely with taxpayer money, is slated to cost $200 million, financed by donations from private companies, and will be considerably larger than the original White House building itself.

While the administration claimed that no aspect of the current facility will be altered to build the new one, new images have emerged of construction that is demolishing portions of the East Wing.

Amid outrage, the White House has dismissed any concerns, asserting that renovations to the East Wing are commonplace and not the same as alterations to the original building. "Construction has always been a part of the evolution of the White House. Losers who are quick to criticize need to stop their pearl clutching and understand the building needs to be modernized," said White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, known for his confrontational and puerile responses to reporters.

Tillis, who is retiring next year, has increasingly grown critical of the Trump administration, leading some to suspect he is more freely speaking his mind now that he is unburdened from the threat of a primary challenge.

UH,OH

US begins sending nuke workers home as shutdown drags

By AFP
October 20, 2025


An inflatable nuclear missile balloon installed for a protest by the group Global Zero in Washington on April 1, 2016 - Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File WIN MCNAMEE
Frankie TAGGART

The agency responsible for safeguarding the US nuclear stockpile began placing most staff on enforced leave Monday, US media reported, as the government shutdown dragged into a fourth week.

Some 1,400 workers at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) were due to receive notices telling them they had been placed on unpaid “furlough,” CNN reported, leaving just 375 at their posts.

“Since its creation in 2000, NNSA has never before furloughed federal workers during funding lapses,” Energy Department spokesman Ben Dietderich told CNN.

“We are left with no choice this time. We’ve extended funding as long as we could.”

The United States has an arsenal of 5,177 nuclear warheads, with about 1,770 deployed, according to the global security nonprofit Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The NNSA is responsible for designing, manufacturing, servicing and securing the weapons, and oversees some 60,000 contractors.

The Department of Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Energy Secretary Chris Wright was expected to highlight the impact on the nuclear deterrent during a visit later Monday to the Nevada National Security Site.

The furloughs will initially hit sites that assemble nuclear weapons, forcing facilities such as Pantex in Texas and Y-12 in Tennessee into “safe shutdown mode,” CNN reported.

At 20 days, America is enduring the longest full government shutdown ever — the third-longest if partial stoppages are included.

President Donald Trump has been ratcheting up pressure on Democrats to vote with his Republicans to reopen the government, with increasingly ominous threats to slash public services and start mass layoffs.

Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, told CNBC he expected the shutdown to end “some time this week” — but warned Democrats of “stronger measures… to bring them to the table” if it dragged further.


– ‘Danger to the American people’ –

Senate Republicans have offered a vote on renewing expiring health care subsidies for 24 million Americans — Democrats’ key condition for backing a House-passed funding resolution that would reopen the government.

But many Democrats insist that any deal in the upper chamber of Congress will be meaningless without the sign-off of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Trump.

Johnson has vowed to keep the lower chamber of Congress closed until the shutdown ends, and it has already been out of session since September 19.

“Every day that the government is shut down, it is a danger to the American people,” Johnson told reporters on Monday, when he was asked about the NNSA furloughs.

He warned that falling behind US adversaries in the nuclear arms race would be a “very serious” threat to America’s status as “the last great superpower.”

Trump meanwhile has been clear that he believes Republicans are winning the messaging war and has not felt the need so far to intervene.

The next significant inflection point may come on November 1, the start of open enrollment for health insurance.

Punchbowl News reported that Senate Democrats see this date as a potential off-ramp because they can argue that it will not be possible afterwards for Congress to address the expiring subsidies.

Democratic strategists are confident that they can stick Republicans with the blame for skyrocketing premiums and health care coverage losses that would hit millions of Americans in 2026 if no action is taken.

Federal employees — who generally get paid every two weeks — are expected to miss the entire amount for the first time on Thursday, and troop pay is another issue pressuring lawmakers to strike a deal.

The Senate is due to consider legislation midweek that would allow members of the military and other federal workers to receive pay, though it’s not clear that the effort has sufficient Democratic buy-in.

And the Senate is expected to reject for the 11th time the House-passed resolution to reopen the government.

Shares in French bank BNP Paribas plummet after US verdict

Analysts at RBC Capital Markets had suggested in a broker note that “there might be an argument that BNP aims to settle in order to avoid a larger payment as a result of court rulings”.

By AFP
October 20, 2025


BNP Paribas says it will appeal the US verdict against it - Copyright ${image.metadata.node.credit} ${image.metadata.node.creator}

Shares in France’s biggest bank, BNP Paribas, sank more than seven percent in trading on Monday, following a US court verdict late last week finding it liable for atrocities committed in Sudan.

A New York jury on Friday found the bank helped prop up the regime of former Sudanese ruler Omar al-Bashir, opening the way to compensation demands.

The eight-member jury sided with three plaintiffs originally from Sudan, awarding a total of $20.75 million in damages, after hearing testimony describing horrors committed by Sudanese soldiers and the Janjaweed militia.

BNP Paribas on Monday declared its “unwavering intention to appeal” the verdict.

“There is no doubt whatsoever that the bank will fight this case and use all recourses available to it,” it said.

BNP Paribas did business in Sudan from the late 1990s until 2009 and provided letters of credit that allowed Sudan to honour import and export commitments.

The three plaintiffs who brought the US case — two men and one woman, all now American citizens — alleged that these contracts helped finance violence perpetrated by Sudan against a part of its population.

They told the federal court in Manhattan that they had been tortured, burned with cigarettes, slashed with a knife, and, in the case of the woman, sexually assaulted.

Attorneys for the French bank argued that its operations in Sudan had been legal in Europe, and stated that the bank had no knowledge of the human rights violations.

The bank said the atrocities would have been committed regardless of its operations in Sudan.

The war in Sudan claimed some 300,000 lives between 2002 and 2008 and displaced 2.5 million people, according to the United Nations.

Bashir, who led Sudan for three decades, was ousted and detained in April 2019 following months of protests in Sudan. He is wanted by the International Criminal Court on genocide charges.

The big drop in BNP Paribas’s shares in afternoon Paris trading outstripped a decline for other French banks, which sank around one percent.

The bank sought to tamp down speculation that the ruling could open it up to further cases.

“This verdict is specific to these three plaintiffs and should not have broader application,” BNP Paribas said in a statement.

“Any attempt to extrapolate is necessarily wrong as is any speculation regarding a potential settlement,” it added.

Analysts at RBC Capital Markets had suggested in a broker note that “there might be an argument that BNP aims to settle in order to avoid a larger payment as a result of court rulings”.

They pointed to estimates by Bloomberg that the settlement could be in the range of $10 billion.

Trial opens in Klarna’s $8.3-bn lawsuit against Google


By AFP
October 20, 2025


Image: — © AFP GREG BAKER

A Swedish court began hearing arguments Monday in a lawsuit brought by Swedish price comparison site Pricerunner, owned by Klarna, against tech giant Google for over $8 billion for promoting its own shopping comparisons in search results.

The Swedish tech startup filed its suit with the Patent and Market Court in Stockholm in 2022, following a European Union General Court ruling that Google “breached EU antitrust laws by manipulating search results in favour of their own comparison shopping services.”

Originally, Pricerunner said it was suing Google for around $2 billion but said at the time it expected the “final damages amount of the lawsuit to be significantly higher”, given that “the violation is still ongoing.”

In a statement, Swedish fintech giant Klarna — which acquired Pricerunner in 2022 — noted that the European Commission already ruled in 2017 “that Google had violated competition law by favouring its own shopping service.”

“The European Court of Justice upheld the ruling in 2024. Klarna is now demanding compensation in accordance with the ruling,” it added.

“We’re seeking approximately 78 billion kronor ($8.3 billion), based on economic analysis of losses incurred,” Klarna spokesman John Craske told AFP in an email Monday.

Craske added that the damages sought continued to “grow daily”.

The lawsuit comes after European authorities determined favoured its own comparison shopping service in search results – Copyright ${image.metadata.node.credit}

 ${image.metadata.node.creator}

Klarna said in a statement on Friday that “to reach consumers online, you need to be visible in search results. And that’s where Google has almost complete power,” noting that over 90 percent of searches in Europe go through Google’s platform.

It also said that prior to Google launching its own price comparison service, independent price comparison sites were shown high up in search results.

According to the court, Google is arguing that “it has not abused its dominant position following the Commission’s decision and that Pricerunner has not suffered any damage whatsoever.”

AFP has reached out to Google for comment but has not received a reply.

The trial is scheduled to last until December 19.

Bad Google search results cost consumers up to $616 per click


By Dr. Tim Sandle
SCIENCE EDITOR

DIGITAL JOURNAL
October 21, 2025


Photo illustration: — © Digital Journal

With many consumers struggling financially and the courts allowing Google’s monopolistic practices to continue largely unchecked, the finance company WalletHub has released a case study highlighting the impact on the U.S. population.

READ MORE: As Google seeks to take more data, WalletHub leads the business countermand

For this, WalletHub analysed how the top credit card recommended by each of the websites on the first page of Google search results for “best 0 APR credit cards” compares to the best 0% credit card on the market.

Here’s what WalletHub’s research revealed:$341: Average cost of trusting the top recommendations from the websites Google ranks on the first page of search results.

$266: Average cost of following biased recommendations from credit card companies on the first page of search results.

$568: Cost of following the top-ranking Reddit page’s recommendations.

$616: Cost of following the worst option on the first page of Google results.

37: WalletHub’s ranking despite recommending the best 0% credit card on the market, which can save people $108 – $616 compared to the page 1 sites’ top results.


Commenting on the findings, Odysseas Papadimitriou, WalletHub CEO explains in a statement sent to Digital Journal: “Google results have gone so far downhill, they’re practically underwater, and it’s costing people a lot of time and money – especially those who mistakenly believe the top results are still the best results.”

Contextualising the output, Papadimitriou relates the findings thus: “Just put yourself in the shoes of someone searching for the “best 0% APR credit cards” in the hopes of making a big-ticket emergency expense more affordable. If you search on Google and apply for the top card recommended by the sites listed on the first page, you could end up spending over $600 more than necessary.” This brings with it consequences: “With household budgets stretched as thin as they are right now, that’s simply unacceptable. Most people don’t have an extra $600 to throw around, so the next time you come up short, you might want to blame Google.”

This has an adverse impact, as demonstrated by: “A lot of people assume Google’s incentives are aligned with their own, but that’s just not true anymore. Google wants to maximize profits, regardless of the impact on users. Individual searchers need to take a similarly self-centred approach, by not taking Google’s rankings as a value judgment and doing the research to maximize their own savings. Finding specific sources you trust is a big part of this, as is doing a bit more than simply picking the first product recommended by the first search result you see.

Papadimitriou concludes, observing: “It’s disappointing, but you simply can’t count on Google anymore.”

EU timber imports linked to deforestation on Indonesia’s Borneo: NGOs

KILLING ORANGUTANS

By AFP
October 20, 2025


Borneo island is home to orangutans, long-nosed monkeys, clouded leopards, pig-tailed macaques, flying fox-bats and the smallest rhinos on the planet - Copyright AFP Jack MOORE

Timber imports by companies operating in the European Union can be traced to logging on Indonesia’s Borneo island, a new report published Tuesday showed, with NGOs calling for the bloc to stop delaying a ban on deforestation-linked products.

The EU last month said it will seek a new one-year postponement of sweeping anti-deforestation rules known as the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), legislation that was cheered by green groups but assailed by trading partners, including the United States and Indonesia.

The report, published by Earthsight and Auriga Nusantara, traced the biggest Indonesian buyers of deforested wood in Borneo, showing that they all ship to clients in Europe with a high risk that such imports come from forest clearance.

“This report demonstrates why the EUDR is urgently needed in Europe’s timber sector: to ensure buyers can be confident in where their wood came from; to stop the flow of deforestation wood into Europe; and to end European complicity in the destruction of tropical forests,” the NGOs said.

“It also serves as an urgent call to action for any company importing timber products from Indonesia to the EU: these firms must carefully examine their supply chains and eliminate risk that their imports may be tainted by deforestation wood.”

European customers of Indonesian companies handling deforested wood were mainly Dutch, Belgian and German firms, which placed orders for more than 23,000 cubic metres of wood products, such as garden decking and finished plywood from Indonesia in 2024.

Companies named in the report — Dekker Hout, International Plywood BV, Seiton BV, Kurz KG, Fepco International and Impan GmbH — did not respond to AFP comment requests.

Indonesia has one of the world’s highest rates of deforestation linked to mining, farming and logging, and is accused of allowing firms to operate in Borneo with little oversight.

Borneo island has one of the world’s largest tracts of rainforest and hosts orangutans, long-nosed monkeys, clouded leopards, pig-tailed macaques, flying fox bats and the smallest rhinos on the planet.

Environmental groups reacted angrily to the prospect of postponing the EU bill, which was to ban imports of products driving deforestation from the end of 2025.

But the European Commission said the logistical infrastructure for implementing the law — already once pushed back a year — was not yet ready.

Climate change, population growth threats as malaria fight stalls


By AFP
October 20, 2025


Copyright AFP Jack MOORE

The fight against malaria has stalled after two decades of progress, with climate change and population growth among factors threatening a resurgence of the potentially fatal disease, campaigners said Tuesday.

Insufficient funding for increasingly costly prevention programmes risked efforts against the mosquito-borne illness at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, they said.

The impact would be most keenly felt in Africa which accounts for 95 percent of cases of the disease that claimed 590,000 deaths worldwide in 2023, the African Leaders Malaria Alliance (ALMA) and Malaria No More UK said in a new report.

Several African countries had reported upsurges in cases between January and June 2025 after heavy rainfalls, they said.

Malaria mortality has halved over the past two decades, said the report released ahead of a November 21 meeting in South Africa to secure contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, which covers 59 percent of malaria spending.

“Insufficient funding, however, has caused malaria progress to stall,” it said.

“A perfect storm of climate change, rising drug and insecticide resistance, trade disruptions, and global insecurity further undermine the efficacy of malaria interventions.”

There were around 263 million cases of malaria globally in 2023, an increase of 11 million cases from the previous year, according to the UN’s World Malaria Report 2024.



– Spreading –



“Increases in temperature and flooding due to climate change have increased the number of mosquito breeding sites,” ALMA executive secretary Joy Phumaphi told AFP.

In Rwanda, for example, these sites now existed at higher altitudes than previously, she said in an interview.

The malaria-carrying Anopheles stephensi mosquito from Asia has meanwhile spread into Africa while insecticide resistance has increased, she said.

New-generation prevention methods, such as dual-insecticide mosquito nets and the use of drones to disperse chemicals that kill mosquito larva, were effective but also more costly, she said.

At the same time, Africa’s population had almost doubled in the past 30 years. “It’s more expensive, but we also have to cover a bigger population than before,” Phumaphi said.

Malaria — most prevalent in Nigeria — is a leading cause of worker and student absenteeism, and also causes learning and cognitive disruption in children.

Besides saving lives, ridding countries of the disease would have “massive” returns on economies, including by boosting productivity and tourism, Phumaphi said.

Malaria “leads to huge amounts of out-of-pocket payments for households and is a major cause of poverty,” she said. “Once this market is protected, their purchasing power is enormous.”

An anti-malaria vaccine in use in 23 African countries was around 40 percent effective and had to be accompanied by other prevention measures. But a new vaccine undergoing human trials was hoped to show 80 percent efficacy, she said.

Funding modelling showed that a halt in all prevention interventions could cost Africa $83 billion in lost GDP by 2030, alongside 525 million additional cases and 990,000 more deaths on top of the already high annual toll, the report said.

Paris verdict due in TotalEnergies ‘greenwashing’ case

ByAFP
October 21, 2025


Total rebranded to TotalEnergies in 2021 to emphasise its diversification into wind turbines and solar panels - Copyright AFP Kazuhiro NOGI
Nathalie ALONSO

A Paris court is due to hand down a ruling Thursday whether French oil and gas giant TotalEnergies misled consumers with claims overstating its climate pledges, a case that could help shape greenwashing jurisprudence in Europe and beyond.

It is the first such case in France targeting a major energy company and could set a legal precedent for corporate environmental advertising, which is starting to face tighter regulations in the European Union.

The civil case stems from a March 2022 lawsuit by three environmental groups accusing TotalEnergies of “misleading commercial practices” for ads saying it could reach carbon neutrality while continuing oil and gas production.

The plaintiffs took that legal route as “greenwashing” — or the act of claiming to be more environmentally responsible than in reality — is not specifically covered under French law.

Starting in May 2021, TotalEnergies advertised its goal of “net zero by 2050, together with society” and touted gas as “the fossil fuel with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions”.

At the time, the company had changed its name from Total to TotalEnergies to emphasise its investments in wind turbines and solar panels for electricity production.

“It’s misleading, there is a big gap between reality and their activities which are still mostly based on fossil fuels… and their advertising which focuses on carbon neutrality and promoting gas and biofuels as clean energy,” said Juliette Renaud from the French chapter of Friends of the Earth activist group.

The lawsuit targeted around 40 “false advertisements”, some of which are still being used, according to climate groups.

It requested the court order their use be halted and TotalEnergy be required to put disclaimers on its ads that include warnings about the impact of fossil fuels on the climate.



– Possible precedent –



“For the average consumer, it is impossible to understand that TotalEnergies is actually expanding fossil fuel production,” Clementine Baldon, a lawyer for the NGOs, said at a hearing in June.

TotalEnergies maintains it has not engaged in misleading commercial practices and that it is “simplistic” to immediately stop using fossil fuels.

TotalEnergies also insisted that the messages are part of its institutional communications regulated by financial authorities and not consumer law.

It argued that the ads did not target consumers but its stakeholders such as investors and clients.

The affair was an exploitation “of consumer protection laws to criticise the strategy of the group”, TotalEnergies told AFP.

Companies have talked about their environmental commitments in ads for years, often resorting to vague terms such as “green” and “sustainable”.

But the legal terrain surrounding such claims is beginning to emerge.

In Europe, courts ruled against Dutch airline KLM in 2024 and Germany’s Lufthansa in March for misleading consumers about their efforts to reduce the environmental impact of flying.

A ruling against TotalEnergies “would put the oil and gas industry on notice that claiming to be aiming for net zero by 2050 when expanding fossil fuel production, or promoting gas as a climate solution, is misleading,” said Johnny White, a lawyer with ClientEarth.

“The case will set the precedent for oil and gas industry advertising narratives in EU consumer protection law” and even elsewhere as such laws are generally very similar, he added.

But legal rulings have not always gone against energy companies that are making environmental claims.

In Spain in February, utility Iberdrola Energia lost a case it had brought against Spanish oil and gas company Repsol over similar environmental claims.

European airlines drop vague promises on carbon offsets


By AFP
October 21, 2025


NGOs argue that airlines should have emission warnings on ads, like the health warnings for tobacco and alcohol - Copyright AFP/File BAY ISMOYO

Tangi QUEMENER

European airlines are starting to become prudent when promoting flight carbon-offset measures, such as reforestation, following courtroom losses and stepped-up pressure by regulators.

Dutch airline KLM in March last year lost a case about greenwashing — a practice in which companies are regarded as claiming to be more environmentally responsible than they really are.

An Amsterdam court ruled it misled consumers with “vague and general” adverts about efforts to reduce the environmental impact of flying, including painting “an overly rosy picture” about the impact of measures such as adopting sustainable aviation fuel.

In March, a German court banned airline giant Lufthansa from saying in its advertisements that passengers could “compensate” for carbon emissions from flights, finding that the claims were “misleading”.

Lufthansa had already received a red card from British regulators over its ads in 2023, as well as from Belgian regulators in prior years.

In 2023, the European consumer rights umbrella group BEUC filed a complaint with the European Commission, accusing European airlines of greenwashing and unfair commercial practices for inflating their green credentials.

A year later, the commission opened a probe, which is still ongoing, into 20 firms over misleading green claims.

BEUC said earlier this year that some airlines have since removed or changed their climate-related marketing claims.

For example, Norwegian Air Shuttle dropped climate claims from its reservation process, while Hungarian low-cost airline Wizz Air stopped offering passengers the possibility of offsetting their CO2 emissions.

“However, these improvements should not hide that greenwashing is still widespread,” said BEUC’s director general, Agustin Reyna.



– Room for improvement –



“There is room to change” in airlines’ communications, said Diane Vitry, who heads up the aviation section of the NGO Transport & Environment.

She said the ideal would be that ads for flights mention the climate impact they have, similar to the health warnings included on tobacco and alcohol labels.

“I haven’t seen a big improvement” from transport companies, said Garance Bazin, an environment researcher who co-authored a Greenpeace report criticising overt greenwashing in airline ads.

She noted, however, that “legal precedents are ‘starting’ to take hold” and companies were “making less bold statements about certain things that are objectively false”.

Airlines were “likely paying more attention” to their public communications, said Laurent Timsit, general delegate at the French aviation sector representative body FNAM.

Air France no longer offers carbon offsets for flights. Instead, it suggests passengers contribute to the purchase of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) which has reduced emissions.

Air transport accounts for three percent of global carbon emissions, but it plays a bigger role in global warming because aircraft produce other greenhouse gases and contrails.



– Net zero goal –



The sector has pledged to reach net zero by 2050 in terms of carbon emissions, mainly through SAF use, but also carbon offsets, despite NGOs criticism of them as ineffective.

Timsit, who noted that NGOs had previously pressed for such offsets to be put into French law, expressed disappointment at the BEUC complaint.

Marie Owens Thomsen, vice president in charge of sustainable development at the International Air Transport Association, said that “clearly, what we want is all the levers that we will need for being able to decarbonise by 2050”.

Noting that SAF was not yet available in sufficient quantities, while offsets provided certifiable emission reductions, she said that it was counterproductive to be “dogmatic about which tool is better than which”.

Carsten Spohr, CEO of Lufthansa, told AFP at a recent conference of the Airlines for Europe lobby group that some of the court cases were going in “an unfortunate direction”.

They were “making it more difficult for us to attract our passengers to spend more in order to help the environment”, he said.

“In our case, now four to five percent of our passengers are willing to pay more to allow us to fly them with sustainable aviation fuels or other ways of compensation,” he said, alluding to his airline’s “green” fares.

“So how can that be bad for the environment to attract attention and visibility?” he asked.

Indian capital chokes after Diwali firework frenzy

New Delhi (AFP) – Toxic air in India's capital hit more than 56 times the UN health limit early Tuesday, after fireworks for the Hindu festival of Diwali worsened air pollution.

Issued on: 21/10/2025

FRANCE24

Toxic air blanketed India's capital after fireworks set off for the Hindu festival of Diwali worsened air pollution © Arun SANKAR / AFP

This month, the Supreme Court relaxed a ban on fireworks during the festival of lights, allowing the use of less-polluting "green firecrackers" -- designed to emit fewer particulates.

The ban was widely ignored in past years, however, and environmental groups have expressed doubts about the efficacy of the supposedly greener explosives.

In the early hours of Tuesday morning, just after the peak of the bursting fireworks, levels of cancer-causing PM 2.5 microparticles hit 846 micrograms per cubic metre in parts of New Delhi, according to monitoring organisation IQAir.

That is more than 56 times the World Health Organization's recommended daily maximum.

New Delhi regularly ranks among the world's most polluted capitals 

© Arun SANKAR / AFP

By Tuesday morning, PM2.5 concentrations had eased to around 320 micrograms per cubic metre — roughly 23 times WHO limits, but relatively typical for New Delhi in winter.

The city regularly ranks as among the most polluted capitals.

A study in The Lancet Planetary Health last year estimated that 3.8 million deaths in India between 2009 and 2019 were linked to air pollution.

The UN children's agency warns that polluted air puts children at heightened risk of acute respiratory infections.

© 2025 AFP

'Democrat in disguise?' MAGA turns on Trump for celebrating Diwali in the Oval Office

Robert Davis
October 21, 2025 


FBI Director Kash Patel looks on as U.S. President Donald Trump lights a candle as he participates in a Diwali celebration in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington,D.C., U.S., October 21, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Some of President Donald Trump's MAGA supporters melted down on Tuesday after the president hosted a celebration for the Hindu holiday of Diwali at the White House.

Diwali is the Hindu holiday of light. The five-day celebration highlights the victory of good over evil throughout the Hindu religion and is considered to be as important to Hindu followers as Christmas is to Christians. Trump also celebrated the holiday during his first administration.

The celebration did not seem to sit well with Trump's MAGA base, many of whom shared their thoughts on social media.

"To be clear, this is weird," Matthew Tuck, who describes himself as a "Christian nationalist," posted on X.

"Why is President Trump having a 'Diwali celebration' at the White House?" Emerald Robinson, a host on Linell TV, posted on X. "Dear Christians: celebrating false religions is a grave sin. Trump should fire his 'spiritual advisor' @Paula_White and anybody else who allowed this sacrilege."

"So racist!" conservative IP attorney Jason Sanders posted on X.

"$40 billion for Argentina, weapons for Israel, bombs overseas, fights with the most fiscally conservative anti-war members of Congress, and now you are celebrating Diwali...Is this a Republican president or a Democrat in disguise?" Calvin Mercer posted on X.

"The Whitehouse is now celebrating pagan festivals that are antithetical to Christianity?" Justin Andrusk asked on X.

Who watches the AI watchman?

University of Waterloo researchers use mathematics and machine learning to ensure AI systems can operate safely

\

University of Waterloo

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

As artificial intelligence (AI) takes on increasingly critical roles — from managing power grids to piloting autonomous vehicles — making sure these systems are safe has never been more important. But how can we be certain that the AI controlling them can be trusted?  

A research team at the University of Waterloo is addressing this question using tools from applied mathematics and machine learning to rigorously check and verify the safety of AI-driven systems.  

“Any time you’re dealing with a dynamic system — something that changes over time, such as an autonomous vehicle or a power grid — you can mathematically model it using differential equations,” said Dr. Jun Liu, professor of applied mathematics and Canada Research Chair in Hybrid Systems and Control.  

To predict the long-term behaviour of these systems, scientists and engineers rely on a mathematical tool called a ‘Lyapunov function.’ Intuitively, this tool shows whether a system will naturally settle into a stable and safe state—much like a ball rolling to the bottom of a bowl and staying there. “Finding such a function, however, is often a notoriously difficult task,” Liu said. 

To tackle this challenge, Liu and his team turned to machine learning. They built a neural network that learns to satisfy the mathematical rules that determine whether a system remains stable and safe — the same rules engineers rely on to keep power grids and autonomous vehicles under control. 

The researchers then used a separate reasoning system based on rigorous computation and mathematical logic to verify that these neural networks indeed satisfy the conditions required for safety guarantees. Together, these tools provide a way to confirm that AI controllers can safely and reliably manage complex systems.  

It may sound surprising to use one form of AI to check another, but Liu explains that AI is a broad field. In their work, neural networks — one common type of AI — learn mathematical proofs of safety and sometimes even design the controllers themselves, while a logic-based system — another form of reasoning AI — verifies that those proofs are correct. Both are tasks researchers once had to do manually.  

“To be clear, no one is attempting to create factories or systems run entirely by AI without any human input,” Liu said. “There are areas such as ethics that will always be guided by human judgment. What these AI controllers and proof assistants are doing is taking over computation-intensive tasks, like deciding how to deploy power in a grid or constructing tedious mathematical proofs, that will be able to free up humans for higher-level decisions.” 

The framework has been tested on several challenging control problems, where it matched or exceeded traditional approaches. Liu’s team is now developing it into an open-source toolbox and exploring industry collaborations to advance safe and trustworthy AI for physical systems. 

This work is part of Waterloo’s broader commitment to advancing safe and trustworthy AI, supported by initiatives such as the TRuST Scholarly Network and recent federal efforts to promote responsible and transparent AI. 

The research, “Physics-informed neural network Lyapunov functions: PDE characterization, learning, and verification,” appears in Automatica.  

---

Journal

Automatica