Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee for health secretary, reportedly expressed openness to seizing drug patents of high-priced drugs as a way to lower prices. [Politico reports](https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/27/rfk-jr-health-drug-pricing-00200830) that Kennedy indicated during a closed-door meeting with Senate Finance Committee staffers that he would consider adopting a proposal championed by progressive lawmakers like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The outlet cited three unnamed sources familiar with the exchange. The proposal works by authorizing the government to seize patents of costly drugs that were developed using taxpayer money from drugmakers and then licensing them to other manufactures who could make and sell cheaper, generic alternatives. It’s unclear, however, if Kennedy’s interest reflected the views of the Trump administration. Kennedy’s spokesperson Katie Miller refuted the characterization of his remarks, Politco reported. “After POLITICO was told this did not occur the way Democrats have described it, they’re still seeking to publish it in an attempt to denigrate Bobby Kennedy and create a story where there is not one,” Miller told the outlet. “The fact remains, this did not occur. This is a smear campaign against Donald J. Trump.” Advocates of the policy argue increased competition can drastically cut drug prices. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report found that a drug’s wholesale price drops an [average of 39%](https://www.fda.gov/media/133509/download) after one single generic drug competitor enters the market. With four generic competitors, a drug’s price plummets 79%. These cuts result in [billions of dollars in savings](https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/generic-competition-and-drug-prices) for American consumers. In the United States, drug patents last 20 years from when a patent application is filed. During this period, the pharmaceutical company that owns the patent can set the price of a drug without competition. Because drugs are patented years before they complete clinical trials, secure regulatory approval, and hit the market, pharma companies try to extend their exclusivity rights as much as possible. One way of achieving this is to file more patents that fend off cheaper copy cats from launching. Pharma companies say this is necessary to recover the millions of dollars they spend in researching and developing drugs. Some researchers have disputed this claim. A [2022 study](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2796669) found that research and development costs “did not explain the variation” for drug prices.

Senator Elizabeth Warren is sounding the alarm on cuts to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), writing in a letter that the hiring freeze and decision to rescind 200 job offers to examiners has the potential to disrupt the “stability of the banking season.” Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, raised her concerns in a letter addressed to the FDIC’s [Inspector General Jennifer Fain](https://www.fdicoig.gov/sites/default/files/document/2024-01/Jennifer%20L%20Fain%20Appointed%20FDIC%20Inspector%20General_1.pdf) that was co-signed by Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del, [according to CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/11/elizabeth-warren-fdic-staffing-shortages-put-banking-system-at-risk.html). It comes in response to Elon Musk and President Donald Trump’s efforts to gut the federal workforce, which the Senator said could have catastrophic affects on banking and leave Americans vulnerable. In the note, Warren said the agency’s short-staffing contributed to [the collapse of Signature Bank in 2023](https://qz.com/bank-failures-decade-regional-bank-crisis-fdic-1851585644), an event she fears could repeat elsewhere without a robust FDIC. The dearth of examiners at the FDIC “led to a series of supervisory delays, canceled or postponed exams, and quality control issues in the supervision of Signature,” Warren wrote, according to CNBC ([CMCSA+2.23%](https://qz.com/quote/CMCSA)). “The lesson learned in this case was that a shortage of cops on the beat can threaten the safety and soundness of the banking system and pose risks to the Deposit Insurance Fund,” she said. Warren had a similar message last month, tweeting “The FDIC should explain why it’s now axing even more examiners whose job it is to make sure big banks don’t crash our economy.” The Massachusetts Senator has also raised alarms about the recent [gutting of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau](https://qz.com/donald-trump-cfpb-russel-vought-elon-musk-doge-lawsuit-1851759157) (CFPB) — an agency that was created as a result of her 2007 proposal — after Trump’s acting director Russel Vought ordered to freeze almost all of the agency’s work. In remarks Monday [at the CFPB’s headquarters](https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/at-cfpb-headquarters-warren-sounds-alarm-on-elon-musks-attack-against-consumer-financial-protection-bureau), Warren said that “Donald Trump ran his campaign on lowering costs for working families … now he and his co-president, Elon Musk, have tried to shut down the agency that has [delivered $21 billion](https://qz.com/capital-one-cfpb-lawsuit-high-interest-savings-360-1851738930) to [hardworking families](https://qz.com/cash-app-block-cfpb-order-175-million-fraud-1851740997).” Warren also said it was Congress that “built” the CFPB. “No one other than Congress — not Donald Trump, not Elon Musk, no one – can fire the financial cops.”

Senator [Elizabeth Warren](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/elizabeth-warren) of Massachusetts and 10 [Democratic](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/democrats) Senators have called on the government accountability office (GAO) to investigate the effects of the recent firing of federal probationary employees on the health and safety of the American public. The letter noted at least 25,000 probationary employees at the federal government appear to have been indiscriminately fired under the claims of poor performance, regardless of their performance. The firings put people in the US “at risk”, Warren warned. The letter was also signed by the fellow Democratic Senators Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin), Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut), Cory Booker (New Jersey), Tammy Duckworth (Illinois), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Edward J Markey (Massachusetts), Jeff Merkley (Oregon), Chris Van Hollen (Maryland) and Ron Wyden (Oregon). Warren and the other US Senators cite firings at the Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Agriculture, as a few examples, noting the [Trump administration](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/trump-administration) has scrambled to rehire some terminated workers that include employees focused on nuclear security, bird flu outbreaks, veterans’ health and health services in tribal communities. “Rather than make government more efficient, these firings appear to have created massive inefficiencies and put the American people at risk,” Warren wrote. “Congress and the public need to better understand the full impact of these terminations on our health and safety, given that the administration and Musk clearly do not.” The letter also notes as the Trump administration continues efforts to roll out more firings and implement plans for large-scale reductions in force, private companies associated with [Elon Musk](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/elon-musk) and other Trump officials will be used to fill the void. “Already, private companies – including some owned by or connected to [Elon Musk](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/elon-musk) and other Trump officials – have begun entering agencies following mass terminations. Unlike the federal government, those companies are not responsible for prioritizing Americans’ health and safety interests, and we are concerned that they will not do so,” Warren added. The letter demands an investigation answer questions into how many probationary workers have been fired, their roles and responsibilities, how successful rehiring attempts have been, what percentage of fired employees’ roles have been refilled by new or existing employees, to what extent their functions are still being performed by their respective agencies, and the impact if those functions have not continued. Warren is also seeking an investigation to determine what cost analysis was performed to conduct the firings, their accuracy, whether the terminations resulted in increased spending, including on contractors and whether refilled roles were being performed by private contractors.

The [Trump administration](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/trump-administration) has authorised a $30m grant to the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, making the US a direct backer of an aid organisation that is closely linked to private security contractors and has been accused by critics of “politicising” the distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza. According to a document seen by the Guardian, the state department has already disbursed $7m to GHF, a US- and Israeli-backed aid organisation that has been given preferential access to operate in Gaza because it says that it can deliver millions of meals to starving people without that food falling into the hands of Hamas. But its rollout has been chaotic, with Israeli forces killing [hundreds of people near distribution centres policed by private military contractors and Israeli soldiers](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/24/at-least-40-more-palestinians-killed-seeking-aid-in-gaza-say-medics-and-officials), resignations by senior leadership who have said the humanitarian organisation’s mission was “politicised”, and reports of close ties and collaboration with the Israeli government. Insiders said that the application for the grant was rushed through the state department unusually quickly, especially for a first-time applicant that should undergo an audit to receive USAID funding. “It was pushed through over the technical and ethical objections of career staff,” a source told the Guardian. The state department decision to issue the grant was first reported by Reuters. The state department refused to confirm or deny the reports. “We are not going to comment on internal deliberations,” a state department spokesperson told the Guardian. “We are constantly looking for creative solutions to get aid into Gaza without it being looted by Hamas, and GHF stepped up.” Sources told Reuters that GHF may be given $30m each month to help fund its operating costs in Gaza. The grants appeared to be rushed through USAID, which is in the process of being rolled into the state department in a major shakeup of US aid disbursement abroad. In a [letter](https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2025/06/GHF-Letter-Sign-on_ww.pdf) sent on Monday to GHF and the affiliated Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions, advocates from 15 international human rights organisations warned that private contractors operating in Gaza in collaboration with the Israeli government risk “aiding and abetting or otherwise being complicit in crimes under international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide”. Top Democrats have also criticised GHF. In a letter to Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, obtained by the Guardian, the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren said that support for GHF “marks [an alarming departure from the professional humanitarian organizations](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/14/elizabeth-warren-biden-gaza) that have worked on the ground, in Gaza and elsewhere, for decades”.

[Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) on Wednesday revoked a 2021 executive order on promoting competition in the US economy issued by [Joe Biden](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/joebiden), the White House said. The move by the Republican US president further unwinds a signature initiative by his predecessor, a Democrat, to crack down on anti-competitive practices in sectors from agriculture to drugs and labor. The justice department welcomed Trump’s revocation of the order, saying it was pursuing an “America first antitrust” approach focused on free markets instead of what it called the “overly prescriptive and burdensome approach” of the [Biden administration](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/biden-administration). It said it was also making progress on streamlining the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) review process of mergers and reinstating more frequent use of targeted and well-crafted consent decrees. Biden signed a sweeping executive order in July 2021 to promote more competition in the US economy as part of a broad push to rein in what his administration described as a pattern of corporate abuses, ranging from excessive airline fees to large mergers that raised costs for consumers. The initiative, which was very popular with Americans, was championed by top Biden economic officials, many of whom had previously worked for or with the senator [Elizabeth Warren](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/elizabeth-warren), who played a key role in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under [Barack Obama](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/barack-obama). Trump has attacked that agency since taking office, announcing plans to shrink its workforce by 90%. Those moves have cost Americans at least $18bn in higher fees and lost compensation for consumers allegedly cheated by major companies, according to an analysis released in June by the Student Borrower Protection Center and the Consumer Federation of America. Biden’s order said it aimed to “enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony”, focused on areas such as labor and healthcare.

[Skip to content](#content) Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed [before the Senate](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5484674-live-updates-trump-kennedy-nominees-shutdown-epstein/) on Thursday that former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez told him she wasn’t “trustworthy” during a meeting last month, days before he fired her. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Kennedy during a Senate Finance Committee hearing about claims that Monarez was asked to resign for refusing to sign off on changes to the childhood vaccine schedule. “No, I told her that she had to resign because I asked her, ‘Are you a trustworthy person?’ And she said, ‘no,’” Kennedy responded. “If you had an employee who told you they weren’t trustworthy, would you ask them to resign, senator?” “You stood next to her and described her as unimpeachable, and you had full confidence in her and that you had full confidence in her scientific credentials, and in a month she became a liar,” Warren shot back. “Yeah. Well, you should ask her what changed,” Kennedy quipped, noting Warren voted against Monarez’s confirmation. “I was afraid she was going to bend the knee to you and Donald Trump, and it looks like she didn’t bend the knee. So you fired her,” Warren responded. Monarez’s legal team dismissed Kennedy’s testimony as “false and, at times, patently ridiculous” in a statement to The Hill. “Dr. Monarez stands by what she said in her Wall Street Journal op-ed, and continues to support the vision she outlined at her confirmation hearing that science will control her decisions,” it added. Monarez [published an op-ed](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5485882-monarez-fired-cdc-director-rfk-sabotage/) in the Journal shortly before the hearing, saying she had been “told to preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric.” “Reporters have focused on the Aug. 25 meeting where my boss … pressured me to resign or face termination,” she wrote. “But that meeting revealed that it wasn’t about one person or my job. It was one of the more public aspects of a deliberate effort to weaken America’s public-health system and vaccine protections.” “Once trusted experts are removed and advisory bodies are stacked, the results are predetermined. That isn’t reform. It is sabotage,” she added. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) continued questioning Kennedy about that meeting later in the hearing, asking a series of specific questions about what happened. Kennedy confirmed that his new interim CDC Director Jim O’Neill was at the meeting and that he had asked Monarez to fire career scientists and public health experts at the agency. Warnock again asked Kennedy if he had demanded that Monarez “accept the recommendations of your hand-picked vaccine advisory panel without further review by career CDC scientists.” “No, I did not,” Kennedy responded. “Did you tell her to accept the advisory panel’s recommendations?” Warnock asked again. “I told her I didn’t want her to have a rule that she’s not going to sign on to it,” Kennedy said. The Hill has reached out to Monarez’s lawyers for comment. _Updated at 1:56 p.m. EDT_ Tags [Donald Trump]( https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump/ ) [Elizabeth Warren]( https://thehill.com/people/elizabeth-warren/ ) [Raphael Warnock]( https://thehill.com/people/raphael-warnock/ ) [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]( https://thehill.com/people/robert-f-kennedy-jr/ ) Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

As the US labor market [comes under pressure](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/05/us-jobs-report-august-tariffs), two senior figures in [Washington](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/washington-dc) are pushing to end a practice that prevents large swaths of US workers from obtaining jobs. A bill reintroduced today by [Elizabeth Warren](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/elizabeth-warren), the senator from Massachusetts, and Steve Cohen, the representative from Tennessee, bans employers from using credit checks to vet potential hires. Denying jobs based on a candidate’s financial history “makes no sense”, the prominent [Democrats](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/democrats) argue. It also disproportionately affects minorities. The bill would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to stop employers from requiring job applicants to disclose their credit history, or suggesting they should, and from procuring consumer or investigative reports on applicants. It also would prohibit credit reporting agencies from providing reports to employers, and prevent employers from disqualifying job applicants based on credit information. “Nobody should be discriminated against and miss out on a job opportunity because of their financial history,” Warren said in a statement to the Guardian. “While the Trump administration tanks the labor market, our bill prohibits employers from using credit scores in their hiring process so that everyone can have a fair chance.” Versions of the legislation have been [proposed](https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3149?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22Equal+Employment+for+All+Act%22%7D&s=1&r=3) since the aftermath of the 2008-09 economic recession, when Americans’ [consumer and credit debt swelled](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/25/household-debt-is-at-an-all-time-high-but-2008-was-still-worse.html). Credit reports in the hiring process are “disproportionately used to disqualify people of color from open positions”, according to Warren’s office, which said that women are also more likely to have poor credit. About half of employers use information from credit reports in their hiring processes, according to a [report](https://www.urban.org/research/publication/preemployment-credit-checks-employer-practices-worker-outcomes-and) published last year by the Urban Institute. One in 10 respondents to a 2012 Demos [survey](https://www.demos.org/research/discredited-how-employment-credit-checks-keep-qualified-workers-out-job) said they had been denied a job due to information in their credit report, despite a lack of correlation between credit history and job performance. Poor credit is most often associated with medical debt, or periods of unemployment. “Using a job applicant’s credit history to deny employment is not just unfair, it also makes no sense. Credit scores are an inaccurate way to predict future job performance or ability,” said Cohen in a statement. “We should be making the job application process fairer so people can succeed with good jobs, not adding obstacles to prevent them from being hired.” Several states, including California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, and municipalities have already enacted local laws that ban employers from using credit reports in hiring, albeit with some exemptions, such as national security roles or positions in financial services. New York City [banned](https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/new-york-city-passes-bill-prohibiting-employers-from-requesting-or-using-credit-history-in-employment-decisions/) the practice in 2015, and state legislators are currently [pursuing](https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/james-sanders-jr/senator-sanders-credit-history-ban-bill-clears-senate) a statewide ban.

Rolex is facing scrutiny over its “concerning” decision to [host Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/sep/07/donald-trump-us-open-tennis-final) in the Swiss watchmaker’s corporate box at the [US Open](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/us-open-tennis-2025) final earlier this month – weeks after the White House imposed steep tariffs on [Switzerland](https://www.theguardian.com/world/switzerland). The US senator [Elizabeth Warren](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/elizabeth-warren), Democrat for Massachusetts, asked if the luxury conglomerate was seeking to “curry favor” by inviting the US president to the event, which it sponsors. Trump’s 39% tariff on Swiss exports to the US – significantly higher than his 15% rate on the European Union, or 10% on the UK – threatens to pile pressure on Rolex, one of the world’s leading watch manufacturers. In a letter to Rolex’s CEO Jean-Frederic Dufour, Warren said: “Given the president’s record of doling out special treatment to CEOs who are able to woo him with flattery, payoffs or both, the timing of his attendance at the match in the Rolex box is concerning. “I have questions about whether you are attempting to curry favor with the president in an effort to secure special-interest exemptions for Rolex products.” These products include the $163,200 white gold and diamond-studded Oyster Perpetual Lady-Datejust. Prices on the firm’s website begin at $5,800. The invitation from Rolex to Trump, who attended the US Open final alongside senior administration officials including the treasury secretary, Scott Bessent; the attorney general, Pam Bondi; and the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, as well as his son-in-law Jared Kushner, “raises questions about whether you are cultivating a relationship with President Trump in attempts to secure lucrative tariff exemptions for Rolex products”, said Warren. She added: “Other corporate executives have used these tactics to escape tariffs, and it would be deeply troubling if your efforts provided another example of the Trump administration’s brazen corruption and capitulation to special interests.” Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, using Trump’s favored jibe about Warren, said: “Pocahontas should find a better use of her time than conjuring up asinine conspiracy theories.” Rolex did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) asked Rolex executives if he would have been invited to watch this month’s US Open final from the luxury watchmaker’s VIP box had he imposed steep tariffs on Swiss exports weeks earlier. The US president’s remarks were made “in jest”, stressed Jean-Frederic Dufour, the Rolex CEO, in a letter to [Elizabeth Warren](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/elizabeth-warren), the US senator who had raised questions about the decision to invite Trump – including whether the conglomerate was seeking to “curry favor” with the administration. Warren, a Democrat for Massachusetts, said: “Corruption is not a laughing matter.” Trump’s 39% tariff on Swiss exports to the US – significantly higher than his 15% rate on the European Union, or 10% on the UK – threatens to pile pressure on Rolex, one of the world’s leading [watch](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/watches) manufacturers. Dufour claimed that the invite to Trump, and other senior figures in his administration, was part of a broader focus on “the values of sport, sportsmanship and international friendship”, rather than any “capitulation” to the US president. “Rolex is not, nor has it ever been, engaged in any negotiation with the US government regarding tariffs,” he wrote. But Dufour described how Trump brought up the tariffs he had imposed on [Switzerland](https://www.theguardian.com/world/switzerland), and Swiss exporters like Rolex, weeks earlier. “President Trump, never one to miss a rhetorical opportunity, did ask in jest whether he would have been invited had it not been for the tariffs – a moment that brought a round of laughter all around and, as you can imagine, a swift return of attention to the unfolding excitement on court,” Dufour wrote. “No substantive discussion” took place “regarding tariffs, trade policy, or any other official matter” during the US Open final, or since, he claimed. Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, using Trump’s favored jibe about Warren, said: “Pocahontas should find a better use of her time than conjuring up asinine conspiracy theories.” “While families are getting crushed by Trump’s chaotic tariffs, [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) and his rich friends are laughing about tariffs in a fancy box sponsored by a luxury watch brand,” said Warren. “How much more out of touch can Trump be?” Trump was gifted “a golf sweater and a sports gilet” as “a token of appreciation for attending the event”, said Dufour.

 圖像來源，Reuters **Article Information** * * Author, 利芙·麥克馬洪（Liv McMahon） * Role, BBC科技記者 美國總統特朗普已特赦全球最大加密貨幣交易所幣安（Binance）的創辦人趙長鵬（Changpeng Zhao） ... 趙長鵬，也以「CZ」之名廣為人知，於2024年4月因承認違反美國反洗錢法，被判處四個月監禁

The Democratic senator [Elizabeth Warren](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/elizabeth-warren) is calling for an investigation into bankers including Jes Staley over their alleged support for the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, in a move that could leave the former Barclays boss banned from working in the US financial sector. In a letter privately filed with regulators, and seen by the Guardian, Warren called for investigations into “all current and former US banking executives who may have facilitated Jeffrey Epstein’s illicit conduct”. That includes Staley, who Warren said is alleged to have helped protect the late financier’s access to the banking system during his stint working at JP Morgan in the early 2000s. Warren noted that Staley – who is already [banned from the UK banking sector](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/26/jes-staley-loses-legal-case-over-city-ban-for-misleading-watchdog-over-epstein-links) – had been described in media reports as Epstein’s “chief defender”. [ High flyer to pariah: the saga of Epstein-linked banker Jes Staley ](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/26/high-flyer-to-pariah-saga-jeffrey-epstein-banker-jes-staley) Warren, the lead Democrat on the US Senate committee on banking, housing and urban affairs, said she was concerned to hear that Staley pushed back when colleagues flagged Epstein’s suspicious transactions, referring to a matter that was put to him in court proceedings earlier this year. Staley denied the allegations at the time, saying “I don’t think that’s fair” and that the decision to exit a client such as Epstein was not his to make. Warren also referred to court evidence [suggesting Staley tipped Epstein off about JP Morgan’s worries](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/11/jes-staley-jeffrey-epstein-jp-morgan-barclays-bank) in a way that allowed the sex trafficker to alter his behaviour and avoid scrutiny. Staley told the court that he “was not part of managing the account” but did not deny that he told Epstein there were concerns about cash withdrawals. During his 15-year relationship with [JP Morgan](https://www.theguardian.com/business/jpmorgan), Epstein opened at least 134 accounts, processed over $1bn in transactions, and brought in several lucrative clients, Warren’s letter said. And while JP Morgan had so far paid $290m (£217m) in settlements to Epstein’s victims, “Staley has so far avoided accountability in the United States,” the senator said. Warren has now called on the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to publicly announce the launch of an investigation into former and current banking executives who may have aided Epstein, by 7 November. She also asked for private confirmation that an investigation had been opened specifically into Staley’s conduct by 14 November. Wrongdoing could ultimately result in a fine and a potential ban from working in the US banking sector. “It is critical to send a message to the public and current bank employees that this type of egregious misconduct has no place in the American banking system,” Warren’s letter said. [](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/28/elizabeth-warren-urges-us-regulators-to-investigate-jes-staley-ties-to-epstein#img-2) Democrat senator Elizabeth Warren has said she hopes to tackle ‘egregious misconduct’ in America’s banking sector. Photograph: Anna Rose Layden/EPA It would be another bruising development for Staley, who in June lost a legal attempt to overturn his lifetime ban from the UK financial sector imposed by UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2023, after he was found to have misled the watchdog over his relationship with the sex offender. The FCA’s original investigation, triggered by a cache of more than 1,200 emails between Staley and Epstein, concluded that the pair were [“indeed close”](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/08/jes-staley-stayed-in-contact-with-jeffrey-epstein-long-after-joining-barclays-legal-documents-said-to-suggest) and had a relationship that “went beyond one that was professional in nature”. Warren also called for investigations into other top executives that may have supported the late financier’s crimes. “Staley is not the only bank executive with concerning ties to Epstein. For example, according to Staley’s sworn deposition, he discussed Epstein with CEO Jamie Dimon on at least two occasions,” the letter stated. Dimon has previously denied Staley’s claim and stated that he does not recall knowing anything about Epstein until years after the firm effectively severed ties with the sex offender. JP Morgan declined to comment. “The Fed, OCC and FDIC should investigate any other current or former banking executives who engaged in similar conduct to determine whether their conduct satisfies the legal standards for a ban on working in the banking industry and civil monetary penalties,” Warren said. “Any banking executives who facilitated the crimes of one of the world’s most notorious sex criminals should be held to account,” Warren’s letter added. Donald Trump has come under fire for his own social ties to the sex offender, who was a longtime friend until they fell out in 2004. The president made [releasing the Epstein investigative files](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/24/what-are-jeffrey-epstein-documents-trump) part of his campaign platform, but has failed to do so. He has referred to the furore over the files as a Democratic “hoax”. The news of Warren’s letter came [as two new lawsuits were filed by an anonymous plaintiff](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/27/jeffrey-epstein-lawsuit-us-banks) against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), alleging that banks illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. BNY has said the claims “are meritless and we will vigorously defend against it”. Bank of America echoed those comments, saying: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.” The Guardian contacted Staley’s legal representative for comment. In June, after the loss of his legal challenge against the FCA, Staley said he was “disappointed” by the outcome but was “never dishonest”.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, speaks in committee on Wednesday, June 25, 2025. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images) Netflix's blockbuster deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery is quickly stirring criticism The streaming giant announced Friday that it had [struck a deal](https://qz.com/netflix-buys-warner-bros-discovery) to purchase the film studio and streaming business of Warner Bros. Discovery, ending a highly-competitive bidding war. It said it will pay $27.75 per share for the divisions, making it an $82.7 billion deal. Netflix's bid was a mix of cash and stock, the companies said. The announcement first raised eyebrows from former Warner Bros. chief executive Jason Kilar. He said [in a Friday morning social media post](https://x.com/jasonkilar/status/1996704106489205074?s=46&t=tvrqXYaXqTtwjT01g1dw9A) that "if I was tasked with doing so, I could not think of a more effective way to reduce competition in Hollywood than selling WBD to Netflix. The deal is still subject to regulatory approval, and it's likely to set off an antitrust fight. Opponents of the sweeping agreement may well include Paramount, a rival movie studio which also sought to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. It sent a letter to [the company on Monday](https://www.wsj.com/business/media/paramount-raises-concerns-about-netflixs-bid-for-warner-bros-discovery-1ef9a8c5) warning that a Netflix agreement would "entrench and extend Netflix’s global dominance in a matter not allowed by domestic or foreign competition laws.” Skepticism of the deal quickly spread to Capitol Hill. One prominent Senate Democrat was blunt about the deal's potential to crush competition among streamers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts called it "an anti-monopoly nightmare" in the making. “A Netflix-Warner Bros. would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market — threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk," Warren said in a Friday statement. Alvaro Bodoya, a former member of the Federal Trade Commission, compared the deal to a "horror movie." "What's to be done here?," Bedoya [wrote in an X post](https://x.com/bedoyausa/status/1996957973944369624?s=46&t=tvrqXYaXqTtwjT01g1dw9A). "Normally, the Department of Justice would intervene and block the merger. But I'm not staying up for that." _— Chris Morris contributed to this article._

 Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat representing Massachusetts, is calling for scrutiny of two bids to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. In an interview with _Morning Edition_, Warren said the deals raise serious concerns about antitrust and would reduce competition for viewers and workers. Warner Brothers agreed to an $83 billion sale to Netflix, but that deal is not finalized. And now Paramount Skydance — owned by Larry Ellison, one of the world's richest people, and his son David Ellison, founder of Skydance Media — is pursuing the company through a hostile takeover. Warren said Paramount Skydance's effort raises added concerns, given the Ellisons' ties to President Trump and foreign investors. She warned the deal could leave "one person who basically decides what movies are going to be made, what you're going to get to see on your streaming service, and how much you're going to have to pay for it." Warren also raised questions about whether news could be "controlled by a political ally of the President." Listen to the full interview by clicking play on the blue box above. _Editor's note: Warner Bros. Discovery is among NPR's financial supporters._ _The radio version of this interview was produced by Phil Harrell and edited by Olivia Hampton. The digital version was adapted for the web by Majd Al-Waheidi and edited by Obed Manuel._