Category: Laptops

• GOP Rep. Byron Donalds on Sunday affirmed the need for IVF for families across the US.
• “It helps them breed great families,” the congressman said of IVF on NBC News.
• Some Republicans have put some distance between themselves and fellow conservatives on the issue.

Last week, Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos have the same rights as born, living children, quoting the Bible in their opinion.

Since then, Republicans nationwide have been scrambling to clarify their opinion on IVF, the fertility treatment that allows women to have multiple eggs fertilized outside the womb to better the chances of a successful pregnancy.

On Sunday, Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida took to NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he stated that he fully supports IVF, which helps people “create great families, which is what our country desperately needs.”

“The IVF procedure is very important to a lot of couples in our country,” Donalds said. “It helps them breed great families. Our country needs that.”

Despite the support of IVF from conservative lawmakers like Donalds, 125 of his fellow House Republicans co-sponsored a bill to establish that life begins at conception with no exceptions for the procedure. The expensive and time-consuming procedure can include the discarding of some fertilized eggs.

Donalds is not among the 125 House members pushing for the bill, telling MSNBC that he wanted to “see the devil in the details.”

However, the congressman’s comments reveal the wide scope of GOP reproductive theories, oscillating from “adoption is an option” on the subject of abortion to the desire to “breed great families” with IVF.

“I believe, as President Trump has also said, we really want the Alabama legislature to make sure that that procedure is protected for families who do struggle with having children,” Donalds said during his interview.

Last week, former President Donald Trump spoke of the need for IVF availability on his Truth Social platform.

“We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder!” the former president wrote. “That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every State in America.”

After the conservative-leaning Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it escalated the stakes of issues involving abortion and family planning as individual states now play the paramount role in governing reproductive rights.

Republicans have largely struggled to counter Democratic messaging on abortion rights, with the issue playing a major role in a slew of races across the country since the 2022 midterms, when Democrats performed better than expected in what was forecasted by some to be a GOP “red wave” election.

Even in a conservative state like Kentucky, Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, a moderate, effectively campaigned on the issue last year by needling his GOP opponent over past support for a strict abortion ban without exceptions for cases involving rape or incest.

Beshear was reelected to a second term by 5 points in a state that Trump had won by 26 points in 2020.

Basic income programs, which offer segments of society no-strings-attached payments, are gaining traction across the nation as a way to address the wealth gap and reduce poverty.

The bill’s author, Republican Rep. Lupe Diaz, has compared such programs to socialism, calling the payments “unearned.” Diaz did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

The legislation bans “any program where persons are provided with regular, periodic cash payments that are unearned and that may be used for any purpose.” It doesn’t include work or training programs.

The bill still needs to pass the state Senate before it can become law. The state Senate consists of 30 members, 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats.

Guaranteed basic income programs typically support qualifying families or individuals, often those living at or near the poverty line, with regular government payments for a set period. They are a more targeted version of a universal basic income, which gives funds to entire populations regardless of their income or other considerations.

Dozens of cities and states have toyed with various styles of no-strings-attached cash assistance in recent years.

In Baltimore, the Young Families Success Fund, for instance, gives young mothers $1,000 a month. A program in Oregon gives $1,000 monthly payments to youth living below the poverty line.

A senior director at Point Source Youth, a national youth homelessness nonprofit that helped facilitate the Oregon program, told Business Insider that participants said they used the funds to obtain housing, enroll in school, and purchase cars.

Another program in Austin that gave $1,000 monthly payments to low-income families found that participants were “substantially more housing secure” one year into the program than when they enrolled. The report found that participants, on average, said they spent more than half of the payments they received on housing.

Yet despite the apparent success of the programs, some state lawmakers — largely Republicans who say the programs discourage recipients from working — are trying to ban them.

One basic income program in Harris County, Texas — where Houston is located — is under constitutional review by the state’s attorney general after a Republican state lawmaker requested a review. The Uplift Harris program is using $20.5 million of COVID-19 relief funds to support $500 monthly payments for low-income families.

Republicans in other states have also introduced bans similar to the one proposed in Arizona. In Iowa, Republican state Rep. Steve Holt introduced a bill to ban basic income programs last month, calling them “socialism on steroids.”

Another basic income ban in South Dakota passed through a committee 8 to 1 along party lines on February 5 and is now headed to the state senate.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. John Wiik, said basic income programs are a “socialist idea” during a committee meeting on February 5.

“Guaranteed income programs, also known as basic income, undercut the dignity in earning a dollar, and they’re a one-way ticket to government dependency,” Wiik said in the hearing.

The bill does not include any exception for in vitro fertilization (IVF), a reproductive treatment that allows mothers to fertilize several eggs outside the womb in order to increase the chances of a viable pregnancy.

Several healthcare providers in Alabama have already halted IVF programs in the wake of the ruling, given that IVF treatments may include the discarding of fertilized eggs, which may now violate the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

The lack of an IVF exception is notable, given the carveout contained within a previous version of the Life at Conception Act introduced by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in 2017.

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization,” reads the 2017 bill.

Republican Rep. Alexander Mooney, the main House sponsor of the bill, did not respond to Business Insider’s request for comment on why that exception was not included.

Neither did spokespeople for Speaker Johnson, who largely controls the House floor and whose evangelical Christian views have entailed staunch opposition to abortion in the past.

“When a woman is pregnant, science tells us the new life she carries is a completely separate and fully new human being from the moment of fertilization,” Johnson said during a 2021 hearing on Texas’s 6-week abortion ban.

In the wake of the Alabama ruling, some Republicans have scrambled to declare their support for IVF treatments, recognizing the unpopularity of any potential ban.

That includes GOP Senate candidates in competitive battleground states, who quickly moved to issue pro-IVF statements on Friday with the encouragement of Senate Republicans’ campaign arm.

Some House Republicans in swing seats who have previously cosponsored the Life at Conception Act have done the same, including current cosponsor Reps. Michelle Steel of California and past cosponsor David Schweikert of Arizona.

But Democratic groups have quickly moved to point out their sponsorship of the bill, noting the lack of an IVF exception.

“House Republicans have made clear they will stop at nothing — including outlawing in vitro fertilization — to reach their ultimate goal: banning abortion and restricting reproductive rights nationwide,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Courtney Rice. “Their anti-family agenda, which elevates these dangerously out-of-touch positions into the mainstream, will cost them their majority this fall.”

House Majority PAC, an outside group aligned with House Democrats, distributed a memo on Friday noting that several other vulnerable Republicans have supported the bill, either currently or in previous Congresses.

That includes Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who told Axios that her office is “drafting a resolution” to express support for IVF.

“The fact is that ANY vulnerable House Republican who cosponsored the Life at Conception Act supported putting IVF and fertility treatments at risk,” reads the memo from the Democratic group. “HMP can guarantee that their support will be used against them over paid media in competitive House districts across the country this fall.”

• In 1987, astronomers recorded the only supernova visible to the naked eye in the last 400 years. 
• Astronomers have since wondered about what the massive explosion left behind in its wake.
• Using JWST, astronomers finally have the answer to the question they’ve been chasing for decades.

In a nearby galaxy, 160,000 light years away, a massive star exploded in a brilliant supernova, spewing its guts across the universe. The explosion was so bright that humans could see it with the naked eye.

That was 37 years ago, and astronomers have been studying that same patch of sky ever since, chasing down the answer to a single question: What’s left?

There are two possible scenarios for what went down after the explosion. Now, armed with James Webb, the most powerful telescope ever built, scientists finally think they know what happened.

David Malin AAT

Research published today in the peer-reviewed journal Science has settled the decades-long mystery. It offers the most compelling evidence, to date, that what lurks behind the clouds of residual gas and debris is one of the densest objects in the universe — a neutron star.

A neutron star is the collapsed core of a supergiant star that’s gone supernova. It’s essentially a city-sized sphere of densely-packed neutrons, co-author Patrick Kavanagh, an experimental physicist from Maynooth University, said in a press briefing.

“It’s more massive than the sun. A teaspoon of it weighs more than Mount Everest,” he said.

NASA / Wikimedia Commons

If the supernova of 1987, aka SN 1987A, hadn’t created a neutron star, the other possible scenario was that it produced a black hole. But Kavanagh seemed pleased with the outcome.

Identifying the neutron star left behind by SN 1987A, he said in the briefing, will now give astronomers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to study one in the early stages of its life.

“It feels absolutely amazing,” Kavanagh said.

The most studied supernova in history

Explosions like SN 1987A don’t happen often. The last time Earth witnessed such a brilliant cosmic event was about 400 years ago.

So, when SN1987A lit up the skies, astronomers studied it with as many instruments as they could including Hubble, Chandra, ALMA, and much more.

Eventually, SN 1987A became known as the most studied supernova in history.

“It’s the gift that keeps on giving,” Kavanagh said in the briefing.

Studying SN 1987A has deepened astronomers’ understanding of supernovae and the role they play in our ever-evolving universe.

ESA / Hubble & NASA / Wikimedia Commons

For example, SN 1987A’s proximity to Earth allowed astronomers to track the remnant molecules and dust that are essential for the formation of life-sustaining planets like Earth, Kavanagh said.

But all those years of observation were limited by the technology of the time. Before JWST, astronomers lacked a telescope powerful enough to observe the compact object that SN 1987A left behind.

Hunting for a neutron star

To discover what lies at the center of SN 1987A, astronomers needed a telescope big enough and advanced enough to detect evidence of radiation from a hidden neutron star.

Enter the James Webb Space Telescope: the largest, most powerful telescope ever launched into space that is already revolutionizing our understanding of the universe within its first two years of operation.

J. Larsson

With JWST, researchers led by astronomer Claes Fransson of Stockholm University were finally able to see past SN 1987A’s gas and debris at infrared wavelengths, using spectroscopy to examine the composition and movement of the gas cloud surrounding its center.

“During the initial scan through the data, a bright feature right in the center of 1987A jumped off the screen,” Kavanagh said. It was radiation emission lines from argon gas.

P.J. Kavanagh / J. Larsson

The presence of these emission lines could only be explained by a neutron star, not a black hole, Kavanagh said.

“We interpreted this as being conclusive evidence that the emission lines we were seeing were the result of radiation from the neutron center,” Kavanagh said.

Supernovae happen about every 50-100 years, or so, in our galaxy. And they need to happen close enough to Earth for astronomers to be able to observe their remnants.

“Our great hope is that these observations and future observations will simulate more developed and detailed models for supernovae,” Kavanagh said.

One of the line’s most popular scents, as pointed out by perfume TikToker @zachdeparfum, is called Not Another Cherry.

Fans of the perfume say it smells just like Tom Ford’s famous scent, Lost Cherry, which includes notes of black cherry, tonka bean, and almond.

Target’s version, which is vegan and made without parabens and phthalates, has similar notes: wild cherry, almond amaretto, and Turkish rose.

But whereas a 1.7-ounce bottle of the designer scent retails for $395 at Sephora, the 2.02-ounce Fine’ry perfume at Target costs $30.

Other Fine’ry scents are said to be dupes of beloved perfumes like Santal 33, YSL Black Opium, and Baccarat Rouge, the famously luxurious fragrance loved by celebrities and wealthy beauty fans.

Target shoppers also say that many of the Fine’ry versions smell better and last longer than the pricier options.

“I have Not Another Cherry and I swear I can smell it on my clothes for DAYS! Best money spent,” one TikToker commented on a video from @zachdeparfum.

“I have the real one and think they nailed this,” a Target reviewer wrote about Fine’ry’s The New Rouge scent, a supposed dupe of Baccarat Rouge.

So, the next time someone smells expensive, remember that it might not be luxury perfume on their skin. It might just be one from Target.

• Calls for Biden to drop out have increased following a recent US special counsel report.
• That doesn’t appear likely to happen anytime soon, especially after pushback from the DNC chair.
• He said the idea of usurping the nomination from Biden and then winning is “certifiably insane.”

The chairman of the Democratic National Committee said the idea of replacing President Joe Biden as the party’s candidate and winning the election in November is “certifiably crazy actually.”

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison made the comment in a late-night reply Monday on X to a Biden-supporting poster who said it’s “insane and frankly stupid” to think the party would “usurp the nomination” from Biden and choose a replacement behind closed doors, especially one who’s not current-Vice President Kamala Harris.

Calls for Biden to remove himself from the 2024 presidential race have risen in recent weeks following US special counsel Robert Hur’s report saying he shouldn’t be charged for crimes related to mishandled confidential documents, specifically citing his old age and poor memory.

Nevertheless, Super Tuesday, where roughly a third of the nation’s Democratic delegates will be doled out, is fast approaching. Biden and his campaign have not indicated he’ll drop out of the race anytime soon, meaning he could amass a majority of the delegates in due time and become the party’s presumptive nominee.

If Biden then chooses to step away from the election — or if the Democratic Party decides it wants to put someone else onto the ballot — the party’s running out of feasible replacement options.

Should Biden leave the race when he’s already built up a sizable delegate lead, the 2024 Democratic National Convention would then become “contested,” meaning no active candidate won a majority of the delegates. In that scenario, the delegates previously bound to support Biden could change their votes to a different candidate.

That hasn’t happened, though, since Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson said he wouldn’t run for reelection in 1968 after winning the New Hampshire primary in late March of that year.

The 1968 contested convention was chaotic — even dangerous at times — and the Democratic candidate chosen, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, lost in November by 110 electoral votes.

A recent poll from Emerson College in mid-February revealed Biden trailing Trump in support by 2 percentage points. When presented with alternative possible Democratic candidates against Trump, however, all but Vice President Kamala Harris trailed the former president by double digits.

• Wall Street giants like JPMorgan, State Street, and Pimco recently exited Climate Action 100+.
• Other finance firms have walked back climate-friendly pledges and initiatives.
• This shift comes amid increasing criticism of “woke capitalism” and scrutiny of ESG investing.

Some Wall Street giants, many of which have spent the last few years pledging to fight climate change through corporate responsibility, are now retreating from some of their environmental initiatives.

Large financial institutions including investment bank JPMorgan, asset manager State Street, and investment management firm Pimco have in the last few days pulled out of Climate Action 100+, a group of hundreds of institutional investors that collectively push large companies to address climate issues.

The departures are a stark change for finance firms that have previously spent years working to improve their public images by loudly championing the fight against climate crisis, The New York Times reported.

Indeed, big banks and asset managers previously built up teams in a bet that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing was a good bet — both morally and economically.

In recent months, however, many financial intuitions have come under more fire from Republicans criticizing their climate work, framing it and other ESG initiatives as “woke capitalism,” Politico reported. Regulators, meanwhile, have begun looking more closely at firms offering ESG products.

Other concerns included that clients may disapprove of the work and sue, or that this many large companies working together to pressure change in other companies could fly in the face of antitrust regulations, the New York Times said.

Founded in 2017, Climate Action 100+ initially launched as a five-year initiative that in 2022 was extended until 2030. The coalition brings together more than 700 members with more than $68 trillion in assets under management to persuade public companies to increase shareholder value by improving climate crisis governance, cutting emissions, and strengthening climate-related financial disclosures, according to its website.

In its new phase launched in 2022, Climate Action 100+ shifted its focus from pushing companies to improve their financial disclosures to pushing companies to introduce more climate-friendly business operations and reduce their net carbon emissions.

Following the departures of JPMorgan, State Street, and Pimco, financial investors including Neuberger Berman, William Blair Investment Management, and Wellington Management remain members of Climate Action 100+, whose targeted companies include American Airlines, Chevron, and Procter & Gamble.

Other finance giants have similarly stepped back from previous environmentally friendly initiatives, The New York Times reported. They include BlackRock, which scaled back its participation with Climate Action 100+ in recent weeks, as well as Bank of America, which walked back a pledge to stop financing coal.

• Older residents at a UK care home received Valentine’s Day cards from a firm of funeral directors.
• Family members called the incident insensitive and said it caused confusion and disappointment.
• One 80-year-old resident is being moved from the home due to the incident.

Residents of a care home for older people in the UK were shocked to open Valentine’s Day cards that turned out to be from a firm of funeral directors, the Sun reports.

Residents of Whitegates Care Centre in Surrey received cards adorned with red hearts and bows from T.H. Sanders & Sons Funeral Directors, a funeral firm located in Staines, a market town near the care home.

One family member of a resident told the Sun that the ill-received incident would have caused the residents “great confusion, upset and disappointment as often they are here after losing their life-long partners.”

Another relative called the move an “insensitive attempt to woo new customers.”

An 80-year-old woman living in the care home is set to be moved by her son, who is outraged by the incident.

The woman’s son said he was fortunately able to intercept the card and hide it from her before she opened it, as it would have devastated her.

“It’s appalling for funeral directors to be trying to attract new customers by targeting vulnerable elderly people,” he told the Sun.

Approximately 40 cards were delivered to the care home by the funeral directors, the BBC reported.

The home, which offers 51 bedrooms, has rates that start at $1,640 a week.

T. H. Sanders is part of the Dignity Funeral Directors group, which told the Sun they “deeply regret any ­unintended distress.”

A spokesperson from the care home told the Sun that they are “deeply embedded within the local community, and we value the support and engagement of all our neighbors, including T.H. Sanders.”

“Residents were thrilled to receive the Valentine’s Day cards, and they all had a lovely day celebrating,” they said.

Whitegates declined to comment when contacted by Business Insider.

Our experts choose the best products and services to help make smart decisions with your money (here’s how). In some cases, we receive a commission from our partners; however, our opinions are our own. Terms apply to offers listed on this page.

• Young workers are pushing back against Dave Ramsey‘s financial advice on TikTok.
• They say that Ramsey’s “debt-free” mantra is outdated and neglects the value of self-care.
• Others say his homebuying tips aren’t realistic amid skyrocketing prices.

Dave Ramsey lacks clout with Gen Z.

The 63-year-old host of the financial talk show, “The Dave Ramsey Show,” has attracted scores of followers over the years with a simple mantra — live debt-free.

But amid rising costs of living, skyrocketing home prices, and mounting student debt, young workers are bucking the advice of America’s favorite financial guru.

They’re calling his tips outdated and even a little depressing in videos on TikTok. The trend, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, has racked up millions of views on TikTok under the hashtag #daveramseywouldntapprove.

“I’d rather be caffeinated than depressed with $6.”

One of Ramsey’s maxims is to stop your “coffee habit.” He says that if you want to live debt-free, stop spending $4 on a latte every morning.

“You’ll spend $63 in a month. You’ll spend $766.50 in a year. You’ll spend $22,995 over the course of 30 years,” Ramsey’s financial advice company, Ramsey Solutions, writes in a post on its website. 

But younger generations say that lattes (which average about $6 these days) are key to their mental and physical well-being.

“Self-care is extremely important and if that means buying a $6 coffee every day, do it,” Jarrod Benson, a 32-year-old comedian from Orlando told Business Insider over TikTok. “I’d rather be caffeinated than depressed with $6.”

Benson’s comments come as many young workers grow disillusioned with corporate America and adopt an attitude of working to live. 

“This is particularly true in the West. They have seen the legacy of all these broken promises. In the old days and in many parts of the West, they would promise you if you worked for 30 years, you have this defined benefit pension, you have retiree medical care, etc. None of that exists today,” Ravin Jesuthasan, a future-of-work expert and global leader at consulting firm Mercer, previously told BI.

You can’t buy a house with “$50 and a pack of strawberries.”

Gen Z workers said Ramsey’s advice also doesn’t cut it when making long-term investments, like buying a house.

One of Ramsey’s top tips for buying a house is to pay for it upfront in cash and avoid taking out a mortgage. While Ramsey has acknowledged this is a daunting task, he outlines a game plan for how someone might save up to $100,000 in cash to buy a home on the Ramsey Solutions website. 

“Divide $100,000 by the amount you can save each month to determine how long it will take to get there,” he writes, alongside a list of equations to help people figure out how they might get there between two to eight years.

But younger workers say buying a home in cash isn’t feasible when home prices are skyrocketing nationwide. The median home price in the United States is about $363,000 now and upwards of a million in some of the country’s priciest cities.

“It’s mind-boggling that the older generation that bought 4-bedroom homes for $50 and a pack of strawberries continues to lecture younger people on money management,” Josh Benson, a 28-year-old from Dallas working in the financial industry, told BI over TikTok.

Younger generations began questioning Ramsey’s advice on homebuying even before the anti-Ramsay rhetoric began trending on TikTok.

Sarah Martinez Shaw, who grew up on Ramsey’s advice, told BI his tips left her in a tough spot.

On the one hand, buying a house in cash only seemed feasible for the wealthy, she said. At the same time, by taking a hard line against credit card debt, she said Ramsey “stigmatizes legitimate paths forward.” She realized that a strong credit score from years of responsible credit use was one of the best ways to secure a mortgage loan. 

Dave Ramsey did not immediately respond to BI’s request for comment.

Lakshmi Varanasi

Tech & Trending Reporter

But the state sought far lower penalties for the two sons — five-year bans on their ever running a real estate company in New York again — compared to the permanent ban the state had sought for their father.

On Friday, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron set far lower bans for Trump and his sons.

An appeal will almost certainly put these penalties on hold for many months to come. But under the verdict, Trump is banned for three years from “serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York.

His two sons are banned for just two years.

KENA BETANCUR/AFP via Getty Images

And though their father is on the hook for the bulk of the $364 million in penalties — the bill comes to $355 million for Trump himself — the sons must only pay $4 million each.

The comparative wrist slap comes despite both brothers having downplayed —Attorney General Letitia James has said they demonstrably tried to hide — their roles in their father’s fuzzy net-worth math for years.

The brothers’ bad behavior continued even as the state’s fraud investigation played out for five years, as the two signed documents, answered emails, and attended meetings relating to that math, the judge found.

Engoron had telegraphed his intention to go easier on Trump’s two eldest sons during closing arguments last month.

“You spend all this time to prove that they know that there were financial statements, they signed them, they were responsible for them,” the judge said, interrupting one of James’ lawyers, Andrew Amer.

“What evidence do you have — and I just haven’t seen it — that they knew that there was fraud?” the judge asked.

“I don’t see the evidence,” the judge added.

A “head in the sand” fraud defense

Maybe the sons had their heads in the sand, Amer responded then. So what?

“Is that a defense?” the state lawyer asked the judge.

“If you have the responsibility,” he continued, “and you have the information that is within your access to understand if you are fulfilling your responsibility and instead you stick your head in the sand and don’t do anything to fulfill that responsibility, the law says that’s not a defense.

“And you can infer you have an intent to defraud,” Amer added. “They can’t say I didn’t bother to pay any attention to it. That is not a defense.”

What did Eric do wrong?

Eric Trump had done the remarkable in taking the witness stand back in early November. He claimed that until 2019, he had no idea his father ever even issued net-worth statements.

It’s a claim that Amer called in closings “some of the most incredible testimony in the whole trial, which is saying a lot.”

“I was focused on pouring concrete,” Eric Trump had said in a pre-trial deposition, during which he pleaded the Fifth some 500 times.

But a decade ago, Eric Trump helped fill three years of Trump’s financial statements with hundreds of millions of dollars in utterly imaginary net worth, the AG said.

That bogus net worth was for up to nine proposed McMansions Eric Trump hoped to build on his father’s Seven Springs property in upstate New York. Eric Trump knew the McMansions could never be built, the AG said, because he was there at the zoning board meetings where the plans were turned down.

Eric Trump also signed a 2021 agreement with the accounting firm Whitley Penn, accepting responsibility for the accuracy of a financial statement the AG says exaggerated Trump’s net worth by nearly $2 billion.

Defense lawyers countered that there is no evidence in the record that either Eric Trump or Don Trump, Jr. had any direct involvement in the actual preparation or use of their father’s net worth statements.

And what did Jr. do?

Like his little brother, Don Trump, Jr., was guarded when called to the witness stand. He said he couldn’t remember key details concerning the business, including whether he worked on his father’s net worth statements.

But there was no disputing his signature was on multiple documents, called “guarantor compliance certificates,” between 2017 and 2021 certifying on Trump’s behalf that the net-worth statements fairly represent his financial condition.

David Dee Delgado/Getty Images

Ivanka Trump was removed as a defendant in the lawsuit in an appellate court decision last summer.

Because she stopped working on Trump Organization deals when she began working for her father in the White House, Ivanka Trump was beyond the reach of the statute of limitations.

Donald Trump remained involved in the company even while he was president. Eric and Don Trump, Jr. — along with executives Allen Weisselberg (since convicted in a separate criminal trial) and Jeff McConney — ran the company on a day-to-day basis while the elder Trump was in office.

Barron and Tiffany Trump were not implicated in the case at all.

In the litigation with the New York attorney general’s office, Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr. have been primarily represented by Clifford S. Robert. His law firm, Robert & Robert, received $5.3 million in donor funds from Trump-controlled political action committees in 2023 — more than any other law firm.