“TODAY” co-anchor Savannah Guthrie will return to the NBC morning show on April 6, as investigators continue to search for her 84-year-old mother in Arizona.
In her first interview since Nancy Guthrie went missing in February, Savannah Guthrie told Hoda Kotb she believes returning to “TODAY” is “part of my purpose right now” — even if it’s hard to imagine coming back to a workplace “of joy and lightness.”
“I can’t come back and try to be something that I’m not. But I can’t not come back because it’s my family,” Guthrie said in the interview about returning to work. “I don’t know if I can do it. I don’t know if I’ll belong anymore, but I would like to try. I would like to try.”
“I’m not gonna be the same. But maybe it’s like that old poem, ‘More beautiful in the broken places,’” she added.
Tune into “Savannah Speaks: A Dateline Special” at 9 p.m. EST on NBC.
Kotb revealed Guthrie’s return Friday on “TODAY.” Her co-host, Craig Melvin, added that the team “can’t wait to welcome her back with open arms.”
“It’s where she belongs. It’s where we all want her to be,” Melvin said.
A spokesperson for “TODAY” did not have additional comment.
Nancy Guthrie was reported missing Feb. 1 after she did not show up at a friend’s house for virtual church services, authorities said. She was last seen the previous night around 9:45 p.m. after having dinner at her daughter Annie Guthrie’s home.
Authorities have described the case as a possible kidnapping or abduction, but clues have been scarce. The Pima County Sheriff’s Office has not publicly specified a motive.
Guthrie told Kotb that her religious faith is “how I will stay connected to my mom.” She alluded to her mother’s experience with loss after her husband, Charles Guthrie, died at the age of 49 in 1988.
“I saw her belief. I saw her faith. She taught me, she taught all of us,” said Guthrie, who was 16 at the time of her father’s death. “I may not do it as well as her, but I will do it. I will do it for my kids. I will. I will not fall apart. I will not let whoever did this take my children’s mother from them.”
Guthrie repeated her pleas for information about her mother’s possible abduction, saying in part: “We need someone to tell the truth. I have no anger in my heart. I have hope in my heart. I have love. But this family needs peace.”
“We need an answer, and someone has it in their power to help,” she added.
Guthrie also opened up about her visit earlier this month to the New York City set of the “TODAY” show, describing her NBC colleagues as her “greater family.”
“I really wanted to come and see everybody. I just love this beautiful place that we call home, where we get to come and be every day,” she said, adding, “When times are hard, you want to be with your family.”
LOS ANGELES — A jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in the design or operation of their social media platforms, producing a bellwether verdict in the first lawsuit to take tech giants to trial for social media addiction.
The Los Angeles County Superior Court jury said that Meta’s and YouTube’s negligence were a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, identified in court by her initials, K.G.M., and that the companies failed to adequately warn users of the dangers of Instagram (Meta’s platform) and YouTube (which is owned by Google).
It awarded K.G.M. $3 million in compensatory damages, finding Meta 70% responsible for harm caused to the now 20-year-old plaintiff, and YouTube responsible for 30%.
The trial, which began last month in a Los Angeles County courtroom and included testimony from Mark Zuckerberg and other tech executives, was the first in a consolidated group of cases brought against Meta and other companies by more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and over 250 school districts.
Outside the courtroom, families who say their children were harmed by social media embraced as they celebrated the verdict, telling reporters they feel “vindicated.”
Spokespeople for Meta and Google said the companies disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal.
“Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,” a Meta spokesperson said. “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”
José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, also said the case “misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”
In a joint statement, co-lead counsel for K.G.M. said the verdict is “a historic moment” for thousands of children and their families.
“But this verdict is bigger than one case,” the lawyers said. “For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. Today’s verdict is a referendum — from a jury, to an entire industry — that accountability has arrived.”
The jury decided on $2.1 million in punitive damages for Meta and $900,000 for YouTube, totaling $3 million. It’s a small fraction of the $1 billion in punitive damages the plaintiff’s counsel sought.
Plaintiff K.G.M., center, arrives at Los Angeles County Superior Court on Feb. 26.Mario Tama / Getty Images file
K.G.M.’s lead attorney, Mark Lanier, has said he hopes the proceedings produce transparency and accountability “so that the public can see that these companies have been orchestrating an addiction crisis in our country and, actually, the world.”
The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the incidents outlined in her lawsuit. K.G.M. testified in court that her nearly nonstop use of social media caused or contributed to depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia. It “really affected my self-worth,” she said last month.
Speaking about her social media use, K.G.M. testified that she felt she wanted to constantly be on the platforms and feared missing out if she wasn’t.
Attorneys for Meta and YouTube have disputed claims brought by the plaintiff, arguing their platforms aren’t purposefully harmful and addictive.
A spokesperson for Meta said K.G.M.’s “profound challenges” weren’t caused by social media and pointed to “significant emotional and physical abuse” that she experienced when she was younger.
In his closing argument, an attorney for YouTube said there wasn’t a single mention of addiction to that platform in K.G.M.’s medical records.
The verdict comes after jurors in a separate trial in New Mexico held Meta liable for failing to protect children from online predators and sexual exploitation on Facebook and Instagram.
The New Mexico jury found Tuesdaythat Meta violated the state’s consumer protection laws and ordered it to pay $375 million in civil penalties. Meta has said it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal.
In Los Angeles, deliberations took longer, wrapping up after nearly 44 hours over nine days. The jurors had told Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl that they were having trouble coming to a consensus on one defendant.
Social media companies have historically been shielded by Section 230, a provision added to the Communications Act of 1934 that says internet companies aren’t liable for the content users post.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg leaves Los Angeles County Superior Court on Feb. 18. Kyle Grillot / Bloomberg via Getty Images file
K.G.M.’s lawsuit was the first civil action seeking to hold the platforms accountable for allegedly causing addiction and mental health problems.
TikTok and Snap, who were also named as defendants in K.G.M.’s lawsuit, reached settlements before the trial. They remain defendants in a series of similar lawsuits expected to go to trial this year.
Matt Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center — which is representing hundreds of plaintiffs in state and federal proceedings — said the jury’s decision Wednesday “establishes a framework for how similar cases across the country will be evaluated and demonstrates that juries are willing to hold technology companies accountable when the evidence shows foreseeable harm.”
“Families pursuing justice in other jurisdictions can now point to this outcome as proof that these claims deserve to be heard and taken seriously,” Bergman said in a statement.
Lanier told NBC News in an interview that this was the most difficult case he’s tried in his 42 years as a lawyer.
“I think the jury understood that they were the very first case in the history of our country to look at social media addiction, and they wanted to leave no question, but that they seriously considered the evidence,” Lanier said. “So they took forever, then they looked carefully at each of the questions and answered everyone was, yes, guilty.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta also weighed in on the Los Angeles and New Mexico verdicts, writing in an X statement that California “looks forward to holding Meta accountable in our own upcoming August trial in the Bay Area.”
U.S. stocks and bonds sold off Thursday and oil continued its weekslong upward trajectory, as optimism faded about possible peace talks or a U.S.-Iran ceasefire.
The price of U.S. crude oil rose near $95 per barrel, up more than 4%. International Brent crude rose 5%, to more than $109 per barrel. Since the war started, the cost of U.S. crude oil is up more than 40%. Since the start of the year, it has risen more than 60%.
The S&P 500 closed down by 1.7%, the Dow tumbled 470 points and the Russell 2000 ended the day down 1.7%. For the S&P 500, Thursday was its worst single day since the war began.
The Nasdaq Composite fared the worst though, and dropped nearly 2.4%, pushing the index into correction territory. A correction is when an index falls 10% or more from its most recent all-time high. As of Thursday’s close, the index is now down 10.9% from its October high.
Heating oil, a proxy for jet fuel prices, also spiked 8% on Thursday afternoon. The nationwide average price of unleaded gas was $3.98 a gallon.
Nonetheless, Trump downplayed the severity of the oil and gas price spikes.
Energy prices “have not gone up as much as I thought,” Trump said at a Cabinet meeting in Washington.
The military campaign is “not over, so maybe it’ll go up a little bit more,” Trump said. “It’s all going to come back down to where it was and probably lower.”
Trump also cast doubt on a deal with Iran. “They are begging to work out a deal,” he said. “I don’t know if we’ll be able to do that. I don’t know if we’re willing to do that.”
But analysts widely believe that oil prices will continue to remain elevated over the long run, factoring in the risk that shippers will now have to assume for oil tankers that transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
Also impacting market sentiment was a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which predicted that as a result of the war with Iran, the average inflation rate for G20 countries this year would rise to 4%, up from its December prediction of 2.8%. The United States is a member of the OECD.
Bonds also sold off, driving yields higher. The 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield rose to 4.42%. The yield on 20-year bond hit 4.97% and the 30-year yield hit 4.93%.
Treasury yields, especially for the 10-year bond, heavily influence consumer lending rates. As a result, mortgage rates have risen from around 6% at the start of the war on Feb. 28 to more than 6.5% as of Thursday afternoon.
Stock indexes in Asia had already begun to sell off overnight. China’s Shanghai index and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index both fell 1%, while Korea’s Kospi slid 3.2%.
These indexes were also weighed down by big drops in shares of tech companies, including Samsung, after Google revealed a new, more efficient use of storage and memory systems for artificial intelligence.
The Stoxx 600 in Europe followed, closing down more than 1%. Flagship stock indexes in Germany, France and the U.K. also ended the trading session down by around 1%.
Federal authorities are investigating a close call this week involving a military helicopter and a United Airlines plane approaching John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana.
United Airlines Flight 589 was approaching the airport in Orange County around 8:40 p.m. Tuesday when a Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopter crossed its path, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Pilots on the United Airlines plane were advised by air traffic control to watch for the military helicopter flying near the airport, United Airlines said.
“They saw the helicopter, and also received a traffic alert, which they responded to by leveling the aircraft,” United said.
The United flight with 162 passengers and six crew members landed safely.
The new investigation comes a week after the FAA issued a new airport safety order designed to improve safety near airports where helicopters cross both arrival and departure paths. The order suspends use of visual separation between airplanes and helicopters and requires air traffic controllers to use radar to manage lateral and vertical separation between aircraft.
A close call earlier this month between a twin-engine Beechcraft 99 and helicopter at Hollywood Burbank Airport was cited by federal authorities as a key factor behind a new airport safety measure.
In another example, the agency said American Airlines Flight 1657 was cleared to land at San Antonio International Airport when a police helicopter was on its final approach path. The helicopter turned to avoid the American Airlines plane, the FAA said.
The new requirement applies to more than 150 of the nation’s busiest airports and extends a restriction already in place at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
The upgraded safety measure was rolled out after a year-long FAA safety team review. In a news release, the FAA also referenced the Jan. 29 American Airlines jet and Army Black Hawk crash that killed 67 people. A key factor in the crash was the placement of a helicopter route in the approach path of Reagan National Airport’s secondary runway, the NTSB board said, also identifying air traffic controllers’ over reliance on asking helicopter pilots to avoid other aircraft as a factor.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have said “the floodgates are open” for more legal cases against tech giants after Google and Meta were found liable for a woman’s social media addiction in a landmark lawsuit.
A jury in Los Angels found Instagram, which is owned by Meta, and YouTube, which is owned by Google, were responsible for harm caused to the 20-year-old – awarding her $6m in damages.
Meta and Google both said they disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal.
But it’s been seen as a bellwether decision that will inform hundreds more cases against social media companies for creating addictive algorithms.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex said “accountability has finally arrived” and declared: “The question is no longer whether social media must change – it’s when, and how fast.”
‘The floodgates are now open’
In a statement, Harry and Meghan hailed the “landmark” court verdict as a victory “for families, advocates, and young people everywhere – and a powerful message that justice has caught up to Big Tech”.
They said the case had “pulled back the curtain” and “confirmed what parents and experts have said all along: the harm isn’t in parenting, it’s in product design”.
They said that the outcome had “changed the conversation about tech accountability forever”, adding: “The floodgates are now open. There will be more cases, more demands for reform, and more insistence on responsibility.”
How the case unfolded
After more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, California jurors decided Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms.
The jury also decided each company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the woman, who has remained anonymous.
The trial, which lasted around a month and ended on Wednesday when the verdict was delivered, centred around arguments that Instagram and YouTube (and TikTok and Snapchat, but they settled out of court) were built to be addictive and were therefore harmful.
It focused on the case of KGM, or Kaley, as she was called in court, a now 20-year-old Californian who says she developed a number of mental health issues after using social media from a young age.
“How do you make a child never put down the phone? That’s called the engineering of addiction,” her lawyer, Mark Lanier, told the jury.
“They engineered it, they put these features on the phones. These are Trojan horses: They look wonderful and great…but you invite them in and they take over.”
Tech bosses take the stand
The trial saw Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg take the stand in front of a jury for the first time.
During his testimony, the tech billionaire insisted that he built his platforms “to have a positive impact in people’s lives”.
“It’s very important to me that what we do […] is a positive force in their lives,” he told the jury.
Instagram boss Adam Mosseri was also called into court and told the jury there was no scientific evidence that social media was addictive.
He said it was important to differentiate between clinical addiction and what he, and others at Instagram, describe as “problematic use”.
When asked about the plaintiff spending 16 hours in one day on Instagram, he told the court: “That sounds like problematic use.”
YouTube largely contested any claims it should be in court in the first place, arguing it doesn’t count as social media and there was almost no suggestion in the evidence presented to the court that the plaintiff was addicted to the platform.
YouTube’s lawyer Luis Li noted that the plaintiff said she lost interest in YouTube as she grew older.
“Ask whether anybody suffering from addiction could just say, ‘Yeah, I kinda lost interest,’” Mr Li said in his closing statement. “What’s your common sense tell you about that?”
Meta argued that the plaintiff’s mental health difficulties had come from a troubled childhood and that “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her problems.
More cases to come
The trial is the first in a series of landmark cases against Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and Snap that are set to follow in the US.
More than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and over 250 school districts, accuse the companies of designing addictive products that have harmed young users.
Matthew Bergman, the founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center, is representing more than 1,000 plaintiffs in the proceedings and told reporters before the verdict that simply taking the case to trial was a win in itself, according to Sky’s partner network NBC News.
“Win or lose the outcome of this trial, victims in the United States have won because now we know that social media companies can and will be held accountable before a fair and impartial jury,” he said.
“And in some cases, plaintiffs will prevail, and in some they may not, but we are just gratified for the opportunity to get this far, and there will be many more trials in the future.”
If you spend much time on social media, you’ll have surely noticed the surge in AI-generated video filling up your feed.
We were promised superintelligence but instead got “AI slop” – clips-for-clicks of people and pets doing funny, diverting, but ultimately pointless things.
Or worse.
Deepfake videos of politicians or celebrities have improved in line with the advancing sophistication of AI video-generating models.
A surge of supposedly “educational” AI-generated video on platforms like YouTube Kids, say campaigners, threatens to misinform, or at best confuse, young minds.
Then there’s the film and TV industry, understandably furious that their stories, actors and characters appear to be being used to train, without permission or remuneration, AI video models.
Models so powerful they can spit out an algorithmic pastiche of their work at a fraction of the cost and effort, threatening to upend their industry.
But are we starting to see watchable, arguably worthwhile, AI-generated content out there?
It was a young, blonde, American Instagram influencer that stood out to me. No different to any other of her TikTok generation, except for the fact that she can travel through time.
Chloe vs History – and you’ll have to watch our full video to find out who “Chloe” really is – strikes a new balance between entertainment and education.
While such accounts might be at the least controversial end of the AI video debate, the new model behind them isn’t.
Seedance 2.0 is uncannily good.
Developed by TikTok‘s Chinese parent company ByteDance, it may have the advantage of having been trained on billions of TikTok users’ posts.
But as with all large AIs, it’s clearly been trained on video its developers don’t own.
US film studios are understandably afraid that AI, and a Chinese one at that, is profiting from them – then coming for their profits.
Though perhaps human creativity isn’t dead.
In making this report, we learned AI isn’t very good at making watchable video on its own. A disruptive tool, most definitely. A destructive one? Not so sure.
A cloned animal that helped pave the way for the creation of Dolly the sheep has gone on permanent display at a Scottish museum.
Morag the sheep and identical twin Megan were cloned from the same embryo and were the first mammals to be successfully replicated from differentiated cells.
Their births in June 1995 at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh were hailed as a technical breakthrough and made the birth of Dolly the sheep in July 1996 possible.
Experts said the births of Morag and Megan demonstrated that viable sheep could be produced by nuclear transfer from cells which have been cultured in vitro.
Dolly was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell as part of the institute’s research into producing genetically-modified farm animals.
Morag has now gone on permanent display at the National Museum of Rural Life in East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, as part of a new section exploring the role of science in agriculture.
Morag died in 2000 and was previously on show at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh until about 2005.
She was then cared for at the National Museums Collection Centre in the Granton area of the Scottish capital.
The National Museum of Rural Life is a partnership between National Museums Scotland (NMS) and the National Trust for Scotland (NTS).
Professor Andrew Kitchener, principal curator of vertebrate biology at NMS, said: “The birth of Dolly the sheep is remembered as one of the great scientific breakthroughs of the late 20th century, but that historic moment wouldn’t have been possible without the arrival of Morag and her twin.
“Without them, there would not have been Dolly.
“It’s very fitting that Morag forms the centrepiece of this fascinating new display at the National Museum of Rural Life, exploring the role that cutting-edge science can play in farming.”
The new display at the museum explores the future of farming and reveals how technology such as robotics and artificial intelligence could be used to solve problems which have existed for centuries.
The main themes – large-scale agriculture, small-scale food production and animal welfare – are explored in the display, which also tells stories of crofting in Scotland.
Dolly the sheep died in 2003 and was donated to NMS by the Roslin Institute.
Since then, she has been on display at the National Museum of Scotland.
Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp, has been ordered to pay $375m (£280m) in damages after it was found to have knowingly harmed children’s mental health.
In what was described by campaigners as a “watershed moment”, a court in New Mexico, USA, has found the company had concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms.
The verdict marks the first time a jury has ruled on such claims against Meta, as the tech giant faces a wave of lawsuits over how its platforms affect young people’s mental health.
The New Mexico case relied on an undercover investigation where agents created social media accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta’s response.
Prosecutors claimed Meta proritised profits over safety and violated parts of the state’s Unfair Practices Act.
The jury at the seven-week trial in Santa Fe agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.
A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.
“We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content,” they said.
“We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”
The company’s lawyers said it disclosed risks and made efforts to weed out harmful content and experiences, but acknowledged that some bad material got through.
More than 40 state attorney generals in the US have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming the company is contributing to a mental health crisis among young people by deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook features that are addictive.
“Meta’s house of cards is beginning to fall,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of watchdog group The Tech Oversight Project.
“For years, it’s been glaringly obvious that Meta has failed to stop sexual predators from turning online interactions into real world harm.”
The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, also claimed Meta had not fully disclosed or addressed the dangers of social media addiction.
The company has not agreed that social media addiction exists, but executives at the trial acknowledged “problematic use” and said they wanted people to feel good about the time they spend on Meta’s platforms.
“Evidence shows not only that Meta invests in safety because it’s the right thing to do but because it is good for business,” Meta’s lawyer Kevin Huff told jurors in closing arguments.
“Meta designs its apps to help people connect with friends and family, not to try to connect predators.”
ParentsSOS, a coalition of families who have lost children to harm caused by social media, called the verdict a “watershed moment”.
“We parents who have experienced the unimaginable – the death of a child because of social media harms – applaud this rare and momentous milestone in the years-long fight to hold Big Tech accountable for the dangers their products pose to our kids,” the group said in a statement.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is returning next month to New Hampshire, the state that for a century has held the first primary in the race for the White House.
But that doesn’t mean the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee is looking to make a comeback in 2028.
While a growing number of potential contenders for the next Democratic presidential nomination have made stops in New Hampshire, as well as in South Carolina and Nevada, two other key early primary states, Clinton said in an interview last month she would not run for president again and that the party had a “good bench.”
Instead, Clinton will headline the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s (NHDP) annual spring fundraising dinner. The state party announced the news Thursday and said the gala, the McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club Dinner, would be held April 25 in Nashua, New Hampshire.
HEAD HERE FOR THE LATEST FOX NEWS REPORTING, ANALYSIS, AND OPINION ON HILLARY CLINTON
“Through decades of public service — as first lady, a U.S. senator, and secretary of state — Secretary Clinton has fought tirelessly for women’s rights and been a champion for economic security around the world,” longtime NHDP chair Ray Buckley said. “Her work to expand voting rights, strengthen child and family leave policies and combat global health crises has made a lasting impact both here and abroad.”
Buckley told Fox News Digital Clinton will salute retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen for her 40 years of public service. Shaheen was the first woman in the nation’s history elected both governor and senator.
A spokesperson for Clinton told Fox News Digital the former secretary is excited about returning to New Hampshire.
But not everyone’s happy with Clinton’s return to the key New England swing state.
HILLARY CLINTON COMES OUT SWINGING FOLLOWING EPSTEIN DEPOSITION
Responding to the news, a longtime progressive leader in New Hampshire, who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely, told Fox News Digital, “Although this may be a good invite to raise money for the party, it is another example of how completely tone-deaf the party is to the need for real change.
“As exemplary as Hillary Clinton’s conduct was with respect to the Epstein congressional subpoena, she’s yesterday’s news, hasn’t offered a new idea in decades and doesn’t serve the needs of building a new Democratic majority in New Hampshire.”
Clinton won the 2008 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary in her marathon battle against former President Barack Obama for the party’s nomination.
Eight years later, in her second White House bid, she lost the New Hampshire primary in a landslide to progressive champion Bernie Sanders, the senator from neighboring Vermont.
Since her loss to President Donald Trump in the 2016 general election, Clinton has returned twice to New Hampshire. She made a stop in Concord in December 2017 as part of her book tour. And she spoke at Dartmouth College in 2019.
While some on the left take issue with the optics of Clinton’s return to New Hampshire, both the former secretary of state and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have long been supporters of New Hampshire’s cherished position at the top of the primary calendar.
Lucas Meyer, a New Hampshire-based non-profit leader and former longtime president of the New Hampshire Young Democrats, noted that “a lot of New Hampshire Democrats have a lot of affection and love for Secretary Clinton and for her service to our country.”
And Meyer, a former campaign strategist, emphasized the state party’s fundraising dinner that Clinton is headlining “is about funding the apparatus to run campaigns over the next year. Secretary Clinton has a pretty broad appeal, and since she’s not running, there’s a little more flexibility for her to raise money for the party and to attract donors to cut checks for the state.”
EXCLUSIVE: Michael Carbonara, a Republican running in the Sunshine State as a political disruptor to unseat longtime Democratic incumbent Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is pitching an idea to reduce the crippling student loan debt crisis facing the country without shifting the burden to taxpayers.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Carbonara lamented that as America marks its 250th anniversary, “the idea of the American dream has been slipping away” for many young Americans.
He criticized Democrats for promoting affordability while proposing solutions that amount to increased taxes.
“This is the first time where the next generation actually has less opportunity and less freedom than their parents in America’s 250-year history,” he said. “Rather than just tax and tax and tax, which people are tired of, I want to put more money back into the pocket of every American, so life is affordable.”
FOREIGNERS ARE SNAPPING UP US HOMES AND STEALING THE AMERICAN DREAM OUT FROM UNDER FAMILIES
Instead of shifting responsibility to taxpayers, Carbonara blames government subsidies as the “root cause” of rising college costs. A fintech mogul and business leader who also hosts a podcast, he said government subsidies allowed schools to raise prices, making college unaffordable.
“There’s no reason that students need to pay $50,000 a year for an education and wind up with a lifetime of debt that they have to chase every year to pay off,” he said, noting, “That’s not what we want. We want people to be able to go to school, get married, have a good-paying job so they can afford to have a family.”
Carbonara said this is one of the top issues voters voice to him on the campaign trail.
“I don’t just hear from young Americans, I hear from everyone,” he explained.
“The average age of first-time home ownership is now over 40 years old, when 20, 30 years ago, it was below 30 years old,” he went on. “Let’s face it, nobody wants to get married to have kids when you live in a 700-square-foot condo in South Florida.”
VANCE TOUTS TRUMP ECONOMY GAINS DURING NORTH CAROLINA TOUR, CITES RISING HOME PURCHASES
However, unlike former President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, which would have put taxpayers on the hook, Carbonara said addressing government subsidies would place the responsibility on universities.
“The idea of forgiveness, we have to throw that idea out, there’s no forgiveness here,” he said.
“It’s the university’s responsibility to step up to fix the dilemma. And we need to put together these programs for the universities to be able to fix it because again, they were the ones that received all the funding, all the tuition payments that were guaranteed by the government. So, since they benefited, it’s their responsibility to fix the issues.”
If elected, Carbonara believes he could work on both sides of the aisle to bring a bipartisan solution to the student loan crisis.
“People recognize this is a real crisis,” he said, adding, “This is going to take hard work, and it’s going to require responsibility from both students and, obviously, members of Congress.”
BIPARTISAN HOUSING PUSH ADVANCES, BUT TRUMP-BACKED INVESTOR BAN FACES RESISTANCE
Ultimately, Carbonara said that with the American dream spiraling out of reach for many, “we’ve come to a crossroads.”
“Do we go to the socialism route… or do we go the route of freedom where we can create opportunity and give people the tools to be self-determined and be able to be prosperous and make their own decisions in life?” he asked.
“That’s the path we need to go to. We need to return to our core values of America that made our country great and give the American freedom and the American dream opportunity back to everyone.”
