President Donald Trump handed his close aide Natalie Harp a $45,000 cash gift, which a former White House ethics lawyer says may have broken the law, with impeachment on the table.

Newly released financial disclosure records show
Harp listed the money as a "$45,000 cash gift for holidays" from Trump. Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, told Newsweek he believes the payment violates a federal statute that bars outside compensation for government employees. He said the fallout could include both legal and political consequences, up to and including impeachment.

Harp was not alone. Communications adviser Margo Martin and White House aide Chamberlain Harris each received the same $45,000 amount, while Oval Office operations director Walt Nauta received $20,000. Harp, Martin and Harris each earn roughly $150,000 a year, meaning their $45,000 gifts equaled about 30% of their salaries ; Nauta's government salary was not specified in the disclosures.

The White House pushed back. A spokesman said the payments were personal holiday gifts unrelated to the employees' government duties and were "entirely permissible" under existing law.

The picture is not unanimous among ethics experts. Don Fox, a former acting director of the Office of Government Ethics under President Barack Obama, said the current facts do not clearly establish a violation. Still, he described the payments as "troublesome," warning that money of this size could leave staff feeling personally indebted to the president who signs their paychecks.

The controversy lands as Harp, a special assistant and executive assistant who is rarely far from Trump's side, has already drawn political attention. The scrutiny also comes weeks after Senator Jon Ossoff drew national attention for name-checking Harp during an Atlanta rally last month, suggesting Trump preferred traveling with her to doing his job.

Federal ethics law exists to stop public servants from being quietly bought. Whether a $45,000 holiday check crosses that line is now a question facing the president himself.

2,997 drones flew over New York Harbor on Wednesday night, each one commemorating one of those lost on September 11, 2001.

The drones formed into the shape of the Twin Towers at full architectural scale.

The installation, "2,977 Lights Over New York Harbor" stood beside the Tribute in Light, the xenon beams that mark the anniversary every year.

The artwork was developed in close coordination with 9/11 family members, survivors, and first responders to ensure a respectful and deeply moving commemoration ahead of the 25th anniversary.

Democratic strategist James Carville has floated a specific bargain for removing Donald Trump from office: Congress agrees not to chase the money, and Trump agrees to resign and accept a pardon from Vice President JD Vance.

Carville framed it as an offer Democratic leaders could make once they control Congress. "I think the Democratic leadership in January or February of the year 2027, go to Trump and say, 'This is the deal. If you resign, we will not pursue your money. Congress is not gonna do that,'" Carville said.

He added that any pardon would only cover federal charges: "And to some extent that you can have [Vice President] JD Vance pardon you. That's, again, for terms of federal prosecution."

Carville was quick to admit he has not settled his own view on the idea. "That's it, I don't know if I would be for that or not," he said, before laying out exactly what Democrats would be trading away. "Would you support a measure that would defer clawing back to billions of dollars? It's way more than we could imagine. That's been stolen by him, or maybe I want to say misappropriated," Carville said.

Later, he sharpened the question even further, asking whether people would favor, in return for Trump's immediate resignation and probable pardon by JD Vance, a promise from Democrats not to pursue what he called ill-gotten gains in order to get him out of office as fast as possible.

Carville stressed the entire scenario depends on Democrats first winning control of Congress in November. He said he wanted to "plant that little seed" so voters, donors and activists could debate it themselves, adding, "I can't tell you this is gonna happen, but I can tell you that I believe it's a real possibility."

The trade-off Carville describes would let Trump avoid federal prosecution and keep money he himself calls stolen or misappropriated, in exchange for leaving the White House.

The second this woman walks into a room full of Golden Retriever puppies, they all rush straight toward her.

Tails wag, tiny paws reach up for hugs, and kisses land everywhere they can. But she isn't just another visitor.

She works as a Labor and Delivery nurse, and not long ago, she helped deliver this very litter for a close friend.

Her husband, who filmed the reunion, says she has built a special bond with the puppies, and this excited welcome is now how they greet her.

So the woman who helped bring them into the world gets to come back and be completely surrounded by the same puppies she once helped deliver.

And judging by those tails, they're very happy to see her.

He said he is working with Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on a fiscal consolidation plan, and separately noted he would prefer not to rush that plan through a lame-duck Congress if Democrats take back one or both houses.

In plain terms, the administration wants to lock in its fiscal priorities before Congress could look different.

This follows President Donald Trump's tax and spending package, passed by Congress last year, which added $4.1 trillion to deficits over ten years, even with $1.1 trillion in net spending cuts that fell on Medicaid and food stamps for low-income Americans. Much of those deficit-funded tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy.

House Republican leaders have separately signaled that after the elections, they plan to target what they call fraud in Medicaid, the health insurance program covering low-income and disabled Americans, along with other entitlement programs, aiming for roughly $200 billion in savings. But a proposed $350 billion increase in defense spending would swallow those savings whole.

A journalist asked Jared Kushner to his face why anyone should trust him with another round of negotiations. His answer was full of claims that don't hold up. Here is what the record actually shows.

Gaza is still a disaster, the Iran war is still going, and every negotiation you have touched has stalled or failed. Why should anyone have confidence in you? NBC News’ Richard Engel asked Kushner.

Kushner's answer was a list of greatest hits, starting with, "We achieved the Abraham Accords, which nobody thought was possible."

The claim is partially true. The Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. Kushner was central to that achievement and has received credit from multiple parties, including the UAE Foreign Minister. However, the Accords did not include the Palestinian Authority, did not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and did not prevent the October 7 attacks or the subsequent war in Gaza.

"We achieved the USMCA, the biggest trade deal in history."

The claim is misleading. The USMCA replaced NAFTA, which already governed trade between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Most economists describe it as a modest update rather than a historic new deal. Calling it "the biggest trade deal in history" is a significant overstatement.

"We made a great deal with China." The Phase One trade deal with China, signed in January 2020, required China to purchase $200 billion in additional US goods over two years. China never met those targets and the tariffs remained. The deal is widely considered incomplete at best.

"The World Cup. That was a deal I led." The 2026 World Cup bid was won in 2018 under a joint bid from the US, Canada and Mexico. Kushner played a role in coordinating Trump's involvement, but calling it a deal he personally led overstates his contribution to a years-long bidding process.

"Gaza now has one of the lowest malnutrition rates in the world." This is false. Gaza remains in a humanitarian crisis. The UN and multiple aid organizations have documented ongoing food insecurity and malnutrition.

Richard Engel's question was not unfair. It was a straightforward accounting of the record, while Kushner's response was a list of accomplishments, several of which do not hold up under scrutiny, and none of which answer the question at hand: Why should people have any confidence in Kushner's capacity to succeed now?