The justices announced in June that they would not take up Trump’s petition seeking to overturn that verdict, stemming from a lawsuit in which Carroll alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. But Trump raged against the decision and filed a last-ditch motion last month asking them to revisit the issue.
In a routine order list issued Monday, the high court turned down Trump’s rehearing request without comment or any indication of dissent. Trump’s
petition came during the justices’ summer break, so it appears they did
not discuss the filing face-to-face before rejecting it.
In July, Carroll received more than $5.6 million
from the sexual abuse and defamation case after a federal judge ordered
the money she was awarded plus accumulated interest released to her
despite Trump’s continued attempts to halt the payment.
Trump has also asked the Supreme Court to overturn a $83.3 million jury award resulting from a separate defamation lawsuit filed by Carroll. The justices are likely to indicate later this year whether they will hear arguments in that case.
Trump’s
Supreme Court challenges to both verdicts argued in part that the
verdicts were flawed because they relied on statements Trump made in 2019 about Carroll while he was serving as president and those statements should be considered immune from legal liability under the high court’s 2024 ruling granting presidents immunity for many acts they take while in office.
United
States envoy Jared Kushner is set to meet Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday for high-stakes talks in Tel Aviv,
following intensive diplomatic sessions in Cairo, Egypt, aimed at advancing the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire roadmap.
Kushner, accompanied by Board of Peace Director-General Nickolay Mladenov and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
held an unprecedented meeting lasting more than two hours with a Hamas
delegation. The Reuters news agency reported that Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya headed the team.
The diplomatic push comes as Washington seeks to implement a 15-point roadmap for Gaza — approved by US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace.
However, Netanyahu has publicly rejected
the framework, insisting that Israeli forces will not withdraw until
Hamas is fully disarmed, while Israel continues military operations in
Gaza and expands its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Here
is what we know about Kushner’s meeting with Hamas leaders, what he is
expected to do next, and what these developments mean for the 15-point
plan for Gaza.
Why did Kushner meet Hamas leaders?
Officially,
the US describes Hamas as a banned, “terrorist” organisation.
Unofficially, the US has long engaged with the Palestinian group, mostly
through mediators.
Political analysts view the direct engagement
between the US envoys and the Hamas leadership as a pivotal recognition
of political realities on the ground.
Mahjoob Zweiri, a lecturer
and expert in Middle East politics at Doha Institute for Graduate
Studies, told Al Jazeera that the meeting represents a “type of American
submission to the fact that Hamas is a political force in Palestinian
society that cannot be ignored”.
He noted that despite Israeli
attempts to sideline the group, Washington recognises that Hamas remains
an indispensable actor for any lasting settlement.
“This is a
matter Netanyahu was trying to avoid,” Zweiri said, adding that the
Israeli prime minister “is rebellious against US policy and
international law”.
Adel Shadid, an expert in Israeli affairs,
echoed this assessment, describing the direct Cairo talks as a profound
strategic shift that he said would be deeply unnerving for the Israeli
leadership.
“This reveals that there is a shift in the American position towards Hamas,” Shadid told Al Jazeera.
He
added that Washington now views the movement differently, indicating
that “Hamas is no longer the problem in the American reading, but rather
part of the solution”.
Shadid emphasised that this dynamic
“contradicts one of the most important goals of the war, represented by
the eradication of Hamas, not only militarily but also politically”.
Ahmed
Atawna, director of the Istanbul-based Vision Center for Political
Development, told Al Jazeera that Palestinian factions currently hold a
solid tactical negotiating posture alongside Egyptian, Qatari and
Turkish mediators.
“We can say now that the Palestinians and
resistance factions — even if conditionally or tactically — are in a
good negotiating position,” Atawna said.
What’s on the agenda when Kushner meets Netanyahu?
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported
that US officials are increasingly frustrated that Israel is “trying to
buy time, introduce new reservations, and change the sequencing set out
in the roadmap”.
Citing sources familiar with the discussions, the newspaper reported that Washington feels “Israel is playing games”.
According
to the daily, Kushner’s mandate during his Monday meeting with
Netanyahu is not to reopen negotiations, with one source stating that he
“is not coming to Israel for another round of diplomatic ping pong” but
rather “is coming to close”.
The US administration is expected to push Netanyahu on halting attacks in Gaza, withdrawing forces to the “Yellow Line“,
significantly increasing humanitarian aid to the Palestinian enclave
and enabling the rollout of reconstruction and civilian governance
mechanisms.
Why does this matter to Trump?
According
to some analysts, Trump is increasingly invested in forcing a
breakthrough over Gaza amid other foreign policy setbacks.
“Iran
is not going the way he wants, and his attempt to separate the Lebanese
file from the memorandum of understanding did not succeed,” Zweiri told
Al Jazeera. “The only file where he can make a breakthrough and record
it as a victory in his foreign policy is the Gaza file now.”
Eight
Arab and Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates, Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkiye, issued a
joint statement condemning Israel’s rejection of the roadmap and accusing it of delaying efforts to end the genocidal war on Gaza.
They
warned that rejecting the framework “constitutes an explicit refusal to
proceed with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, and directly
threatens to derail the extensive efforts exerted by US President Trump
to bring an end to the war in Gaza”.
Fifteen-point plan: What’s the main dispute over?
The central dispute centres on the sequencing of obligations under the 15-point plan.
The
framework calls for a phased approach involving the cessation of
military operations, the gradual dismantling and storage of arms, an
Israeli military withdrawal and the deployment of an International Stabilization Force working alongside a Palestinian technocratic administration.
While
Hamas confirmed its acceptance of the roadmap during the Cairo
meetings, it insisted that execution depends on Israel fulfilling its
prior commitments and halting its daily violations of the “ceasefire”
that officially came into effect last October.
Since the broader “ceasefire” agreement took effect, Israeli attacks have killed at least 1,260 Palestinians in Gaza.
Hamas
spokesperson Hazem Qassem stated that the Cairo talks focused on
placing mediators and the Board of Peace in full view of Israeli
violations, emphasising that any progress requires binding Israel to the
agreed-upon roadmap.
Meanwhile, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah
el-Sisi, who also met Kushner, reiterated the necessity for all parties
to respect the commitments made under the October 2025 Sharm el-Sheikh
peace framework.
Trump’s crypto, airplane, and other grifts violate the emoluments clause.Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images.
Last week’s episode of Amicus
included a mailbag special in which Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph
Stern answered listeners’ burning questions about the law. Amicus
listeners have a lot of smart questions, so we’re running an occasional
“Dear (Juris)Prudence” series in which we share your questions and Mark
and Dahlia’s answers. Write to amicus@slate.com to pose a question to Dahlia and Mark. This transcript has been edited and condensed for clarity. Dear (Juris)Prudence,
I’m
a retired lawyer and a longtime Plusketeer who loves your podcast. I
keep wondering whether Trump’s crypto, airplane, and other grifts
violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. More generally, I am
not sure what constitutes an emolument. I would love to hear your
opinions on this.
—Deborah Porter
Dahlia Lithwick: I love this question because it reminds us how far we’ve come from the robust discussions we used to have in 2017 about emoluments,
where that was the only game in town, and now it’s, in some ways, like
the trailing toilet paper on the shoe, it’s almost so trivial compared
to so many other things. Yet, it’s in the Constitution, not one place,
but two places.
And
it’s still the law. When you start googling about the emoluments
clause, the first thing that keeps coming up is “What ever happened to
the emoluments clause,” as though it was excised from the Constitution.
No, friends, there’s two emoluments clauses! They really are totally
uncontroversial, and both clauses were seen as, like, these original
anti-corruption, anti-grifting prohibitions, and were largely just
observed.
The
foreign emoluments clause prevents the president and other federal
officers from accepting “Any present, emolument, office or title of any
kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state.” And it requires
the consent of Congress to do so, and it’s introduced at the
Constitutional Convention by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. There’s
a culture at the time of lavish gift-giving to diplomats and foreign
officials, and he’s just terrified that officers of the United States
will be beholden and influenced by foreigners. And the convention
approves this unanimously without noted debate because it’s so freaking
obvious, right? That you don’t want to be accepting fancy pens or, like,
gorgeous gold earrings or an airplane, which wasn’t invented
yet. So that’s the foreign emoluments clause. The domestic emoluments
clause provides for the president to receive a fixed salary and bars him
from receiving “Any other emolument from the United States or any of
them.” Again, this is designed to keep the president from being beholden
to or pressured by Congress or any individual state, right?
They
are both still in the document. And in addition to that, it’s very,
very clear what it means. There’s not a lot of doctrine about this
because, as I said, it was self-enforced by presidents historically, and
the Justice Department is very clear the guidance provides that the
clauses prohibit receipt of profits, advantages, or benefits from a
foreign government without the consent of Congress, or from any U.S.
state.
None of this is in dispute, and here’s the bitch of it:
The Constitution doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism, and because it
was voluntarily complied with and presidents historically erred on the
side of caution, we literally don’t have a magic red emoluments
button to press when presidents start to violate it, and when
presidents are close to the line, right? Barack Obama seeks formal legal
guidance when he’s trying to decide whether he can accept the cash
prize that comes along with his Nobel Peace Prize. But generally,
presidents were very, very good about asking their lawyers, or as the
foreign emoluments provision says, asking Congress.
And
I guess what’s so depressing about this question is that we learned
that what we thought was another enforceable, immutable rule was just a
convention and a norm, because when Trump first takes office in 2017, he
wouldn’t separate himself from his business holdings, right? His
hotels, which he wouldn’t separate himself from, were teeming with
foreign actors who learned that they could buy influence there.
And
there were a bunch of lawsuits that were filed at the time and some
really interesting rulings from lower courts around the country, and the
whole bunch of it is dismissed in 2021 when the Supreme Court just
kicks away two cases on procedural grounds. Why? Because Trump has left
office.
So,
they had an opportunity to say, “Hey, future presidents who want to
accept gifts and grifts, there’s some law here,” but they didn’t. Fine.
But what it meant was that an emboldened Trump comes back into office
and is like, Huh, there’s no law here. And he goes on to, as the question suggests, accept and construct horrifying grifts, right?
We’ve
got the World Liberty financial trading platform. We’ve got the
memecoins. We’ve got this $400 million luxury plane, right? And this is
all presumably OK. So I just want to end by noting that, of
course, there’s a role for Congress here. We have been talking in the
last couple of weeks about popular constitutionalism.
We could lean on Congress and say: “Once upon a time in 1966, Congress
established the statutory protection for handling gifts.” This was the
Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act. Congress can do lots more. It could
pass legislation right now that guarantees that there’s a right to sue
so that we know who has standing under the emoluments clauses to clarify
what counts as an emolument.
There’s
a lot of stuff here that Congress can do, and they’re not going to do
it. Although I should note that Jamie Raskin just introduced two
resolutions seeking enforcement mechanisms for the emoluments clauses.
So I just want to note that this is sitting around on the table doing nothing.
And it’s doing nothing in part because I think the American public
conversation has moved on, in part because Congress is going to do
nothing about it until and unless Congress changes, but in part because
we the people failed to press Congress to say, “If we really think it’s
hinky AF to get $400 million planes, there are mechanisms to do
something about it.” And so I want to really end on this note of:
Waiting around for someone else to do something about the enforcement of
the emoluments clause hasn’t really worked thus far, and to the extent
it might work, it’s going to work because we make them do something
about it.
Mark Joseph Stern: This idea of republican virtue, lowercase r, civic virtue, the Framers were obsessed
with it. And so, you noted, they put this in the Constitution twice
because they were deeply concerned about corruption, and they felt that
corrupt leaders—and here corrupt presidents—would corrupt an entire
nation and forever destroy the American Republic. So these are not just
sort of weird random afterthoughts or vestiges. These are actually
important provisions of the Constitution.
For
much of history, presidents adhered to them, including by seeking
approval from Congress before accepting gifts from foreign states and
foreign leaders. We actually had a system where presidents would follow
the Constitution, go to Congress, say, “May I receive these?,” and
Congress would take an up or down vote. Trump hasn’t even tried to do
that, right? So he’s not even pretending to comply with these clauses,
even though they’re vital anti-corruption protections in the
Constitution.
The courts have sort of bounced this. The Supreme Court said, Well, he’s out of office, so it doesn’t matter anymore.
The cases against him in his first term about emoluments were sort of
slow-walked, right? And the Supreme Court clearly didn’t want to touch
them.
Query
why emoluments get the backhand, and this clause is sort of forgotten
and maybe implicitly deemed as this backwater. As compared to something
like the Second Amendment, which also doesn’t have a judicial
enforcement mechanism, right? There’s certainly nothing that says, “The
Supreme Court shall have the power to strike down laws that violate this
amendment,” and also doesn’t actually guarantee an individual right by
its plain text. Why is that a favored constitutional provision while
this stuff all gets shoved to the side?
Finally,
I guess I’ll just say I think that the expansion of executive power is a
huge part of what has allowed Trump to violate the emoluments clauses
with such abandon, right? Because even when Congress tried to
investigate this stuff in the first term, and there was a case—part of
one of the sort of financial investigation cases at the Supreme Court
was about the emoluments clause and Congress’ attempt to enforce it and
pass legislation to enforce it. And the Supreme Court came in with this
decision saying, Well, we need to protect executive power and the
separation of powers and executive prerogative, and we’re worried about
Congress entrenching on executive power. So we’re going to make it
harder for Congress to investigate the president’s acceptance of
emoluments.
That
is backwards from what the Framers would have wanted. And Trump’s
ever-expanding ability to do whatever he wants and say, “Courts can’t
review it. Congress can’t interfere with it,” citing the immunity
decision, now citing Slaughter, citing all of this stuff that
the Supreme Court has made up to give Trump unlimited power, he is able
to kind of smuggle emoluments through those loopholes.
So
this is just another case of an imperial president constructed out of
whole cloth by a Supreme Court that is not following the original
meaning or plain text of the Constitution.
Atlas Preparatory Academy, a private school in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Every student relies on taxpayer dollars from one of the
state’s four voucher programs to pay all or part of their tuition.
Caleb Alvarado for ProPublica
Atlas Preparatory Academy, a private school in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Every student relies on taxpayer dollars from one of the
state’s four voucher programs to pay all or part of their tuition.
Caleb Alvarado for ProPublica
At “Quasi-Public” Private Schools, 100% of Students Get Tuition Vouchers. There’s Almost No Accountability.
Private schools — even those that are heavily dependent on taxpayer
funding — often operate without the scrutiny public schools are subject
to. Following the money at one Milwaukee private school reveals an
opaque world with little oversight.
At some point, my reporting colleagues and I began referring to them as the “100% schools.”
We were following the money that flows from states’ public coffers
into private schools through vouchers when we noticed a subset of
educational facilities where tax dollars cover all or a big part of the
tuition for every student.
In essence, these were schools that were funded like public schools but didn’t operate with the same oversight or transparency.
Our reporting found that these types of private schools exist
throughout the country and that in Wisconsin — where I’m based — there
were 39 that fell into that category during the most recent school year.
Together, they were educating 7,923 children and taking in roughly $87
million from vouchers offered by the state.
Atlas Preparatory Academy in Milwaukee was a 100% school in my city
that had low test scores and declining enrollment while also receiving
more than $4.3 million in voucher money for 357 students in grades K-12.
It was one of the first schools I dug into, and immediately some of the
facts I unearthed in public documents made me curious.
There was, for instance, the money being made by its board chair, who
also appeared to serve as a school administrator. His compensation was
more than $150,000 in 2024.
This dual role would be prohibited at a traditional public school in
Wisconsin, though there are no such rules for private schools.
In another transaction that would raise alarm in a public school
setting, the same board chair’s accounting firm received tens of
thousands of dollars from the school for accounting and consulting.
During my reporting, it became clear that the school’s operations
were not only discordant with public school policies but with basic
governing standards for nonprofits, experts told me.
More than a decade ago, a Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction research paper on what it called “choice schools” asked: “When is a private school really a public school?”
Though that question still resonates today, public officials supporting vouchers have yet to provide a clear answer.
Have you had trouble finding a school or using a voucher-style program?
Do you have concerns about schools — public or private — in your area?
Help us understand how families across the country are navigating their
school options.
Nor has there been any progress in Wisconsin or elsewhere in lining
up the standards of private and public schools on a range of issues,
even with the spectacular growth of private schools funded by taxpayer
dollars.
Voucher schools, for instance, are not required to serve all children with disabilities. Public schools are.
Another major difference is transparency. In Wisconsin and elsewhere,
information about public schools — good, bad or mundane — can be
gleaned through open meetings, district YouTube channels and robust
websites with detailed agendas, minutes, reports, statistics and
information about enrollment, curriculum, special education services and
more.
Districts have to abide by Wisconsin’s open records law, meaning that
reams of records are available to anyone who formally requests them.
Not so for the private schools. Voucher schools must, by law, have at
least two opportunities a year for parents to meet with the governing
board. But the schools do not have to make those meetings accessible to
the general public.
In many states, private schools also don’t have to administer
standardized tests or report those scores — in sharp contrast to the
mandates for public schools. Wisconsin is different because it does
require both students using vouchers and public school students to be
tested, though parents can and do opt out.
In recent years, Atlas Prep has fared poorly on the state’s report
card for schools, garnering the lowest rating: “fails to meet
expectations,” or one star out of a possible five.
Not far from Atlas, Bay View High School, a public school, also has
earned only one star on the state report card. Its website connects the
public to the school’s improvement plan — its strategy to reduce
dropouts and improve school culture — as well as information about local
school council meetings and discipline methods, and about its science,
technology, engineering, arts and math programming.
The Atlas Prep website includes a tab labeled “Build Your Own Curriculum.” When you click on it, nothing loads.
Though every student at the 100% schools we looked at relies on
public funds for tuition, the money does not necessarily make up the
institution’s total budget. The schools can take in additional revenue
from investments, fundraising, grants or other means, but they are
heavily dependent on tax dollars to maintain operations.
“If the choice schools are really some kind of quasi-public schools,
then in keeping with national efforts to turnaround struggling schools,
it may be necessary to subject low-performing choice schools to
financial sanctions, turnaround efforts or even closure,” the state
Department of Public Instruction suggested in its research paper.
That was back in 2011. Those types of accountability measures still do not exist.
Some key financial documents are available, however, for Wisconsin voucher schools — if you know where to look.
Annual IRS information filings for many nonprofit schools are easily obtainable through ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer page.
And independent financial audits, required by the state, are available
through the state Department of Public Instruction. I requested those
for a handful of Wisconsin’s 100% schools, and I visited four.
One warm day in June, I stood in the lobby of one such school in
Milwaukee, near a large fish tank. I’d sought days earlier to contact
the woman running the school. An audit showed she was paying her own
company rent for the building ($128,000 in one recent year). She put me
off. “I’m not interested, ma’am,” she said via a phone in the foyer.
“Please do not call us back again.”
On the other side of town, I rang the bell at Atlas Prep’s high
school building and asked to speak to the executive director, Michelle
Lukacs. I was informed she was headed to a meeting and could not speak
with me.
By then, I was digging into Atlas’ finances, a process that would last several weeks and continue into July.
Over multiple emails, I shared with Lukacs what I was learning,
including the compensation of the board chair, Steven E. Menden. A
licensed certified public accountant, Menden had compiled the school’s
IRS filing since its formation in 2001.
At times since then, Menden has been listed on the school’s website
as “board advisor.” His daughter, Kaitlyn Menden, was also among the
school’s most highly compensated employees in 2024. Her package was
$127,674 in salary and benefits for a job in “business services.” (In an
email to me, she described her role as wearing “many hats” beyond that,
citing human resources duties, “oversight of the school’s technology
hardware and cloud resources” and “special projects.”)
In the past couple of years, records show, Steven Menden has taken on
the role of board chairman. The fiscal year 2025 IRS form showed Menden
putting in a 40-hour workweek for Atlas and earning $132,505 in pay
plus $19,916 in additional benefits. What’s more, his accounting firm,
Menden & Associates, had an $87,250 contract.
Lukacs defended the school’s compensation practices, noting in an
email: “Every person on our team, regardless of their role, earns their
compensation and is not overpaid.”
She explained that Menden is not compensated for his board service but for “Executive Management Services.”
It would be forbidden for a public school board member in Wisconsin
to also have a district management job under a legal doctrine regarding
roles that are “incompatible.”
“In essence, one cannot supervise oneself, which would include hiring
and firing and disciplining oneself,” said Dan Rossmiller, executive
director of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards.
State law governing public officials also prohibits school board
members from having a private interest in any contract over $15,000 that
they bid for, vote on, negotiate or participate in. Violators can be
charged with a low-level felony. There is no similar law that pertains to private school operators in Wisconsin.
In an email to me, Menden explained how the Atlas board handles potential conflicts of interest.
“Any conflicts of interest for either related or unrelated parties
are resolved in favor of Atlas Preparatory Academy as outlined in our
IRS mandated Conflict of Interest Policy,” he wrote. “This means that
conflicted persons recuse themselves from the situation and do not vote
or participate and the final decision that is made is strictly in the
best financial interest of the school.”
This organizational structure does not comport with best practices
for the governance of a nonprofit organization, experts told me.
“Board members are volunteers, and best practice is unambiguous that
they should not simultaneously hold paid staff positions at the school
they oversee — doing so collapses the separation between governance and
management that gives a board its purpose in the first place,” said
Chelsea Cross, a vice president at City Forward Collective in Milwaukee.
Atlas Prep’s IRS filing indicated that Lukacs, the full-time
executive director, earned $175,000 in salary and benefits and also had a
board position. A third board member is listed as working only one hour
a week for no pay.
In a public school setting, Lukacs’ situation would be akin to a
district superintendent also sitting on the school board — an
arrangement that would raise issues over proper checks and balances
since superintendents typically are hired by and report to the school
board.
Said Cross: “With 2/3 of its governing board also on the payroll —
including the very executive the board exists to evaluate — Atlas Prep’s
board cannot meaningfully hold its own leadership accountable.”
Lukacs disagreed with that assessment. “This is a false statement,”
she wrote in an email, saying that Atlas board members “model strong
personal leadership showing integrity, confidence and consistency in
their actions and decision making.”
She told me she does not vote to approve her own salary “or vote in
any other situation where a conflict of interest exists.” And she noted
that countless hours have been invested at Atlas Prep in improving
curriculum and student support. “While our standardized test scores do
not yet reflect the level of achievement we aspire to, our staff has
remained steadfast in its commitment to continuous improvement,” she
wrote.
I had asked Atlas Prep twice for a copy of the school’s conflict of
interest policy, which Menden had mentioned. As of mid-August, I had not
received it.
I also requested a copy of the school’s contract with Menden’s accounting firm. I did not receive that either.
At a public school, such contracts would be subject to open record
laws. I easily found a link on the Milwaukee Public Schools website to a
decade’s worth of contracts for school nurses, mental health services,
fitness instructors, interpreters, color printers, portable toilets,
busing, professional development and so on.
But Atlas does not post those records online. It doesn’t have to.
At
Atlas Prep, the school’s executive director also serves on the board
that oversees the director job. At a public school, these dual roles
would not be allowed, but that restriction doesn’t apply to Atlas, even
though it depends on public money.Caleb Alvarado for ProPublica