Clarksburg labor union to pay nearly $270k to settle federal PPP claims
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 596 applied for and obtained loans that it wasn't eligible for under the pandemic-era program.
The Paycheck Protection Program is part of the CARES Act, which provided emergency financial assistance to Americans suffering economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The program provided loans to eligible small businesses for job retention and other expenses, and applicants had to certify their eligibility in order to receive the loans.
Three other unions based in New York, Washington and California are also part of the settlement, which adds up to more than $5.1 million.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
What a GOP bill banning central digital currency means for consumer banking
A proposed GOP ban on a central bank digital currency (CBDC) could pump the brakes on grand visions to reshape electronic payment access around the Federal Reserve. Republican lawmakers pushed the ban through the House on Thursday over concerns the government could use a CBDC to surveil Americans' financial transactions. The banking industry has also lobbied against the currency, arguing the public already has sufficient access to easily usable and safe digital money. 'Nobody yet knows whether a CBDC is a good idea or not,' Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), who has pushed for the government to explore a CBDC, said following the House's vote. 'There is potential for abuse and corruption, but also for extraordinary modernization that could serve unbanked communities, support the primacy of the U.S. dollar, and much more,' he added. Fed floated idea in 2022 white paper In 2022, the Federal Reserve issued a study of CBDCs that outlined their risks and benefits. 'All options for private digital money, including stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies, require mechanisms to reduce liquidity risk and credit risk. But all these mechanisms are imperfect,' the report notes. A traditional bank account is backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guarantees individual deposits up to $250,000 in the event a bank fails. But there are also riskier forms of digital financial services. In 2024, a financial technology company called Synapse collapsed and left customers unable to access some $265 million in deposits. A CBDC, backed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, would be the safest possible digital asset. The Fed paper said that a CBDC could make cross-border payments easier and potentially improve access to banking for low-income households. A 2022 study by Himes, the Connecticut Democrat, proposed that CBDCs could be used for depositing paychecks or even be integrated into federal programs like Social Security. A more ambitious version of a CBDC could allow Americans to hold digital dollars at a bank account with the Fed, enabling them to make digital payments without an account at a traditional bank. That could, as the Fed paper noted, 'fundamentally change the structure of the U.S. financial system, altering the roles and responsibilities of the private sector and the central bank.' A government-backed digital dollar — especially one that could bear interest — could also drive consumers away from traditional commercial bank accounts. A CBDC still would require significant study, from the impacts on the banking system to the technology that it would run on. A hypothetical CBDC could use existing technology, or it could be distributed on a blockchain, similar to how Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are issued. In 2022, former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Lael Brainard estimated that it would take ' a long time ' — at least five years, she said — to launch a digital currency if Congress decided to do so. Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in February that the bank would not develop a CBDC under his tenure. His term expires in May 2026. The bill, which now heads to the Senate, would bar the Fed from directly or indirectly issuing a CBDC or studying the issue. Other federal agencies are already barred from studying a CBDC due to a January executive order from President Trump. Republicans cite privacy concerns Privacy is the biggest concern about CBDCs aired by Republican lawmakers. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), who led the CBDC ban through the House, said on the floor that a digital dollar would be tantamount to government surveillance. 'It is government-controlled programmable money that, if designed without the privacy protections of cash, this could give the federal government the ability to surveil and restrict Americans' transactions and monitor every aspect of our daily lives,' he said. In contrast to cash, which is essentially untraceable, a CBDC would likely leave a digital record of some form. If the government pursued a CBDC, it would have to balance concerns about privacy with safeguards to curb its use in money laundering or other illegal activities. Many lawmakers have cited China's digital yuan as a worrying example. Tech and China experts, as reported by WIRED, have raised concerns that the Chinese government could use its digital currency to track individual transactions or otherwise scoop up tranches of consumer data. Other Republicans have issued starker warnings about CBDCs. 'CBDC is an existential threat to Western civilization,' Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) wrote on the social platform X. Banking, crypto lobbies strongly oppose Banking and cryptocurrency lobbying groups are staunchly against a centrally issued digital currency. In a letter to Emmer in April, the American Banking Association argued that Americans already had sufficient access to digital payments. Alongside other digital transfer systems pioneered in the private sector, the Fed launched FedNow, an instant payment system that can operate 24/7, in 2023. Banks have to opt in to using the service, whose major clients include JPMorganChase and Wells Fargo. More broadly, the bank lobby argued that a CBDC would undercut the role banks play in the country's economic system. 'For example, a CBDC would be an advantaged competitor to retail bank deposits that would move money away from banks and into accounts at the Federal Reserve, severely limiting the ability of commercial banks to make loans that power economic growth in communities across the country,' the group wrote. A CBDC could also dampen hopes that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or privately developed stablecoins — cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to a reference asset like the U.S. dollar — could become the primary form of digital money. 'You wouldn't need stablecoins; you wouldn't need cryptocurrencies, if you had a digital U.S. currency,' Powell said at a congressional hearing in 2021. 'I think that's one of the stronger arguments in its favor.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Howard Lutnick Claims Tariffs Will Spark Up to 1.5 GDP Growth
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. During an interview appearance on CBS News' Face the Nation on Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said President Donald Trump's sweeping new tariffs would drive as much as 1.5 percent gross domestic product (GDP) growth and open hundreds of billions in export opportunities. Lutnick also outlined the administration's timeline for renegotiating major trade deals, challenged European threats of retaliatory tariffs, and accused Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell of inflicting economic pain on Americans through high interest rates. Why It Matters The Trump administration's latest round of tariffs—including a general 10 percent levy on U.S. imports and even higher rates on key trading partners—marks an expansion of trade policy intended to address longstanding U.S. trade deficits. Business and policy analysts have expressed concern about the impact tariffs would have since they're expected to lead to higher prices on imported goods, which could spur inflation and potentially dampen consumer spending. What To Know Lutnick projected that the new tariffs and subsequent trade negotiations could deliver between $300 and $400 billion of opportunity. "That's up to 1.5 percent GDP growth because the president's going to open all these markets up," he told host Margaret Brennan. The commerce secretary added that Trump's tariffs would force countries across the globe to "open their markets" to the U.S., which would allow American businesses to expand and sell overseas. "You should assume that the small countries, the Latin American countries, the Caribbean countries, many countries in Africa, they will have a baseline tariff of 10 percent, and then the bigger economies will either open themselves up or they'll pay a fair tariff to America," Lutnick said. The commerce secretary confirmed that Trump administration's August 1 tariffs deadline remained firm, and most major U.S. trading partners can expect to see a significant rise in their tariff rate. However, Lutnick said the U.S. was still open to negotiations after the deadline passes. "President Trump is going to deliver for the American people. [The] next two weeks are going to be weeks for the record books," he added. Meanwhile, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told ABC News on Saturday that he believed tariff revenue could exceed $300 billion by the end of 2025, nearly 1 percent of U.S. GDP. However, he added that "it would not be prudent for lawmakers to count on this revenue in the future." "It is unclear whether the tariffs will remain in place given they may be found to be illegal or future presidents may decide to lower or eliminate them under executive order," Zandi said. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is seen in the East Room of the White House on July 18 in Washington, D.C. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is seen in the East Room of the White House on July 18 in Washington, D.C. Alex Brandon/AP Lutnick Reveals Timeline for Trump Renegotiating USMCA Deal Lutnick told Brennan that Trump intends to renegotiate the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) when the agreement comes up for review. The agreement was signed in 2020 to facilitate trade and stimulate economy and job growth in North America. He added that Trump will begin renegotiating one year from now, with the aim of securing greater market access for U.S. businesses and protecting American manufacturing jobs. "It makes perfect sense for the president to renegotiate it," he said. "He wants to protect American jobs. He doesn't want cars built in Canada or Mexico when they can be built in Michigan and Ohio," Lutnick said. Lutnick Suggests Europe Will Cave Over Tariff Threats to Boeing, Bourbon Lutnick addressed retaliatory threats from Europe targeting American goods during the interview. The European Union (EU) has finalized a list of U.S. goods worth $84 billion, including Boeing aircraft, American cars and bourbon, that they will hit with retaliatory tariffs if the trade war escalates. Lutnick said he was confident the EU would cave and open their market to the U.S. before it got to that point. "The president and the European Union, these are the two biggest trading partners in the world, talking to each other. We'll get a deal done. I am confident we'll get a deal done," he said. Jerome Powell 'Torturing' America, Says Lutnick Lutnick sharply criticized Powell for maintaining high interest rates, which he said costs "us, you and me and the American people, more than $500 billion." "I think he's costing us $700 billion a year by keeping rates too high. It's just wrong. I don't know why he's torturing America this way. Our rates should be lower." He predicted the Fed would be forced to lower rates, making mortgages "so much better off under Donald Trump." What People Are Saying Peter Schiff, chief economist and global strategist for Europac, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on last month: "Tariffs are not working. The U.S. trade deficit in goods surged to $96.6 billion in May, up 11% from April and 6.5% above expectations. Most problematic was the 5.2% decline in exports. Trump's goal to reduce trade deficits while expanding markets for U.S. exports has backfired." Brad Setser, an economist at the New York City-based Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote on X: "I am not yet seeing a significant tariff impact on trade in capital goods -- and I do think the ongoing rise in the US deficit here is a problem (capital goods are a sector where the US should be competitive)." Denmark's foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, told reporters this week after Brussels suspended its retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods in hopes of reaching a trade deal: "We shouldn't impose countermeasures at this stage, but we should prepare to be ready to use all the tools in the toolbox. So we want a deal, but there's an old saying: 'If you want peace, you have to prepare for war.'" What Happens Next? The full economic and political consequences of the tariffs will likely unfold in the coming months, as the impact on trade balances, job growth, and consumer prices becomes clearer.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The real message behind Musk's America Party
America has never lacked political showmen. So when Elon Musk — a man as comfortable launching rockets as launching tweets — announces his intention to form a new political party, the instinctive response is skepticism, if not outright derision. Call it the 'America Party,' he says, a banner for those tired of both elephants and donkeys. Naturally, the memes wrote themselves. But peel away the theatrics, and something more consequential is hiding in plain sight: the yearning. Americans are not necessarily flocking to Musk's cause, but millions are scanning the horizon for something else. The spectacle may be Musk's — but the discontent it feeds on is widely shared. It is tempting to dismiss this moment as déjà vu. Third-party attempts are stitched into America's political folklore. From Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose insurgency to Ross Perot's data-heavy crusade, outsiders have long challenged the duopoly, only to be crushed by the machinery of incumbency. The U.S. political system, with its winner-take-all incentives and rigid party structures, has proven uniquely impervious to disruption. But today's landscape feels different — not because the rules have changed, but because the public mood has. Start with trust — once a civic virtue, now a casualty. A Pew Research survey earlier this year found that only 22 percent of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right 'just about always' or 'most of the time' — down from over 70 percent in the 1960s. Meanwhile, Gallup reports that confidence in Congress sits at around 10 percent. This isn't apathy. It's disillusionment — a broad-based sense that the current political structure no longer listens, let alone delivers. On July 3, Musk announced he formed the America Party, sparking immediate speculation about 2026 House races. A SnapPoll24 survey days later found 27 percent of Gen Z and Millennial respondents 'interested' in supporting a non-affiliated candidate in 2026 — numbers that would have been inconceivable a decade ago. Into this void steps Musk. Not with policy, not yet — but with performance. And in a media ecosystem where attention is power, that's often enough. His platform remains a cipher, but the appeal is clear: disruption without the burden of ideology. In an era when Democrats speak the lexicon of elite progressivism and Republicans oscillate between grievance and populism, Musk is offering a third lane defined not by ideas but by estrangement. Of course, the barriers to entry remain formidable. Ballot access laws, campaign finance hurdles and entrenched party loyalties conspire to keep challengers out. But technology, once the ally of incumbents, now levels the field. A candidate with a smartphone, a war chest, and a loyal digital following can bypass gatekeepers entirely. Donald Trump did it in 2016. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also built a movement with little more than a microphone and a mailing list. And the center, as they say, cannot hold. Political polarization has pushed the parties to their ideological poles, leaving a vast no-man's-land where independents, moderates and suburban voters wander unaffiliated. Recent data shows that 43 percent of Americans identify as independents. The appetite for a new voice is real. What remains elusive is whether it can be organized into a coherent political force. That's where most third-party ventures falter. They speak fluent grievance but go silent on governance. They thrive on outrage, but wither when the conversation turns to solutions. That's not a bug; it's the structure. Populism, left or right, is easiest to sell when your only goal is to sneer at the system. Governing, however, requires trade-offs — something Musk has famously disdained, whether building tunnels or tweeting policy. Still, disruption has value, even when it fails. By threatening the status quo, it can jolt legacy parties into responsiveness. Consider Emmanuel Macron in France. His upstart party dislodged a calcified system not because it was flawless, but because it was fresh. Similar stories have played out in Italy, Chile, and even Taiwan — democracies where old parties collapsed under the weight of their own complacency. The U.S., with its older institutions and more rigid rules, may prove harder to crack — but pressure matters. America's founders never envisioned permanent political parties. They built a framework — checks, balances, federalism — that could outlast any faction. That resilience is a double-edged sword. It guards against demagoguery, yes, but also cushions the sclerosis of status quo governance. Change, when it comes, is rarely elegant. But it is often catalyzed by those who seem least likely to lead it. So no, the America Party is unlikely to take Congress by storm. It may not even make it past a news cycle. But its emergence is a flare, signaling a deeper instability in the system. If Democrats and Republicans choose to ignore it, they do so at their peril. Voters are not disengaged — they're disenchanted. And if Musk's provocation forces the parties to rethink how they earn trust, rather than expect it, then even his most outlandish political experiment will have served a purpose. The challenge — and opportunity — for America's institutions is not to suppress these new voices, but to absorb their critiques and adapt. Ranked-choice voting, open primaries and campaign finance reform are not silver bullets, but they might be the scaffolding for a democracy that listens before it crumbles. It is often said that democracies renew themselves not through revolution, but through adaptation. Perhaps this is one of those moments. And perhaps it will take the world's richest man, hurling rhetorical grenades at both parties, to remind the establishment that the center of gravity is not fixed. It moves — sometimes suddenly — and often under their feet.
