■ Meena, 36, flew to the Inauguration on the private plane of a Biden donor and posted about the trip on her Instagram stories
By Morgan Phillips | Fox News
Meena Harris, the industrious and outspoken niece of Vice President Kamala Harris, is creating an optics issue for the White House.
Meena, 36, flew to the Inauguration on the private plane of a Biden inaugural donor and posted about the trip on her Instagram stories.
The Stanford and Harvard Law graduate has a children’s book about her aunt and mother that’s No. 4 on the New York Times bestseller list– “Kamala and Maya’s Big Idea.”
The book was published in June 2020, before Kamala was vice president, and thus breaks no laws. But White House officials told Politico the book couldn’t have been published today because it uses Kamala’s name and likeness. It’s unclear whether Meena is allowed to continue to draw royalties for the book, and she won’t say if she still is.
After members of President Biden’s family appeared to profit off his political sway during his years as senator and vice president, the White House has tried to distance itself from any further ethical violations. “It’s the White House’s policy that the president’s name should not be used in connection with any commercial activities to suggest or in any way, in any way they could reasonably be understood to imply his endorsement or support,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Friday.
In December, transition lawyers said they were drafting new ethics rules for business ventures of the Biden and Harris families that “are likely to be more restrictive than the rules that governed the Obama administration,” according to The Washington Post.
The VP’s office is taking the same stance. “The Vice President and her family will uphold the highest ethical standards and it’s the White House’s policy that the Vice President’s name should not be used in connection with any commercial activities that could reasonably be understood to imply an endorsement or support,” Sabrina Singh, spokesperson for the vice president, said in a statement to Politico.
The day after the inauguration, transition ethics lawyers had to tell Meena she could not continue to sell a number of items for her clothing brand Phenomenal that beared her aunt’s name– the “Kamala Harris Swimsuit,” “phenomenal Kamala Tank,” and “Kamala T-shirt.” The items that appeared last fall are no longer listed on her site.
Phenomenal has sold other items referencing Kamala during the campaign, including a sweatshirt MVP, standing for “Madam Vice President,” and another with the phrase “I’m speaking” on the front, alluding to Kamala’s repeated line during her debate with former Vice President Mike Pence.
After Biden picked Kamala as his running mate in August, Meena convinced the Biden team to sell a shirt in the campaign store bearing her name and that of fellow influencer Cleo Wade. The shirt read “THE FIRST BUT NOT THE LAST,” alongside a picture of a young Kamala, referencing Kamala’s historical swearing-in as first female vice president.
The Biden campaign agreed, but by Sept. 6, Meena’s name had been removed as a collaborator, according to an internet archive dug up by Politico.
“For appearance sake, Meena’s name was removed because we didn’t want to make it seem or appear that she would be benefiting or profiting from the campaign,” a White House official said, adding that neither Meena nor Wade made any money off the shirt.
This month, Meena was slapped on the hand again by ethics lawyers when in a collaboration with Beats by Dre, her clothing company adorned the same phrase “The First But Not The Last,” to Beats headphones they mailed out to influencers and celebrities ahead of the inauguration. The Biden team was not made aware of the collaboration in advance, according to Axios.
In her latest venture, Meena announced weeks after the election she was starting a production company with former Obama White House staffer Brad Jenkins, Phenomenal Productions.
– Another Nigerian is making the country proud in the US
– This is as Funmi Olorunnipa Badejo was appointed White House’s associate counsel by Joe Biden
– A lawyer and legal expert per excellence, the Nigerian-born is an alumnus of Berkeley Law College
Weeks after naming Nigeria’s Adewale Adeyemo as the deputy treasury secretary, the US president-elect Joe Biden has appointed Nigerian-born Funmi Olorunnipa Badejo as one of his legal advisers at the White House.
Olorunnipa Badejo was appointed as the associate counsel as the former vice president on Tuesday, January 12, named more than 20 lawyers to his White House counsel’s office, Bloomberg Law reports.
People of colours also announced in Biden’s White House legal team include Samiyyah Ali who was appointed deputy Associate counsel, Tona Boyd as special counsel and Megan Ceronsky as associate counsel.
Funmi Olorunnipa Badejo was appointed on Tuesday, making him the third Nigerian in Joe Biden’s cabinet. Credit:@BerkeleyLawCDO, Zola Source: Twitter
Fumi, who married another Nigeria Tunde Badejo, hailed from Kogi state, and she is an alumnus of Berkeley Law College in the United State.
A daughter of an immigrant who chooses to identify herself with Florida, Funmi was the general counsel of the House select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis chaired by House majority whip James E. Clyburn.
She began her legal career as an associate with the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP and was Legal Counsel at Palantir Technologies Inc.
She is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and the University of Florida.
Olorunnipa Badejo lives in Washington D.C. with her husband and son, according to her information on the Biden-Harris transition website.
Meanwhile, Bioreports reported that Joe Biden appointed Nigerian-born Osaremen Okolo as one of his advisers on COVID-19.
Okolo, who is a daughter of Nigerian immigrants, was appointed on Thursday, December 31, as one of the members of the Biden-Harris COVID-19 response team.
With her appointment, the Nigerian-born American becomes one of the first 100 White House appointees that will work with the president-elect when he finally takes over the Oval Office on January 20.
Donald Trump on Friday slammed investigative journalist Bob Woodward’s damning portrayal of the inner workings of the US president’s administration as a “scam,” alleging that it includes made-up quotes.
“The Woodward book is a scam. I don’t talk the way I am quoted. If I did I would not have been elected President. These quotes were made up. The author uses every trick in the book to demean and belittle,” Trump tweeted.
The IPOB leaders and friends in the United States in the company of their two attorneys met with White House Officials today, 21st July 2017 and made a case for referendum towards the third quarter of this year.
The Biafran delegate was issued with a certificate and given a date for a referendum, according to their report from the group’s delegate.
The meeting was not much publicised to avoid being infiltrated by the agents who IPOB delegates regard as enemies from the Nigerian government or APC distractors in the United States.
The actual meeting was not filmed, as that is wholly against the rules of the White House security protocols and was not covered widely by the press
The issues raised in the meeting were the referendum and the scheduled date for the referendum. Their government support for Biafra and their struggle for independence.
According to one of the delegates, Miss Candy Stallworth, who is an American but one of the IPOB leaders, the date for the Biafran referendum is scheduled for 12th of September 2017.
Though, this date seemed very close and apparently not much preparation has been made for the actual referendum, one wonders how feasible this date is.
In a phone call by The Republican News with one of the delegates, who would not want to be mentioned, he said that the United States actually supports Biafra and the need for a referendum. ‘They are really in affirmative and in good thought about Biafra’, he said.
He also said: ‘President Donald Trump has his options very wide open about Biafra and he has been following the issue with keen interest’. Also, the time is coming when the entire United States government will make a public statement about Biafra and he is sure it is going to be shocking to the enemies’.
He also said that President Trump and America are not against Biafra and asked Biafrans to keep to keep their hope alive and strong. The delegate said that the time is coming when the whole government will turn around and give total support for Biafra, and that includes the government of other countries.
The vague thing here is whether the September 12th date for the referendum is for an actual referendum or scheduled date for the United States to make a public statement about Biafra referendum.
Obviously, if these are true and real, the Nigerian government may have picked up some bits of information on the reality and the authenticity of the probable upcoming announcement and the date for a referendum. So, why is the APC-led government not doing anything to address the issue or is the government aware that Biafra will finally come and has given up hope about it. Perhaps, the government do not regard it as serious the issue about Biafra.
Donald Trump should remove his children from the presidential administration, a congressman from his own party has said.
Representative Bill Flores of Texas said: “I’m going out on a limb here – but I would say I think it would be in the president’s best interest if he removed all his children from the White House.
“Not only Donald Trump [Jr] but Ivanka and Jared Kushner,” the Republican politician told Texas TV station KBTX. Mr Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Mr Kushner both hold posts as his senior advisors.
The advice comes after the release on Tuesday of an incendiary series of emails showing that Mr Trump Jr worked to arrange a meeting between Mr Kushner and a Russian lawyer who claimed to hold potentially incriminating material about Hillary Clinton.
“I do find issues with the meeting, that it’s a meeting that should not have taken place,” said Rep. Flores on KBTX.
“I think he probably thought he was looking out for his father’s best interests.”
Rep. Flores later clarified his comments in a statement.
“Through no fault of their own, the presence of President Trump’s adult children in the White House has caused some distractions from the work the Trump administration is doing on behalf of hardworking American families,” Flores said in the statement.
Donald Trump’s first 100 days: The 100 best (or worst) photos of the US President
“Given the liberal media’s unwavering scrutiny of the Trump administration, it may be beneficial for the president to do all he can to remove any distractions from the administration so that he can focus on our conservative agenda.”
President Trump defended his children this week, saying in Paris on Thursday: “My son is a wonderful young man. He took a meeting with a Russian lawyer, not a government lawyer, but a Russian lawyer.” (Evening Standard)
Related video: Spicer says Hitler “didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons” (courtesy of Reuters)
WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Sean Spicer is apologizing for making an “insensitive” reference to the Holocaust in earlier comments about Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons.
Spicer says in an interview with CNN that he mistakenly used “an inappropriate, insensitive reference to the Holocaust.” He says there was no comparison and “it was a mistake to do that.” He adds, “It was my blunder.”
Spicer said during a White House briefing Tuesday that Adolf Hitler “didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.” That drew instant rebuke from Jewish groups and critics who noted it ignored Hitler’s use of gas chambers to exterminate Jews during the Holocaust.
Spicer was attempting to discuss the horror of the chemical weapons attack last week in Syria.
This is a breaking news update. Check back later for more. (REUTERS)
Former White House ethics lawyer to President Obama Norman Eisen said Wednesday that he and the former ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush see Ivanka Trump’s role as an adviser to President Trump as a violation of nepotism laws.
“My view… is that the nepotism statue does apply to the White House,” Eisen said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” of the announcement that Ivanka Trump would receive an official role in the Trump administration. “For decades the Justice Department held ‘yes’ the nepotism statue applies to the White House.”
Eisen conceded that the “reasonable minds can disagree” on whether the statue should apply.
“President Trump got an opinion from the Justice Department that the nepotism statute doesn’t apply to his White House,” Eisen continued. “We don’t agree with that opinion.”
Earlier Wednesday, it was reported that Ivanka would be an official government employee and serve in the White House as an unpaid senior adviser to her father. She currently has a West Wing office, but initially said she’d work with in her father’s administration in an informal advising capacity.
She appears to have changed her plans after critics pointed out that an informal role would allow her to avoid certain ethics rules and required disclosures that come with serving in the government.
The role has caused some critics to raise the possibility that the role is in violation of the nepotism law passed in 1967, which says no public official, from the president down to a low-level manager at a federal agency, may hire or promote a relative. (The Hill)
The political appointee charged with keeping watch over Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and his aides has offered unsolicited advice so often that after just four weeks on the job, Pruitt has shut him out of many staff meetings, according to two senior administration officials.
At the Pentagon, they’re privately calling the former Marine officer and fighter pilot who’s supposed to keep his eye on Defense Secretary Jim Mattis “the commissar,” according to a high-ranking defense official with knowledge of the situation. It’s a reference to Soviet-era Communist Party officials who were assigned to military units to ensure their commanders remained loyal.
Most members of President Trump’s Cabinet do not yet have leadership teams in place or even nominees for top deputies. But they do have an influential coterie of senior aides installed by the White House who are charged — above all — with monitoring the secretaries’loyalty, according to eight officials in and outside the administration.
This shadow government of political appointees with the title of senior White House adviser is embedded at every Cabinet agency, with offices in or just outside the secretary’s suite. The White House has installed at least 16 of the advisers at departments including Energy and Health and Human Services and at some smaller agencies such as NASA, according to records first obtained by ProPublica through a Freedom of Information Act request.
These aides report not to the secretary, but to Rick Dearborn, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, according to administration officials. A top Dearborn aide, John Mashburn, leads a weekly conference call with the advisers, who are in constant contact with the White House.
The aides act as a go-between on policy matters for the agencies and the White House. Behind the scenes, though, they’re on another mission: to monitor Cabinet leaders and their top staffs to make sure they carry out the president’s agenda and don’t stray too far from the White House’s talking points, said several officials with knowledge of the arrangement.
“Especially when you’re starting a government and you have a changeover of parties when policies are going to be dramatically different, I think it’s something that’s smart,” said Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser. “Somebody needs to be there as the White House’s man on the scene. Because there’s no senior staff yet, they’re functioning as the White House’s voice and ears in these departments.”
The arrangement is unusual. It wasn’t used by Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. And it’s also different from the traditional liaisons who shepherd the White House’s political appointees to the various agencies.Critics say the competing chains of command eventually will breed mistrust, chaos and inefficiency — especially as new department heads build their staffs.
“It’s healthy when there is some daylight between the president’s Cabinet and the White House, with room for some disagreement,” said Kevin Knobloch, who was chief of staff under Obama to then-Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
“That can only happen when agency secretaries have their own team, who report directly to them,” he said. “Otherwise it comes off as not a ringing vote of confidence in the Cabinet.”
The White House declined to comment about the appointees on the record, citing the confidentiality of personnel matters and internal operations. But a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, contested their mission of holding agencies accountable and said they technically report to each department’s chief of staff or to the secretaries themselves.
“The advisers were a main point of contact in the early transition process as the agencies were being set up,” the official said in an email. “Like every White House, this one is in frequent contact with agencies and departments.”
The advisers’ power may be heightened by the lack of complete leadership teams at many departments.
The long delay in getting Trump’s nominee for agriculture secretary, former Georgia governor Sonny Perdue (R), confirmed means that Sam Clovis, who was a Trump campaign adviser, and transition team leader Brian Klippenstein continue to serve as the agency’s top political appointees.
“He and Brian Klippenstein are just a handful of appointees on the ground and they’re doing a big part of the day-to-day work” said Dale Moore, the American Farm Bureau Federation’s public policy executive director.
Every president tries to assert authority over the executive branch, with varying degrees of success.
The Obama White House kept tight control over agencies, telling senior officials what they could publicly disclose about their own department’s operations. Foreign policy became so centralizedthat State Department and Defense Department officials complained privately that they felt micromanaged on key decisions.
After then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made some political gaffes, Obama aides wanted to install a political aide at the Justice Department to monitor him. But Holder was furious about the intrusion and blocked the plan. Former defense secretary Robert M. Gates pushed back against a top official the White House wanted at the Pentagon to guide Asia policy, wary of someone so close to the president in his orbit.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), a Trump adviser, said the president needs to dispatch political allies to the agencies to monitor a bureaucracy that’s being targeted for reduction.
“If you drain the swamp, you better have someone who watches over the alligators,” Gingrich said.“These people are actively trying to undermine the new government.And they think it’s their moral obligation to do so.”
At the Transportation Department, former Pennsylvania lobbyist Anthony Pugliese shuttles back and forth between the White House and DOT headquarters on New Jersey Avenue, according to an agency official. His office is just 20 paces from Secretary Elaine Chao, the official said.
Day to day, Pugliese and his counterparts inform Cabinet officials of priorities the White House wants them to keep on their radar. They oversee the arrival of new political appointees and coordinate with the West Wing on the agency’s direction.
The arrangement is collegial in some offices, including at Transportation and Interior, where aides to Chao and Secretary Ryan Zinke insisted that the White House advisers work as part of the team, attending meetings, helping form an infrastructure task force and designing policy on public lands.
Tensions between the White House and the Cabinet already have spilled into public view. Mattis, the defense secretary, and Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly were caught unaware in January by the scope of the administration’s travel ban in January. The president has been furious about leaks on national security matters.
Trump does not have long-standing relationships or close personal ties with most leaders in his Cabinet. That’s why gauging their loyalty is so important, said officials who described the structure.
“A lot of these [Cabinet heads] have come from roles where they’re the executive,” said a senior administration official not authorized to publicly discuss the White House advisers. “But when you become head of an agency, you’re no longer your own person. It’s a hard change for a lot of these people: They’re not completely autonomous anymore.”
Many of the senior advisers lack expertise in their agency’s mission and came from the business or political world. They include Trump campaign aides, former Republican National Committee staffers, conservative activists, lobbyists and entrepreneurs.
At Homeland Security, for example, is Frank Wuco, a former security consultant whose blog Red Wire describes the terrorist threat as rooted in Islam. To explain the threat, he appears on YouTube as a fictional jihadist.
Matt Mowers, a former aide to New Jersey Gov. Christie (R) who was Trump’s national field coordinator before landing at the State Department as senior adviser, said through a spokesman that he “leads interagency coordination” among the White House, agencies and the National Security Council and “coordinates on policy and personnel.”
Mowers sits at the edge of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s seventh-floor suite, dubbed Mahogany Row. But neither Tillerson nor his chief of staff are his direct boss.
Many of the advisers arrived from the White House with the small groups known as “beachhead teams” that started work on Jan. 20. One of the mandates at the top of their to-do list now, Bennett said, is making sure the agencies are identifying regulations the administration wants to roll back and vetting any new ones.
At the Pentagon, Brett Byers acts as a go-between between Mattis’s team and the White House, largely on “bureaucratic” matters, said an official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel issues.
Career officials who work near the “E” ring offices occupied by senior Pentagon staff, suspicious that Byers is not directly on Mattis’s team, came up with the Soviet-era moniker “commissar”to describe him, someone familiar with their thinking said.
Elsewhere, resentment has built up. Pruitt is bristling at the presence of former Washington state senator Don Benton, who ran the president’s Washington state campaign and is now the EPA’s senior White House adviser, said two senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.
These officials said Benton piped up so frequently during policy discussions that he had been disinvited from many of them. One of the officials described the situation as akin to an episode of the HBO comedy series “Veep.”
Trump’s approach may not be so different than Abraham Lincoln’s. Coming into the White House after more than a half-century of Democrats in power, Lincoln worked swiftly to oust hostile bureaucrats and appoint allies. But he still had to deal with an Army led by many senior officers who sympathized with the South, as well as a government beset by internal divisions.
Gettysburg College professor Allen C. Guelzo described Lincoln as “surrounded by smiling enemies,” which prompted him to embed his friends into army camps as well as some federal departments.
“I think that presidents actually do this more than it appears,” said Guelzo, adding that Lincoln dispatched Quartermaster General of the U.S. Army Montgomery Meigs to circulate among the Army of the Potomac to pick up any negative “doggerel” or insults officers made about him.
WASHINGTON — President Trump wrote off more than $100 million in business losses to reduce his federal taxes in 2005, according to forms made public on Tuesday night: a rare glimpse at documents that he had refused to disclose since becoming a candidate for the nation’s highest office.
Mr. Trump paid $38 million in federal income taxes on reported income of $150 million, an effective tax rate of 25 percent, according to forms disclosed on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show. By claiming losses, Mr. Trump apparently saved millions of dollars in taxes that he would otherwise have owed.
The White House responded without even waiting for the show to air, issuing a statement that seemed to confirm the authenticity of the forms even as it defended Mr. Trump and assailed MSNBC for publicizing them. “Before being elected president, Mr. Trump was one of the most successful businessmen in the world, with a responsibility to his company, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the statement said.
The White House described the business losses as a “large-scale depreciation for construction,” but did not elaborate. In addition to the federal income taxes in 2005, the statement said, he paid “tens of millions of dollars in other taxes, such as sales and excise taxes and employment taxes, and this illegally published return proves just that.”
Mr. Trump’s refusal to make his tax returns public during the campaign broke with decades of tradition in presidential contests and emerged as a central issue. That drumbeat has continued since he entered the White House, particularly from critics who contend that his returns may shed light on various aspects of his business practices, including whether he has done business with Russian companies and banks.
Nothing in the two pages produced on Tuesday night suggested any ties with Russia. Nor did they provide much information about his businesses that was not previously known. But they showed that the vast bulk of the federal income taxes he paid in 2005, $31 million, was paid under the alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Trump wants to abolish.
That tax serves as a backstop to the ordinary income tax and is intended to prevent wealthy Americans from paying no income tax at all. Without it, Mr. Trump would have paid about $5 million in regular taxes, plus nearly $2 million in self-employment taxes, on $153 million in income in 2005.
“Trump’s return shows that he’s pushing tax changes that benefit multimillionaire heirs like him, not the middle class,” said Lily Batchelder, a tax law professor at New York University and former majority chief tax counsel for the Senate Finance Committee. “His proposal to repeal the A.M.T. would have slashed his own tax burden by $31 million, and his income tax rate would be lower than the average rate paid by families earning $75,000 to $100,000.”
Edward Kleinbard, a professor of tax law at the University of Southern California, said, “It’s disturbing that he is pushing to eliminate the only tax that really bit him in that year.”
The White House castigated MSNBC for reporting on Mr. Trump’s taxes. “You know you are desperate for ratings when you are willing to violate the law to push a story about two pages of tax returns from over a decade ago,” its statement said. “The dishonest media can continue to make this part of their agenda, while the president will focus on his, which includes tax reform that will benefit all Americans.”
The president’s son Donald Trump Jr. suggested that the disclosure only demonstrated his father’s business acumen. “Thank you Rachel Maddow for proving to your #Trump hating followers how successful @realdonaldtrump is & that he paid $40mm in taxes!” he wrote on Twitter.
Democrats pounced on Tuesday night’s report, arguing that the White House’s decision to release details of Mr. Trump’s 2005 taxes before Ms. Maddow’s show undercut his past refusal to release any such information.
“If they can release some of the information, they can release all of the information,” Zac Petkanas, a senior adviser to the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “The only reason not to release his returns is to hide what’s in them, such as financial connections with Russian oligarchs and the Kremlin.”
The tax forms were sent to David Cay Johnston, a former New York Times reporter who covered tax policy for years and has written a book on Mr. Trump. Appearing with Ms. Maddow, he said he had received the forms “over the transom” at his home and did not know who had sent them. He suggested that they might even have been sent by Mr. Trump himself. Because he did not solicit the forms, Mr. Johnston said it was not illegal to receive them.
The forms showed that Mr. Trump made $67 million in real estate royalties, $42 million in business income, $32 million in capital gains, $9 million in taxable interest and $998,599 in salary in 2005, for a total of nearly $153 million. After writing off $103 million, he reported adjusted gross income of nearly $49 million. In the end, he had to write a check for $2,450,597, including penalties and interest for late payment.
In October, The Times published three pages of Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns, which showed a $916 million deduction that could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years. The forms disclosed on Tuesday do not say whether the $103 million in losses were left over from that 1995 loss.
The 1995 deduction was derived from the financial wreckage of some of the companies Mr. Trump drove into bankruptcy years ago, including his Atlantic City casinos, and would have allowed him to cancel out taxable income for an 18-year period. A tax code provision benefiting real estate developers, which took effect in 1993, permitted businesses like Mr. Trump’s to take tax deductions for losing other people’s money.
Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Trump was able to deduct $39.1 million from his federal income taxes in 2005 by pledging not to build on a New Jersey golf course he owned.
However, it was unclear how much of a deduction Mr. Trump actually took. The I.R.S. has challenged such deductions, known as conservation easements, saying that taxpayers overstated the value of their transactions.
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump initially promised he would release his tax returns. “I have very big returns, as you know, and I have everything all approved and very beautiful, and we’ll be working that over in the next period of time,” he said in a January 2016 television interview. He then backpedaled, saying he would wait until the I.R.S. had completed its audit. In May 2016, tax lawyers for Mr. Trump released a letter saying that his personal returns had been “under continuous examination” by the I.R.S. since 2002, and that examinations of his returns from 2009 on were continuing.
The I.R.S. has not confirmed that Mr. Trump’s taxes are, in fact, under audit.
Few people outside Mr. Trump’s inner circle have seen his tax returns. One person who has is Timothy L. O’Brien, another former Times reporter, whom Mr. Trump sued for libel after Mr. O’Brien published a book that argued that Mr. Trump’s net worth was $150 million to $250 million, rather than several billion dollars, as Mr. Trump had claimed. The suit was ultimately dismissed.
Limited information about Mr. Trump’s tax returns from other years has surfaced in court and regulatory records. A 1981 report by New Jersey regulators assessing his fitness for a casino license stated that he had paid more than $71,000 in federal income taxes on about $218,000 of taxable income earned from 1975 to 1977.
But in the next two years, 1978 and 1979, Mr. Trump paid no federal income taxes. The New Jersey report explained that, by taking advantage of deductions available to real estate developers and claiming losses from partnerships, he was able to report a “negative income” of $406,379 in 1978 and $3.4 million in 1979 — thus avoiding any tax liability for those two years, a time when he claimed to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Tax court records indicate that Mr. Trump also avoided paying federal income taxes in 1984. In 1991 and 1993, when his Atlantic City casinos were in deep financial trouble, casino commission reports show he claimed losses that would have allowed him to avoid paying income taxes in those years, too. Mr. Trump may have been able to use those losses to reduce or eliminate his federal tax bill for years to come.
During the presidential debate, Hillary Clinton suggested that Mr. Trump was refusing to release his tax returns to hide the fact that he did not pay federal income taxes. “That makes me smart,” Mr. Trump retorted during one debate.
In response to The Times’s disclosure that Mr. Trump could have used a $916 million tax loss to avoid paying years of federal income taxes, Mr. Trump and his surrogates said the revelation merely proved his “genius” at legally avoiding that burden.