分类： 未分类

Elon Musk, US SEC in talks to settle lawsuit over Twitter disclosures

By Reuters
March 17, 2026 6:41 PM UTC Updated 31 mins ago

Tesla CEO Elon Musk looks on at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 11, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo [Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab]

March 17 (Reuters) – Elon Musk and the ​U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are in ‌talks to settle the regulator’s lawsuit accusing the world’s richest person of waiting too long to ​disclose his purchases of Twitter shares ​in 2022.

In a court filing, the SEC ⁠and Musk said they are “engaged in discussions ​of a potential resolution that would mean ​further proceedings might not be necessary.”

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Both sides asked the presiding judge to extend until April 1 from March ​18 a deadline to propose a ​schedule for further proceedings.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Neither the SEC nor lawyers for ‌Musk ⁠could immediately be reached for comment.

The SEC sued Musk in January 2025, saying his 11-day delay in revealing his initial 5% Twitter ​stake in ​late March ⁠and early April 2022 let him buy more than $500 million of ​shares at artificially low prices.

It has ​argued ⁠that Musk should pay a civil fine and repay the $150 million he allegedly saved at ⁠the ​expense of unsuspecting investors. Musk ​has called the delay inadvertent.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Chris ​Prentice in New York; Editing by Alison Williams

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

A typical U.S. family needs annual income of $145,000 to thrive, study finds. About half fall short.

March 17, 2026 / 3:31 PM EDT / CBS News

Roughly half of Americans fall short of the annual income needed to cover their basic needs, according to new research.

A U.S. family with children needs about $145,000 in income to be considered economically secure, according to a March 16 report from the Urban Institute. About 49% of Americans live below that financial threshold, the nonpartisan think tank found.

In 2024 (the latest available data), the median household income for married couples in the U.S. was $128,700, U.S. Census data shows.

Ingredients for economic security

According to Urban’s analysis, economic security today includes having enough money to pay for:

• Adequate food
• Clothing
• Housing
• Health care
• Child care
• Transportation

• Postsecondary education
• Student loan repayments
• Savings for emergencies and retirement
• Additional costs, such as for personal care products

The research comes as many Americans continue to feel the pinch of rising prices, with even some six-figure households saying they are struggling to pay for basics like utilities and health care.

Riding the “hamster wheel”

While Urban’s measure differs from the poverty rate, which measures extreme hardship, it signals that even people with good-paying jobs may still not be earning enough to feel as if they are thriving.

“That is consistent with the experiences that we’re hearing from people — that they might not be destitute, but some of them are skipping bills — and some of them are making their bills on a regular basis, but they’re not getting ahead,” economist Gregory Acs, vice president of Urban’s tax and income supports division and a co-author of the report, told CBS News.

He added, “They feel like they’re on the hamster wheel economy.”

Earning above the $145,000 annual income threshold allows people to get ahead and feel financially secure, the analysis said.

“If you have more people feeling that their efforts are rewarded, that they have a stronger sense of autonomy, they are able to devote more time to their own communities, to their own families,” Acs said. “Parents can invest more in their kids — time, energy, money.”

The real poverty line?

The analysis echoes a viral Substack post from 2025 by Wall Street strategist Michael Green that posited that the actual poverty line in the U.S. — or how much you have to earn to afford necessities like food and shelter — is in reality much higher than the government’s official number, which stands at $33,000 for a family of four.

By Green’s calculation, Americans who earn less than $140,000 should be considered poor because their income isn’t sufficient to pay for basics like housing, childcare and food — similar to the measures the Urban Institute used in its analysis.

“He called it a poverty rate — I think it actually was more of an economic security rate,” Acs said, referring to Green’s post. “His intuition, in his back-of-the-envelope calculation, is broadly consistent with the way we added things up.”

The same share of Americans likely remains below the economic security threshold in 2026, Acs noted, given that wages and inflation have been rising relatively in tandem in the last several years. Still, some households may be facing more acute financial stress this year, such as those who lost enhanced premium health credits for the Affordable Care Act plans when they expired in January.

Who struggles most

The share of people who live below Urban’s economic security threshold varies by race, age and family composition, the analysis found. Single-parent households have among the lowest rates of economic security, with about 90% below the research firm’s proposed threshold.

About 8 in 10 U.S. renters fall below the economic security line, roughly double the rate of homeowners, the research found, which also noted that about 45% of families with one member over the age of 65 lack economic security.

Under-65 households without children need about $95,900 in annual earnings to meet basic needs, less than families with kids, largely because they don’t face child care costs, according to Urban.

Families with at least one adult over 65 require $108,500 for economic security. While they don’t require childcare, older households tend to have higher healthcare costs, the analysis found.

Edited by Alain Sherter

US Supreme Court’s Roberts says personal hostility aimed at judges has ‘got to stop’

March 17, 2026 7:47 PM UTC / Reuters

By John Kruzel

节点运行失败

U.S. President Donald Trump, next to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, arrives to deliver the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 24, 2026. REUTERS/KEVIN LAMARQUE/File Photo

• Summary

• Trump has decried “corrupt judges” who ruled against him
• He denounced Supreme Court justices after tariffs ruling
• Roberts calls personal attacks on judges “quite dangerous”

WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) – U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said on Tuesday that hostility directed in personal terms at judges ​is “dangerous and it’s got to stop,” commenting just days after President Donald Trump’s latest social media broadside against judges ‌who have ruled against him and his administration.

Roberts did not mention the Republican president by name in his remarks at an event at Rice University in Houston. But Roberts, who has led the U.S. Supreme Court for more than two decades, said that while criticism of judicial decisions is welcome ​and often healthy, attacks of a personal nature against judges cross a line.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

“The problem sometimes is that the criticism ​can move from a focus on legal analysis to personalities, and you see … that it’s more ⁠directed in a personal way,” Roberts said. “And that, frankly, can be quite dangerous.”

“Judges around the country work very hard to ​get it right. And if they don’t, their opinions are subject to criticism,” Roberts added. “But personally directed hostility is dangerous and ​it’s got to stop.”

Trump and senior members of his administration have heaped scorn on judges who have issued a series of rulings impeding his agenda since his return to the presidency last year.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The president in a social media post on Sunday resumed his criticism of Washington-based U.S. District Judge James ​Boasberg, who last week blocked subpoenas issued in a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell pursued by Trump-appointed prosecutor ​Jeanine Pirro.

He called for Boasberg’s removal from any Trump-related cases, adding that the judge should “suffer serious disciplinary action” along with “numerous other corrupt judges.”

Trump last ‌year ⁠called for Boasberg’s impeachment by Congress and referred to him as “radical left,” prompting Roberts to rebuke the president and describe impeachment as “not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

Roberts and the other conservative justices who hold a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court have sided with Trump in a series of emergency rulings in the past year. The court, however, last month struck ​down his sweeping global tariffs ​as unlawful in a ruling ⁠authored by Roberts. Trump in his social media post on Sunday renewed his attacks on the six justices who ruled against his imposition of the tariffs under a law meant for national ​emergencies.

Immediately after that ruling, Trump lashed out at those six justices – including two who he appointed ​during his first ⁠term as president, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – while hailing the three justices who backed him. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you wanna know the truth, the two of them,” Trump said, referring to Gorsuch and Barrett.

Trump in those remarks also ⁠claimed that ​the court “has been swayed by foreign interests,” but did not provide any ​evidence.

Roberts in his 2024 end-of-year report singled out violence, intimidation, disinformation and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments as areas of “illegitimate activity” that “threaten the independence of judges ​on which the rule of law depends.”

Reporting by John Kruzel; Additional reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Arizona files criminal charges against Kalshi, alleging it is engaged in illegal gambling

March 17, 2026 / 3:42 PM EDT / CBS News

Arizona’s attorney general on Tuesday filed criminal charges against Kalshi, alleging the prediction market platform is engaging in illegal gambling practices and election wagering.

The complaint, filed in Maricopa County, Arizona, includes 20 separate counts against Kalshi, claiming the company accepted bets from Arizona residents in violation of state law. The bets in question focused on events including sporting contests, individual player performance, legislation and state and federal elections, according to a statement issued by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office.

“Kalshi may brand itself as a ‘prediction market,’ but what it’s actually doing is running an illegal gambling operation and taking bets on Arizona elections, both of which violate Arizona law,” Mayes said in the statement.

Four of the counts against Kalshi are on election wagering, while the remaining 16 are related to betting and wagering.

Kalshi called the criminal charges “paper thin” and said states don’t have the authority to regulate a national financial exchange.

“As other courts have recognized and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission affirms, Kalshi is subject to federal jurisdiction,” a spokesperson told CBS News in an email. “It’s different from what sportsbooks and casinos offer their customers, and it should not be overseen by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws.”

— This is a developing story and will be updated

High-ranking Trump intel official resigns over war in Iran

By Dana Bash, CNN

Published 2:17 PM EDT, Tue March 17, 2026

The Inside Politics panel discusses the abrupt resignation of Joe Kent, a staunch Trump and MAGA supporter with ties to far-right extremists, who President Trump appointed to direct the National Counterterrorism Center. Politico’s Eli Stokols shares “There are people in the White House who are not fully on board with what’s happening in Iran.”

5:21 • Source: CNN

Latest News from CNN Politics 15 videos

Soaring gas prices, rising mortgage rates and a weakening job market are complicating Trump’s promise to lower costs for Americans

By Amanda Macias
Fox News

Published March 17, 2026 3:00pm EDT

President Donald Trump was already eager for a Federal Reserve rate cut. If there were ever a moment for him to want one even more, it would be Wednesday, but his war with Iran may have blown it, driving up oil prices and reviving the inflation fears that make cuts harder to justify.

Few things shape what Americans can afford more than the Federal Reserve, even if most people rarely pay attention to it. The central bank doesn’t set the price of groceries or cars, but it does help determine how expensive it is to borrow money. And, right now, high rates are keeping mortgage payments, car loans and credit card bills painfully high.

When the Fed’s two-day meeting wraps up Wednesday, policymakers are widely expected to leave rates unchanged.

Now, the Iran war is complicating not just this week’s decision but the path ahead if the conflict drags on and keeps oil prices elevated.

TRUMP VS THE FEDERAL RESERVE: HOW THE CLASH REACHED UNCHARTED TERRITORY

[image_1]
U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is widely expected to announce that the central bank will hold rates steady this week. (Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images)

Tit-for-tat strikes in Iran and across the Middle East have helped push crude above $100 a barrel for the first time since 2022, rattling global markets and renewing concerns about tighter energy supplies.

That pressure is starting to hit consumers. As oil prices climb, gasoline and diesel prices are rising quickly — especially diesel, which often moves faster because of its close ties to freight and industrial demand.

THE UNLIKELY TOOL TRUMP IS EYEING TO TACKLE RISING OIL PRICES AMID THE IRAN CONFLICT

Made with Flourish•Create a chart

As of March 17, AAA put the national average for regular gasoline at $3.79 a gallon, up 88 cents from a month earlier, while diesel climbed to $5.04, up $1.39 over the same period.

Jet fuel is getting more expensive, too.

For airlines, fuel is one of the biggest operating costs, so sustained increases could squeeze margins, push up ticket prices and add fresh strain to a travel season already complicated by the DHS shutdown.

OIL, GAS PRICES JUMP AS TRUMP FLIRTS WITH STRIKING IRANIAN OIL INFRASTRUCTURE

Made with Flourish•Create a chart

The pressure is showing up in housing, too.

Mortgage rates have crept higher since the start of the Iran war. The benchmark 30-year fixed rate dipped below 6% in late February, its lowest level since September 2022, before rising higher to 6.26% as of March 16, according to data compiled by the Mortgage Bankers Association.

At the same time, the Fed is grappling with a labor market that is starting to crack. Employers shed 92,000 jobs in February, defying expectations for job growth and muddying the outlook for policymakers.

That combination of stubborn inflation and a weakening labor market has only intensified pressure from Trump, whose promise to lower costs for Americans was a centerpiece of his campaign.

For months, he has pressed Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to lower interest rates, arguing that cheaper borrowing would spur growth and offer relief to American households. Fed officials, however, have signaled they want clearer evidence that inflation is cooling before cutting.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

[image_2]
President Donald Trump nominated Kevin Warsh to succeed Powell at the Federal Reserve.(Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

On Thursday, Trump pressed Powell to cut interest rates “immediately” as fallout from the conflict involving Iran fuels an energy price spike.

“Where is the Federal Reserve Chairman, Jerome “Too Late” Powell, today? He should be dropping Interest Rates, IMMEDIATELY, not waiting for the next meeting,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post using a mocking nickname for Powell.

For Trump, the timing is brutal.

He campaigned on lowering costs for Americans, but the conflict involving Iran is threatening to do the opposite — driving up energy prices, complicating the Fed’s path and putting fresh pressure on one of his core economic promises.

Amanda covers the intersection of business and politics for Fox News Digital.

House Oversight chair subpoenas Attorney General Pam Bondi for deposition in Epstein probe

Updated Mar 17, 2026, 2:51 PM ET | Published Mar 17, 2026, 1:44 PM ET | CNN Politics

By [Annie Grayer]

US Attorney General Pam Bondi in the East Room of the White House on March 16, 2026.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

House Oversight Chair James Comer on Tuesday issued a subpoena to Attorney General Pam Bondi to appear for a deposition on April 14 as part of the panel’s [Jeffrey Epstein] probe.

Comer wrote in the subpoena cover letter that his panel is investigating the “possible mismanagement of the federal government’s investigation” into Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

“The Committee has questions regarding the Department of Justice’s handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates and its compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” Comer wrote, referring to the law passed by Congress last year mandating the Justice Department’s release of the files.

Ad Feedback

Separately, the committee announced that Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche are slated to brief members of the panel behind closed doors on Wednesday. A source familiar with the process told CNN that the Justice Department requested it brief the committee on its Epstein investigation and compliance with the law in order to promptly answer lawmakers’ questions, given that scheduling a deposition with the committee will take time.

A DOJ spokesperson called the subpoena “completely unnecessary,” but did not say whether the attorney general would comply.

“This subpoena is completely unnecessary. Lawmakers have been invited to view the unredacted files for themselves at the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General has always made herself available to speak directly with members of Congress,” the spokesperson said.

“She continues to have calls and meetings with members of Congress on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which is why the Department offered to brief the committee tomorrow. As always, we look forward to continuing to provide policymakers with the facts,” the spokesperson continued.

DOJ’s release of the files has prompted complaints from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, with critics saying they believe the files were overly redacted and demanding greater transparency.

“As Attorney General, you are directly responsible for overseeing the Department’s collection, review, and determinations regarding the release of files pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the Committee therefore believes that you possess valuable insight into these efforts,” Comer wrote.

The move comes after the GOP-led committee [voted on a bipartisan basis] earlier this month to subpoena Bondi for testimony about her role in the release of the files.

Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the panel, on Tuesday nodded to the bipartisan effort that led to the subpoena.

“Thanks to united Oversight Committee Democrats, along with the support of several Republicans, the Attorney General will now appear before our committee under oath. No more lies. No more distractions. We want the truth—and justice for the survivors,” Garcia said.

This story has been updated with additional developments.

CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report.

Epstein files

[See all topics]

Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

Link Copied!

Ad Feedback

Comer subpoenas Bondi to testify before House Oversight Committee on Epstein files

March 17, 2026 / 2:51 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The GOP chairman of the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi for testimony on the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The subpoena, issued by GOP Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, requires Bondi to appear for a closed-door deposition on April 14.

“As Attorney General, you are directly responsible for overseeing the Department’s collection, review, and determinations regarding the release of files pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the Committee therefore believes that you possess valuable insight into these efforts,” Comer wrote.

The committee voted on March 4 to approve a motion to subpoena Bondi, with five Republicans voting with all Democrats to move ahead on the matter. The motion itself was introduced by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina. Republican Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Michael Cloud of Texas and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania also broke with their party to support it.

Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche are also scheduled to brief the committee behind closed doors on Wednesday. In an attempt to fend off the subpoena earlier this month, Comer noted Bondi had offered to give private briefings to members about the Epstein investigation.

But lawmakers in both parties have been frustrated by the department’s handling of the release of the files and sweeping redactions of many documents.

Only about half of the files in the Justice Department’s possession appear to have been released. Blanche has said the department reviewed 6 million total pages. According to a CBS News analysis, the department has released about 3 million pages of documents in several batches. Tens of thousands of files, some of which contained explicit images or survivors’ information, have been removed.

In November, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act that compelled the release of all Epstein-related materials that the Justice Department had in its possession by Dec. 19, 2025.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, accused Bondi of leading “a White House cover-up.”

“Thanks to united Oversight Committee Democrats, along with the support of several Republicans, the Attorney General will now appear before our committee under oath,” he said in a statement Tuesday. “No more lies. No more distractions. We want the truth — and justice for the survivors.”

A spokesperson for the Justice Department said the subpoena is “completely unnecessary.”

“Lawmakers have been invited to view the unredacted files for themselves at the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General has always made herself available to speak directly with members of Congress,” the spokesperson said.

Sarah N. Lynch contributed to this report.

US House panel subpoenas Attorney General Bondi in Epstein probe

By Reuters
March 17, 2026 5:34 PM UTC Updated 9 mins ago

Item 1 of 2 REUTERS/Kent Nishimura/File Photo

[1/2]REUTERS/Kent Nishimura/File Photo [Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab]

WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) – A U.S. congressional committee said on Tuesday it has issued a subpoena to Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify behind ​closed doors in its probe of the late convicted sex criminal ‌Jeffrey Epstein.

Under the subpoena, Bondi would give a sworn deposition to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee on April 14.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for ​comment.

Bondi faces accusations that the Justice Department has concealed the names of ​powerful associates of Epstein in its release of millions of documents ⁠related to the late financier, who cultivated close ties to powerful political and business ​leaders before and after he was convicted in 2008 of soliciting prostitution from ​a minor. Epstein was arrested again in 2019 and died in jail while facing federal sex-trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, are due ​to give the committee a separate private briefing on Wednesday.

Lawmakers have complained that ​redactions in the Justice Department’s files appear to go beyond the limited exemptions allowed in ‌a ⁠law Congress passed nearly unanimously in November. The department has also declined to publish a large volume of material, citing legal privileges.

Bondi said more than 500 Justice Department lawyers worked on a compressed timeline to review reams of material.

The Epstein ​files have dogged ​Bondi throughout her ⁠tenure as Trump’s attorney general. Some of Trump’s supporters accused her of a coverup last year when the Justice Department ​said it would initially not release material related to ​its investigations ⁠of Epstein, drawing new scrutiny of Trump’s past friendship with him.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Trump says he broke off ties with Epstein years before his 2008 conviction and has repeatedly said he ⁠did ​not see any evidence of sex trafficking. He ​has not been accused by law enforcement authorities of criminal activity related to Epstein.

Reporting by Ryan ​Patrick Jones, Susan Heavey and Andrew Goudsward; editing by Andy Sullivan Editing by David Ljunggren

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Chief Justice John Roberts says that hostility toward judges has ‘got to stop’

PUBLISHED Mar 17, 2026, 2:08 PM ET

By

[John Fritze]

56 min ago

Supreme Court justices Supreme Court Donald Trump

Chief Justice John Roberts warned against personal attacks on the judiciary, telling an audience Tuesday that while criticism of opinions is fair game, “personally directed hostility” is dangerous and must stop.

Roberts did not mention President Donald Trump by name and, as he so often does, he went out of his way to stress that the attacks he was referring to were coming from “not just any one political perspective.” However, the chief justice’s admonishment came weeks after Trump said that justices who ruled against his sweeping tariffs were an “embarrassment to their families.”

“The problem sometimes is that the criticism can move from a focus on legal analysis to personalities,” Roberts told an audience gathered at Rice University in Houston. “Judges around the country work very hard to get it right. And if they don’t, their opinions are subject to criticism. But personally directed hostility is dangerous and it’s got to stop.”

Trump over the weekend published a lengthy social media post decrying the court’s decision in February shutting down his emergency tariffs. Roberts wrote the decision and the majority included two justices — Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — who Trump nominated to the bench.

“They openly disrespect the presidents who nominate them to the highest position in the land,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “This completely inept and embarrassing court was not what the Supreme Court of the United States was set up by our wonderful founders to be.”

Roberts has picked his spots with Trump carefully, rarely speaking out even as the president and White House pursued a campaign of impeaching lower court judges that ruled against him earlier in his second term. One year ago, the chief justice issued a brief statement aimed at the president’s escalating rhetoric.

“ For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement released by the Supreme Court. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Speaking on Tuesday, Roberts was asked about past chief justices he believed were underappreciated. He mentioned William Howard Taft, who was also a former president, and Charles Evans Hughes, who was chief during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s effort to add justices to the Supreme Court.

Hughes notably wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee pushing back on that idea, but Roberts suggested Hughes’ approach with FDR was more subtle than some had wanted. Roberts, a close observer of history, said many people wanted Hughes to “get on the radio” and fight the plan publicly.

But Hughes, Roberts said, was “savvy enough” to take a different approach.

“Instead, he’s working behind the scenes, explaining to people what this would do to the role of the court,” Roberts said. “If Hughes had taken the other position, again, I think that may not have come out the right way.”

Supreme Court justices Supreme Court Donald Trump