These Schools Banned Trump Gear—Unless They Didn’t

184646900

Over the past year, numerous outlets have reported on students who wore Donald Trump-branded clothes and hats to school and were asked to remove it—or just sent home. But a closer look shows the story to be more complicated—a mess of politics, publicity, and schoolkid emotions. What happens when a Make America Great Again hat hits homeroom?

WARNING: Some viewers will find this video disturbing,” a disclaimer above the clip reads. Press play and you’re on a school bus in Chesterfield, Missouri with Parkway West Middle School student Gavin Cortina. A female student is screaming, “You want to build a f**k-freaking wall!?” Cortina, wearing his bright red Make America Great Again hat, yells back, “What’s wrong with building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out of our country?” Then he was “violently assaulted by the young indoctrinated leftist students,” one report reads. Cortina, various outlets reported, is ” pummeled” with punches by his peers who “gang up,” and corner him. “Want to know the even more disgusting part? After he was beaten up, the school suspended Gavin Cortina,” the Conservative Tribune writes. “SUSPENDED for wearing Trump hat,” the headlines read. The narrative was fully formed: a 12-year-old student assaulted for his right-wing beliefs.

At least that’s how it was reported by conservative news sites like The Gateway Pundit, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, The Conservative Tribune, The Right Scoop, Breitbart and Fox News.

In conversations with the school and Gavin’s mother Christina, I learned the story was a lot more tame. According to their accounts, the argument between Gavin and the other students began before they got on the bus. It didn’t start with politics—but after it went in that direction, Cortina put on the pro-Trump cap. A student flicked the bill of the hat and Gavin responded by pushing him in the back, according to a statement released by the school. There wasn’t a violent assault. No one was pummelled. As seen on the video, a brief altercation ensued between Gavin and a student wearing what appears to be a Vineyard Vines shirt and a puka shell necklace. Gavin’s mother Christina Cortina tells me over the phone that the school’s statement is correct—except that the hat was really flicked off by a student smacking her son in the back of the head. Three students in total, including Gavin, were suspended for fighting—not for the hat. A mediation process would follow.

Christina Cortina pointed to the incident as proof that “hypocrisy runs deep” during an appearance on The Allman Report, a show on ABC’s St. Louis affiliate. “It’s not even just the far left, it’s everyone: it’s liberals, it’s the far left, it’s the left in general — hypocrisy just runs so deep it’s sick.” She went into more detail on an Instagram post, where she wrote: “This is what some of you so-called ‘loving’ and ‘tolerant’ liberals have allowed and promoted.”

Trump and his supporters have pegged the news media as the “enemy of the American people,” while members of his administration wage war against each other using outlets like the New Yorker. Outspoken figures like Tomi Lahren and Alex Jones bemoan the media as a vehicle for liberal ideas—and paint paint outlets like InfoWars as guardians of the truth. Emerging is a group of Trump-loving students and parents, like Gavin and Christina Cortina, who understand how to wield their stories to demonstrate how toxic liberal ideals really are. Conservative sites are all too happy to provide coverage, flinging these figures to fringe alt-right fame in the process.

On a number of conservative blogs, both son and mother Cortina instantly became a symbol of the left’s hypocritical tolerance for censorship and violence as long as they’re used to confront conservative, Trumpian ideologies. Christina appeared on local news programs with a mission to spotlight liberal hypocrisy and prove that Trump’s supporters “aren’t just a bunch of white supremacists, bigot, sexist, hoosier douchebags from the midwest.” She absorbed abuse from commenters on some sites, but also admits that her public profile has been burnished by all the press post-Gavin’s incident. “That’s absolutely been a side effect of it,” she says. “It’s really helped me understand—I know it sounds cheesy—but that I have a voice.”

Since the incident, she’s joined a group called Right Side News as a contributor was a nominee in Hotties for Trump’s “March Madmad Tournament 2017.” Cortina’s case isn’t unique, though: there are a number of students across conservative media who have allegedly worn Trump gear, suffered for it, and been held up as examples of the left’s ruthlessness. And while Cortina has benefited from the ordeal, she isn’t happy with how her story was told across the spectrum—and she’s taken issue with conservative sites as well. “Everybody just lies to fit their own narrative,” she says, seemingly unaware that the same charge could be leveled at her.


Inspired by a trove of stories about bans and stern suggestions to students that they leave their MAGA gear at home, I initially set out to explore how campuses are dealing with Trump apparel on school grounds. Gavin Cortina was allegedly beaten up for wearing a Trump hat; at one New Jersey high school, Trump slogans were reportedly photoshopped out of the yearbook.

I wanted to know: Do schools genuinely need to forbid their students from wearing Trump paraphernalia? And just as schools have struggled to police students who are bullying others using Trump’s words, how are administrations dealing with verbal and physical altercations provoked by conservative viewpoints? Where does a school’s need for a peaceful learning environment end and the potential for censorship begin? Even The Daily Wire, the site founded by former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, can potentially see “parents [complaining] that pro-Trump apparel constitutes hate speech.”

The answer wasn’t as simple as finding banned Trump gear, though, because, in speaking to a number of schools, students, parents, and administrators, I didn’t find a school that outright barred it from campus, despite what many conservative sites have reported. Instead, I discovered people and media outlets speaking out on the subject in ways that seem to align with their preferred narratives.

Connor Mullen, who wore Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again hat to South Portland High School, was aware of how his situation could be weaponized. Starting in April 2016, Mullen was teased by classmates; a teacher reportedly said to him, “Thank God you can’t vote.” Mullen tells me that fellow students call him racist and accuse him of hating immigrants. The school’s administration suggested, according to him, that he ditch the hat if he wants the bullying to end, but Mullen still wears it. When I ask him if there’s something he wishes the school would do, he says, “Not push the liberal agenda.”

Armed with his story, Mullen reached out to the Trump campaign after the original incident. His reasoning echoes the Cortinas’. “I thought it would help because it shows that the ‘pro’ free speech people were trying to shut mine down,” he says.

In late 2015, a high school banned Trump gear from a football game because it could be interpreted as “offensive” or “racist,” according to Breitbart, echoing language in a student-run newspaper. The story was picked up on The Blaze, Daily Caller, and Gateway Pundit added a “WOW!” in its headline. The story even crawled all the way up to Fox News, which—along with every one of those outlets, but for Breitbart which claims it unsuccessfully reached out—apparently didn’t corroborate the report before publishing. (Fox News did not return a request for comment.) But none of them reported what I learned after calling Corona del Sol High School: the school’s official comment is that nothing was, or has been, forbidden. When I called the school, the woman who answered the phone laughed at me when I asked if there was any truth to the story. “Of course” there’s no rule about Trump apparel, she said. The faulty info about banned Trump apparel originated in an op-ed in the student-run newspaper. It’s since been deleted from the paper’s site.

In the summer of 2016, nine-year-old Logan Autry was allegedly banned from wearing a Trump hat to his Fresno, California elementary school. After attending a Trump rally, Autry wore it to school three days in a row until he was asked to remove the hat. Autry started making the rounds—a local station in Columbus, Ohio, ABC30, NBC11, and eventually ended up on the national NBC News site and the New York Post—and invoked the constitution. “The First Amendment says I can wear my hat,” he told NBC4i Columbus, WCMH-TV. His story blew up to such a degree that Trump reportedly sent Autry another signed hat after a dog used the original as a chew toy.

The story according to the school, though, is that Autry was briefly asked to remove that hat because it was causing a disruption. “However, to be clear, school officials never imposed an outright ban,” Fresno Unified School District’s superintendent Michael Hanson told the Los Angeles Times. “School officials reached out multiple times to the guardians to inform them that the student could continue to wear the hat as long there were no further incidents of disruption,” a school statement reads. “However, the guardians have not responded.” Autry’s family, however, says that administrators never reached out about the hat.

Incorrect or incomplete original stories clouding out corrections isn’t unusual, though. In the case of Parkway’s Gavin Cortina, misinformation quickly spread way beyond Chesterfield, Missouri and became a galvanizing force for those on Cortina’s side. The district was inundated with calls from people screaming profanely into the phone about how it bungled the aftermath of the fight on the bus. A representative for the school tells me that almost none of the calls were actually coming from the Missouri area, but instead from places all over the country.

The facts here can stand in the way of anything worth getting riled up about. Even the most severe instances are limited in scope: in most cases, students, parents, and administrators agree that Trump gear can stay at home for a brief period of time. When I ask Christina Cortina about the severity of the fight, she says that if the kids were brawling over something other than politics, like a girl, maybe, “it wouldn’t have been a big deal,” she says. “I would have been like, ‘Suck it up, bro.'”


Free speech has always had its limitations—and determining what’s allowed gets even thornier when it’s done on a school campus. Even in cases where students were asked not to wear Trump gear, it’s possible their schools are in the clear: it’s legal to prevent students from wearing something if it’s proven to be a disruption.

Henry R. Kaufman, a First Amendment lawyer who’s done work in the educational field, says that while it would be very hard for the courts to entertain the concept that the President is so disruptive his apparel needs to be banned, he could see it happening. “Wearing Trump clothes could be disruptive in particular environments,” says Kaufman when I ask if the clothing could pose a problem in places like California or the south of Texas given Trump’s deportation policies. But historically, disruption has been a tricky standard to meet. The United States Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District(1969), the landmark case for free speech at schools, says that “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

These more recent cases will likely never sniff Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s robe, though. Most of the ones I encountered in the media involve either a suspected lone wolf—like the New Jersey high school’s Photoshopgate, which resulted in the suspension of the teacher who advised the yearbook class—or kids getting teased for wearing something Trump-related and then being asked to remove it because it’s caused a distraction. These confrontations are distressing, but they aren’t proof of a large-scale conspiracy by schools to brainwash children with liberal values. Even a teacher (who wished to remain anonymous) who works at a school that made local headlines in Virginia for the way a student wearing Trump apparel was allegedly “mistreated” said she herself hasn’t witnessed any students dressed this way. However, she did write back to say she’s heard students talking about how they’d seen instances of students saying racist things to black and Latinx students after the election.

Raquel Hernandez, who worked as a fifth grade math teacher at the predominately Latinx Stand Watie Elementary School in Trump-leaning state Oklahoma, says that she also didn’t see much Trump apparel on campus. Instead, according to Hernandez, it was mostly teachers who stickered their cars with Trump endorsements and made off-color comments to students about issues like abortion. “Too many of you people use it as a form of birth control,” Hernandez recalls a teacher telling a student. And in Georgia, a third grade teacher who asked to remain anonymous, says she’s never seen students wearing political apparel. “Although they do repeat their parents’ political opinions,” she says.

Many students’ everyday lives aren’t affected by politics. An elementary schooler in Massachusetts who has a Trump supporter in her class says it wasn’t really a big deal. She says that while a kid with a Trump shirt did spark lunchroom debates and a new seating arrangement where MAGA kids occasionally sat at a separate table, things always fell back into place without any residual hurt feelings. “People kept friends,” Elizabeth says. “They’d talk about it and then maybe they’d sit at different lunch tables and then they’d be back to being best friends again.” She also says that most of the Trump supporters didn’t have much to say about Trump beyond calling him great, and probably supported him “because their parents liked him.”

It’s important to let kids express themselves at school when it doesn’t cause other people harm, but it’s just as important for outlets to report the full story. Think back to Gavin Cortina’s fight on the Parkway bus: before it was reported as the latest battle in the culture wars, Gavin’s mother explains, the fight actually started because Gavin told a classmate to stop talking about her personal politics. “My son was like, ‘That’s kind of inappropriate conversation,'” says Christina. She would spend the next days on television defending her son’s freedom of speech and right to express himself.

[“Source-gq”]

How the world is reacting to war of words between Trump and North Korea

Image result for How the world is reacting to war of words between Trump and North Korea

This week, tensions between the United States and North Korea hit a boiling point.

Things ratcheted up Tuesday when President Trump told reporters that the United States would respond with “fire and fury the likes the world has never seen” if Pyongyang continues its provocations. (He later suggested that his world-rattling words might not have been “tough enough.”) Those comments came in response to U.S. intelligence reports suggesting that Pyongyang had the capacity to fit a nuclear weapon to a long-range ballistic missile.

On Wednesday, North Korea struck back, calling Trump’s statement a “load of nonsense,” and accusing the U.S. president of being senile and spending too much time on golf. The country also warned that it is working on a plan to deploy four missiles that would envelope Guam, a U.S. territory with several American bases, in a wall of fire.

Though senior U.S. officials rushed to calm Americans and allies, the president did little to cool tensions Thursday, announcing that his administration is reviewing its options and that the military is “locked and loaded,” ready to #fighttonight.

Here’s a look at how other countries are responding to this tense situation:

China

In the past, China has tried to act as something of a mediator between the United States and North Korea, urging restraint and caution on both sides. As The Washington Post’s China correspondent reported, “China has become deeply frustrated with the regime in Pyongyang, and genuinely wants to see a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. But it has always refused to do anything that might destabilize or topple a regime which has long been both ally and buffer state . … That’s because Beijing does not want to see a unified Korean state allied to the United States on its border: Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers died during the 1950-53 Korean War to prevent that from happening.”

But on Friday, Beijing said in no uncertain terms that it would not come to North Korea’s defense if the Hermit Kingdom launched a preemptive strike against the United States. An editorial in the state-run Global Times reads, in part, “if North Korea launches missiles that threaten U.S. soil first and the U.S. retaliates, China will stay neutral. … If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.”

Japan

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has long argued for a tougher line on North Korea, pushing to strengthen Japan’s military and antimissile defense. In recent days, Abe and other senior officials have reiterated their support of the U.S. president’s strategy. Trump is “putting all options on the table,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said to the New York Times. “Our government approves of that stance. It’s extremely important that the Japan-U.S. alliance further strengthens its ability to deter and respond.”

That might not sit so well with Japan’s electorate, which largely does not share Abe’s bellicose position. “If it looks like the U.S. set off the chain of events that led to escalation, and Abe didn’t use his relationship with Trump to moderate that, it’s easy to imagine that there would be a domestic price to pay,” Tobias Harris, a Japan analyst at Teneo Intelligence, told the New York Times.

South Korea

On Friday, South Korea said that the country’s national security adviser had been in touch with his American counterpart and had been assured that the White House will not do anything on the Korean Peninsula that would “catch the South off guard.” “Both South Korea and the United States reaffirmed their promise that as they take step-by-step measures to ensure their security and the safety of their peoples, they will coordinate with each other closely and transparently,” a statement from presidential spokesman Park Soo-hyun said.

Russia

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated Friday that Russia will not accept a nuclear North Korea. But he blamed the current tensions on the United States and Kim Jong Un’s regime, saying that there has been an “overwhelming amount” of “belligerent rhetoric” from Washington and Pyongyang. Lavrov also advocated for his country’s preferred solution to the crisis — a “smart plan” developed by Russia and China that would have Kim freeze his country’s nuclear tests in exchange for the United States and South Korea freezing their large-scale drills.

Live on state television, Lavrov said that “there are direct threats of deploying [military] power” and that “the side that is stronger and cleverer” will take the first step to defuse tensions.

Australia

In a statement to 3AW, an Australian radio station, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that if North Korea launches an attack on the United States, Australia will have our back. “America stands by its allies, including Australia of course, and we stand by the United States,” Turnbull said, according to ABC. “Be very, very clear on that. If there’s an attack on the U.S., the ANZUS Treaty would be invoked and Australia would come to the aid of the United States, as America would come to our aid if we were attacked.”

He also called on Kim’s regime to stop its “illegal, reckless, provocative conduct.”

Germany

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called the escalation of rhetoric “the wrong answer.” She has pledged her country’s support to “any nonmilitary solutions,” telling reporters in Berlin: “I don’t see a military solution to this conflict . … I see the need for enduring work at the U.N. Security Council … as well as tight cooperation between the countries involved, especially the U.S. and China.”

United Kingdom

British officials have called on the United States to dial back the rhetoric. First Secretary of State Damian Green has said that it is “obviously” in Britain’s interests for the the two countries to avoid war; he also called on Trump to “be sensible” and go through the United Nations before undertaking military action. According to the Sun, an unnamed government source has said the U.K. won’t support a U.S. military strike. “The Americans are more than capable of doing what they might want, or have to do, in the region without our help,” the paper quoted the source as saying.

France

On Wednesday, government spokesman Christophe Castaner told reporters that his country was “preoccupied” by the situation and urged “all sides” to “act responsibly.”

Guam

Guam Gov. Eddie Baza Calvo has endeavored to calm nerves and reassure the island’s 160,000 citizens that they’re safe. In a video address, he said, “There is no change in the threat level resulting from North Korea events” and that “there are several levels of defense, all strategically placed to protect our island and our nation.” But Guam also released a two-page pamphlet advising residents on how to react to a North Korean strike.

“Our island has been a target since 2013, and even before that,” Dee Cruz, a senior watch officer with Guam Homeland Security, told The Post. “We’re ready, and prepared, as much as possible.”

Source:-washingtonpost

Apple CEO Promised 3 New US Plants, Says President Trump: Report

Apple CEO Promised 3 New US Plants, Says President Trump: Report

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Apple has promised to expand manufacturing in the US with 3 new plants
  • Cook in May announced the creation of an Apple fund
  • Apple has 80,000 employees in the US and plans to hire thousands more

The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday reported that US President Donald Trump said Apple has promised to expand manufacturing at home with three new US plants.

The Journal quoted Trump as saying that Apple chief executive Tim Cook committed to building “three big plants,” in the United States.

No details were provided, and Apple did not respond to an AFP request for comment.

Cook in May announced the creation of an Apple fund to get more people in the US to do “advanced manufacturing,” kicking it off with a billion dollars.

Apple building plants in the United States would come as rare common ground with Trump.

Cook has pointed out that Apple spent more than $50 billion (roughly Rs. 3,22,155 crores) in the United States last year – buying from suppliers such as Corning Glass, working with developers behind applications for the California company’s devices and more.

Apple has about 80,000 employees in the US and plans to hire thousands more “in the future,” according to Cook.

It is a sign of Apple’s success but also a thorny problem: a cash stockpile topping a quarter of a trillion dollars, sparking debate on what do with such massive reserves.

The tech giant has resisted the idea of bringing the cash home, because the US tax code allows multinational firms to defer profits while they are held overseas but taxes income at up to 35 percent when repatriated.

Trump vowed while campaigning that he would force Apple to bring production to US soil.

Apple is not in the same position as automakers which relocated US factories overseas to cut costs, IHS manufacturing processes chief analyst Dan Panzica told AFP earlier this year. Apple never moved jobs offshore, it created them there.

“The Apple jobs were never here,” Panzica said.

“The entire supply chain grew in China.”

Apple benefits in Asia from a network that goes beyond subcontractors assembling smartphones, tablets or laptops. The firm relies on a dense ecosystem of companies that make components and spare parts for its devices as well.

China also offers sources of important raw materials, along with cheap, flexible and abundant labor to keep iPhone assembly lines cranking along.

It would be challenging to replicate that situation with US workers without using more robotics, undermining the political aim of creating jobs here, according to some analysts.

Moving iPhone manufacturing to the US would also likely push up costs, which is not in Apple’s interests.

It was seen as more likely that Apple would make a symbolic move to appease Washington, such as investing more in making Mac Pro computers here, or in a facility for higher-priced, limited-edition devices such as an “anniversary edition iPhone” to mark the handset’s 10th birthday this year.

[“Source-gadgets.ndtv”]

How Donald Trump filled his company coffers with charity money

mg_98041_doanlad_trump_280x210.jpg

Image: Bobby Bank / Wireimage / Getty Images   

Like autumn leaves, sponsored Cadillacs, Ferraris and Maseratis descend on the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, New York, in September 2016 for the Eric Trump Foundation golf invitational. Year after year, the formula is consistent: 18 holes of perfectly trimmed fairways with a dose of Trumpian tackiness, including Hooters waitresses and cigar spreads, followed by a clubhouse dinner, dates encouraged. The crowd leans toward real estate insiders, family friends and C-list celebrities, such as former baseball slugger Darryl Strawberry and reality housewife (and bankruptcy-fraud felon) Teresa Giudice.

The real star of the day is Eric Trump, the US president’s second son and now the co-head of the Trump Organization, who has hosted this event for ten years on behalf of the St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis. To date, he’s directed more than $11 million there, the vast majority of it via this annual golf event. He has also helped raise another $5 million through events with other organisations.

The best part about all this, according to Eric Trump, is the charity’s efficiency: Because he can get his family’s golf course for free and have most of the other costs donated, virtually all the money contributed will go toward helping kids with cancer. “We get to use our assets 100 percent free of charge,” Trump tells Forbes.

That’s not the case. In reviewing filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, it’s clear that the course wasn’t free—that the Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament.

Additionally, the Donald J Trump Foundation, which has come under previous scrutiny for self-dealing and advancing the interests of its namesake rather than those of charity, apparently used the Eric Trump Foundation to funnel $100,000 in donations into revenue for the Trump Organization.

mg_98043_trump_national_golf_club_280x210.jpg

The Eric Trump Foundation golf outing brought in millions for St Jude, billings for the Trump Organization
Image: Gant Lamos IV / Getty Images

And while donors to the Eric Trump Foundation were told their money was going to help sick kids, more than $500,000 was re-donated to other charities, many of which were connected to Trump family members or interests, including at least four groups that subsequently paid to hold golf tournaments at Trump courses.

All of this seems to defy federal tax rules and state laws that ban self-dealing and misleading donors. It also raises larger questions about the Trump family dynamics and whether Eric and his brother, Don Jr, can be truly independent of their father.

Especially since the person who specifically commanded that the for-profit Trump Organization start billing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the non-profit Eric Trump Foundation, according to two people directly involved, was none other than US President Donald Trump.

In order to understand the Eric Trump Foundation, you need to understand the Donald J Trump Foundation. The president was never known for giving his foundation much money, and from 2009 to 2014, he didn’t give it anything at all. Outsiders still donated, though, allowing Trump to dole out their money to a smattering of more than 200 charities as if it were his own, with many of the donations helping his business interests.

Eric Trump set out to do things differently. Coming out of Georgetown, he decided he would try to translate the good fortune he had inherited into support for children’s cancer research. Why this cause, especially for a guy who still doesn’t have kids? “It’s a great question—it’s one that I’ve been asked before—and I’m not really sure,” he says. “I think there is something about that innocence that has always affected me.” After visiting various hospitals, he chose to give to strength, St Jude, the world’s best-known paediatric cancer centre.

mg_98055_eric_trump_foundation_board_280x210.jpg

Eric Trump set up his foundation as a public charity, a classification that allows it to raise most of its money from outside donors. In 2007, when he was 23, the first Eric Trump golf tournament took place, raising $220,000. A compelling sales pitch evolved—the free golf course and the donated goods and services assured donors that every penny possible went to charity. The Eric Trump Foundation employed no staff until 2015, and its annual expense ratio averaged 13 percent, about half of what most charities pay in overhead. His original seven-person board was made up of personal friends, an innocuous lot who helped sell tournament tickets, which last year ranged from $3,000 for a single all-day ticket to $100,000 for a pair of VIP ¬foursomes.

For the first four years of the golf tournament, from 2007 to 2010, the total expenses averaged about $50,000, according to the tax filings. Not quite the zero-cost advantage that a donor might expect given who owned the club but at least in line with what other charities pay to host outings at Trump courses, according to a review of ten tax filings for other charitable organisations.

But in 2011, things took a turn. Costs for Eric Trump’s tournament jumped from $46,000 to $142,000, according to the foundation’s IRS filings. Why would the price of the tournament suddenly triple in one year? “In the early years, they weren’t being billed [for the club]—the bills would just disappear,” says Ian Gillule, who served as membership and marketing director at Trump National Westchester during two stints from 2006 to 2015 and witnessed how Donald Trump reacted to the tournament’s economics. “Mr Trump had a cow. He flipped. He was like, ‘We’re donating all of this stuff, and there’s no paper trail? No credit?’ And he went nuts. He said, ‘I don’t care if it’s my son or not—everybody gets billed’.”

mg_98053_eric_trump_foundation_boardroom_280x210.jpg

Katrina Kaupp, who served on the board of directors at the Eric Trump Foundation in 2010 and 2011, also remembers Donald Trump insisting the charity start paying its own way, despite Eric’s public claims to the contrary. “We did have to cover the expenses,” she says. “The charity had grown so much that the Trump Organization couldn’t absorb all of those costs anymore.” The Trump Organization declined to answer questions about the payments. But it seems that for the future president, who Forbes estimates is worth $3.5 billion, a freebie to help his son directly fight kids’ cancer took a backseat to -revenue.

“I saw that Eric was getting billed,” Gillule adds. “I would always say, ‘I can’t believe that his dad is billing him for a charitable outing.’ But that’s what they wanted.”

It’s also very consistent. The Donald J Trump Foundation famously acted like an arm of the overall business, using the charity’s money to settle a Trump business lawsuit, make a political donation and even purchase expensive portraits of its namesake. Meanwhile, Trump businesses billed the Trump campaign, fuelled by small outside donors, more than $11 million to use his properties, chefs and private aircraft.

mg_98051_charity_money_280x210.jpg

The Eric Trump Foundation declined to comment on that donation. In effect, though, this manoeuvre would appear to have more in common with a drug cartel’s money-laundering operation than a charity’s best-practices textbook. That $100,000 in outside donations to the Donald J Trump Foundation (remember: Trump himself didn’t give to his own foundation at this time) passed through the Eric Trump Foundation—and wound up in the coffers of Donald Trump’s private businesses.

“His father, Mr Trump, always, until the presidency, had a very, very tight rein on what was going on,” says Gillule, referring to the company’s golf courses. “The buck always stopped with him.”

The costs for Eric’s golf tournament quickly escalated. After returning, in 2012, to a more modest $59,000—while the event brought in a record $2 million—the listed costs exploded to $230,000 in 2013, $242,000 in 2014 and finally $322,000 in 2015 (the most recent on rec¬ord, held just as Trump was ratcheting up his presidential campaign), according to IRS filings. This even though the amount raised at these events, in fact, never reached that 2012 high.

It’s hard to find an explanation for this cost spike. Remember, all those base costs were supposedly free, according to Eric Trump. The golf course? “Always comped,” he says. The merchandise for golfers: “The vast majority of it we got comped.” Drinks: “Things like wine we were normally able to get donated.” And the evening performances from musicians like Dee Snider of Twisted Sister and comedians like Gilbert Gottfried: “They did it for free.” So many sponsors donated, in fact, that the event invitation has carried enough logos to make a Nascar team proud.

Eric Trump maintains that “our ex¬penses on a tournament that made us somewhere in the $2 million range every year was somewhere around 100 grand,” even though his foundation’s tax records show costs soaring to $322,000. When asked for an itemised list of expenses, the Eric Trump Foundation declined to respond.

More than $500,000 was redirected to a variety of other charities, several of which had nothing to do with children’s cancer—but happened to become clients of Trump’s golf courses

Thus it’s hard to figure out what happened to the money. All the listed costs are direct expenses: Items like overhead and salaries appear elsewhere in its IRS filings. Even if the Eric Trump Foundation had to pay the full rate for literally everything, Forbes couldn’t come up with a plausible path to $322,000 given the parameters of the annual event (a golf outing for about 200 and dinner for perhaps 400 more). Neither could golf tournament experts or the former head golf professional at Trump National Westchester. “If you gave me that much money to run a tournament, I couldn’t imagine what we could do,” says Patrick Langan, who worked at the club from 2006 to 2015. “It certainly wasn’t done that way.”

Opaque accounting doesn’t help, as the Eric Trump Foundation began hosting a few other golf events and fundraisers; former board member Kaupp says some were lumped into the cost figures of the Westchester event on the IRS filings. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over this time went directly to the Trump Organization, including one payment of $87,000 to Trump’s golf course in Washington, DC, which hosted a separate event for St Jude.

For his part, Eric Trump offers no indication that the charity is paying for much beyond the day in Westchester. “I’m sure if I hunted, I could find examples of expenses associated with the charity that aren’t due to day-of activities,” he says. “But I would probably have to think pretty long and hard about that.”

It doesn’t seem a coincidence that at the same time the Eric Trump Foundation went from what appeared to be a clean, efficient operation to a seemingly Byzantine one that suddenly found itself saddled with costs, there was a clear shift of control.

I would always say, ‘I can’t believe that his dad is billing him for a charitable outing’. But that’s what they wanted.

In 2010, the year the economics of the tournament suddenly pivoted, four of the seven original board members, who were personal friends of Eric, left. They were replaced by 14 new board members, the majority of whom owed all or much of their livelihoods to the Trump Organization. Six of them were effectively full-time employees, including Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and executive vice president Dan Sca¬vi¬no Jr, who both serve in political roles for President Trump. Another owns a company that billed the Trump campaign $16 million. Add in Eric himself, as well as his wife, Lara, and 9 of the 17 Eric Trump Foundation board members had a vested interest in the moneymaking side of the Trump empire. The foundation had become a de facto subsidiary of the Trump Organization.

“They were wearing two hats,” says Langan, the former director of golf, who says he sat in on meetings where he couldn’t tell where the business ended and the charity began. “You’re dealing with people talking about the event and the charity who also at the same time are thinking about it as a corporation and as a business. It’s a for-profit club. You know, they’re trying to make money.”

Until this board turnover, the Eric Trump Foundation pretty much did what it told its donors it would: Send its money to St Jude. But starting in 2011, more than $500,000 was redirected to a variety of other charities, many of which were personal favourites of Trump family members and several of which had nothing to do with children’s cancer—but happened to become clients of Trump’s golf courses.

In 2012, the Eric Trump Foundation sent $5,000 to a charity called Abilis, which provides services to people with disabilities. That same year, Donald Trump’s nephew Fred Trump, whose son has cerebral palsy, hosted the inaugural Golf for Abilis fundraiser at the Trump National Westchester. Over the next five years, Abilis spent an estimated $240,000 hosting tournaments at the property.

In 2013 and 2014, the Eric Trump Foundation paid $15,000 for tables at a gala for the Little Baby Face Foundation, according to a spokesman for the latter foundation. Over the next three years, Little Baby Face spent an estimated $100,000 to hold golf outings on the Trump course. The foundation denies any direct connection between the two transactions.

Janet McHugh, the founder of a small charity named Julie’s Jungle, was delighted to receive $25,000 from the Donald and Eric Trump foundations in 2013—money she figured came from Eric and Donald Trump personally. Two years later, her charity hosted a golf tournament at Trump National Hudson Valley. McHugh says the decision to hold her tournament there was unrelated to the donation. “They didn’t comp us the golf course,” she says. “We paid.”

Altruism as a business-development strategy isn’t necessarily illegal. But a situation in which outside donor money is redeployed away from the core mission in ways that seem to ultimately benefit the family that pays the majority of the board is—at best—an appearance problem.

Other extra expenditures raise eyebrows. In 2013, Eric Trump used his foundation’s money, rather than his own, to pay $1,600 to the American Society for Enology & Viticulture for a copper wine still and an antique bottle washer at a trade event and fundraiser that he was keynoting. Eric runs the family vineyard in Char¬lottes¬ville, Virginia, about an hour down the road from where the event took place. “I have no idea what that is,” says Eric Trump, referring to the payment.

In 2012, the Eric Trump Foundation wrote a cheque for $25,000 to the George Rodrigue Foundation of the Arts. That same year, George Rodrigue, who had said that his famous “blue dog” paintings sometimes sold for about $25,000, created a portrait of Donald Trump for the auction at Eric’s event. That portrait ended up hanging over the couch in Eric Trump’s house.

What does Eric say about the donation? “Let’s follow up later on,” he replies, when asked about it in a phone call, before getting off the line.

Later the next day, after being told Forbes had several other questions, he sent a paragraphs-long text message, which read in part: “I was reflecting on it last night and have to say I was really disappointed when you said the story would be ‘fair’… It seems like there is a motive against either myself or my family. And if that is the case, I would simply rather disengage.” A spokesperson for the Trump Organization similarly declined to respond further to questions about Eric and Donald Trump.

The ultimate tragedy here is that the Eric Trump Foundation has done so much good. Yes, Eric has indulged in the family trait of vainglory, from Eric Trump bobblehead dolls at the tournament to statements that leave the impression he’s giving the money personally, even though tax records suggest he’s donated six figures total, at most. (Trump wouldn’t tell Forbes how much he’s given to his own foundation. “I think it’s totally irrelevant,” he says, citing the fact that “we never charge” for use of the courses.) But in 2015, a new intensive-care unit at St Jude opened with Eric Trump’s name on it, and the foundation’s money has funded research into a rare form of cancer.

It’s hard to imagine how the early incarnation of the golf tournament—big hauls, understandable costs—would have any problem continuing to spew out millions for years to come. Last year, the Eric Trump Foundation donated $2.9 million, according to St Jude.

But in December, Eric Trump said he would stop fundraising. Running an event with an increasing commingling of business and philanthropy created the kind of conflict-of-interest (not to mention image) concerns that similarly plagued Ivanka Trump’s aborted attempt to auction off a coffee date on behalf of Eric’s foundation.

More recently, the foundation has rebranded itself as Curetivity. A spokeswoman for the organisation said it would continue hosting golf tournaments to raise money for St Jude. A Curetivity event was held this past May outside Washington, D.C., with Eric Trump in attendance, at the Trump National course.

(This story appears in the 04 August, 2017 issue of Forbes India. You can buy our tablet version from Magzter.com. To visit our Archives, click here.)

[“Source-forbesindia”]