Judge presiding over Trump's Wall Street Journal lawsuit has seen this movie before
But as with the Cohen case, there's an open question of whether Trump's new lawsuit is more of a political stunt than a serious attempt to litigate the issue. If Trump pursues the case, he would open himself up to answering questions under oath about his connection to the disgraced financier who killed himself in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
Trump's decision to file the case in southern Florida led to suspicions he was hoping to draw U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, his own appointee who helped him escape criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. But Trump's attorney Alejandro Brito — the same lawyer who led the ill-fated Cohen suit — filed the case in the Miami division of the federal judicial district of south Florida. Cannon sits in the Fort Pierce district, making it unlikely she would have been selected under the court's assignment process.
Gayles, a George Washington University law graduate who made history as the first openly gay Black man appointed to the federal bench, was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. One reason: His judicial background tilts bipartisan. He was appointed to state-court judgeships in Florida by two Republican governors, Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist, before Obama nominated him to his current role.
Darrin Gayles stands for a portrait in 2023. | Department of Justice via Wikimedia Commons
His prominent cases include a $73 million judgment against the Venezuelan government in 2022 over a purported murder-for-hire scheme. Gayles ordered a new trial in a $25 million fraud scheme in Florida after finding that the Justice Department had committed misconduct and then lied to him about it. And Gayles notably sat with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on a voting rights case, writing a dissent that found evidence of discrimination behind an Alabama voter ID law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Fears that falling birth rates in US could lead to population collapse are based on faulty assumptions
Pronatalism – the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed – is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed – in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s – births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux – for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now – and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true – and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults – usually defined as ages 18 to 64 – often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically – from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful – and immediate – tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Leslie Root, University of Colorado Boulder; Karen Benjamin Guzzo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Shelley Clark, McGill University Read more: Taxing bachelors and proposing marriage lotteries – how superpowers addressed declining birthrates in the past The problem with pronatalism: Pushing baby booms to boost economic growth amounts to a Ponzi scheme Pronatalism is the latest Silicon Valley trend. What is it – and why is it disturbing? Leslie Root receives funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) for work on fertility rates. Karen Benjamin Guzzo has received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in the United States. Shelley Clark receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Live updates: DOJ set for second interview with Ghislaine Maxwell; Trump travels to Scotland
President Trump is departing Washington on Friday for a weekend trip to Scotland as furor over the Jeffrey Epstein case continues to grip the political world. The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday is set to interview longtime Epstein associate and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell for a second day. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed Maxwell for roughly five hours Thursday and said the DOJ 'will share additional information about what we learned at the appropriate time.' Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence in Florida following a conviction on sex-trafficking charges, has signaled a willingless to speak with the administration as her legal team appeals her conviction to the Supreme Court. The DOJ has contested her appeal. Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus said his client answered every question during her Thursday interview with Blanche at a Tallahassee courthouse and expressed gratitude to the federal government for trying to 'uncover the truth.' Trump in a social media post late Thursday slammed what he characterized as 'the Jeffrey Epstein SCAM' as he seeks to turn the page on the saga, with Republicans ramping up their scrutiny of the Obama administration and the president criticizing renovations at the Federal Reserve during a visit alongside Chair Jerome Powell. The president is expected to face some local protests when he visits Scotland this weekend, with demonstrators seeking to disrupt his trip. He plans to visit his two Scottish golf resorts on the trip to his mother's homeland.
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump should not fire Jay Powell — at least, not yet
President Trump should not fire Jay Powell. The Fed chairman is likely to hold rates steady again at next week's meeting, which is almost certainly a mistake. But if unemployment begins to creep higher and the economy softens, Trump can then blame Powell. His own appointed Fed leader can become a useful fall guy. Speculation about Trump firing Powell is ongoing, despite repeated denials from the White House. He stoked those concerns again yesterday by visiting the Fed's headquarters, the first time in 20 years a president has made that trek. Trump went purportedly to inspect what has become known as the 'Taj Mahal on the Mall,' aka the $700 million-over-budget $2.5 billion remodeling project of the Fed's building. Russell Vought accompanied Trump; the head of the Office of Management and Budget has calculated that the cost of the Fed's elaborate construction is about the same as the price originally paid (adjusted for inflation) for France's Palace of Versailles. Meanwhile, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) referred Powell to the Department of Justice for criminal charges, accusing him of two specific instances of lying under oath before a Senate committee about the particulars of that headquarters modernization. To be clear, notoriously spendthrift D.C. legislators have not suddenly found religion about cost overruns on federal projects. Scrutiny of the Fed building, and accusations that Powell committed perjury, are meant to allow Trump to dump the Fed chair, who can only be fired for cause. The real story is, of course, the economy. And there are three reasons Powell should cut rates. First, Powell has said he is holding off on rate cuts because Trump's tariffs regime is expected to cause some increase in inflation. But in a recent speech, Fed Governor Chris Waller argued that tariffs are 'one-off increases in the price level and do not cause inflation beyond a temporary surge.' That is, the application of a 10 percent tariff, for instance, will possibly cause a one-time bounce in prices but (barring any other influences) not create ongoing inflation. Waller also says, 'Standard central banking practice is to 'look through' such price-level effects as long as inflation expectations are anchored, which they are.' That is true. Early in the tariff excitement, consumers became worried about the possible impact of tariffs on prices, even as inflation was moderating. The media cranked out alarming projections of the damage tariffs could do, feeding the concerns. The central bank's monthly Survey of Consumer Expectations showed respondents in March and April expecting inflation to bounce up to 3.6 percent in the next year; most recently that dropped to 3 percent, in line with readings from January. Consumers have been calmed by consistently better than expected inflation reports. Lower energy costs, in particular, drove the consumer price index down from 3 percent in January to 2.3 percent in April, calming nerves. More recently that gauge of inflation has increased to 2.7 percent, but that is still lower than last year, when it was 3 percent. Waller said he has been watching reports on high-frequency price changes — that is, real-time price changes from big retailers' online stores. He concludes that prices on imports are slightly higher while domestic goods have not seen upward adjustments. Not surprisingly, prices on imported Chinese goods have been jacked up the most. But, overall, the impact of tariffs has been minimal so far. Second, there are cracks in the jobs picture, which is meant to be the other focus of the Fed. Small businesses show some modest increased interest in hiring, which is good news, but Americans are becoming less optimistic about their job prospects. According to The Kobeissi Letter, 'The index tracking Americans' expectations for unemployment over the next 12 months fell to 58 points in July, the third-lowest since 2008. This level of pessimism also aligns with readings seen during the 2001 and 1990 recessions.' Job postings on Indeed, an online recruitment site, have been dropping, and there has been a modest increase in continuing unemployment claims, indicating people are having a harder time finding work. A report just out from The Bridge Chronicle reveals the tech industry has laid off more than 100,000 workers this year, with Intel and Microsoft leading the pack. Some of the firings stem from financial concerns, but AI is also powering a slimming down of white-collar jobs. Tech is not alone — across industries, CEOs are spending tens of millions of dollars to implement AI, with hopes of recouping those expenditures via reduced payrolls. Is Jay Powell on top of these trends? There has been precious little in his periodic reports to indicate the Fed chair is taking AI-impacted job losses into account. If Powell is basing monetary policy on what he imagines the inflationary impact of tariffs will be, should he not also be looking forward and folding AI effects into his job projections? Third, cutting rates would help the housing market, and young families trying to buy a home. Existing home sales recently dropped to a nine-month low, but prices continued to rise in spite of high mortgage rates. Trump accuses Powell of playing politics. When he orchestrated a jumbo 50-basis-point rate cut last September, it seemed likely to boost the economy — just in time for Kamala Harris's campaign. Today, with inflation numbers at similar levels and the jobs market showing signs of weakening, Powell is using the specter of tariff-caused inflation to justify inaction. That will likely prove to be a mistake. But for Powell, the upcoming rate decision is a lose-lose proposition. If he persuades the board to lower rates, he will be accused of pandering to a domineering president, relinquishing the Fed's independence. If he sticks with rates that are likely considerably above the neutral rate, and the economy starts to slide, he will be blamed. Whatever path he and the board choose, Trump will use his decision as proof that 'Too-Late' Powell, as he calls him, has messed up again.
