Featured post

ALL SMALL BUSINESSES ARE CRIMINALS ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT!

Get this, our nasty Senators and Congressmen have now activated a LAW that considers all businesses with less than $5 million in revenue and 20 employees or less to be FIRST considered as financial criminals.

LUCKILY PRESIDENT TRUMP STOPPED THIS FARCE!

On March 21, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced that, consistent with the Department of the Treasury’s March 2, 2025, announcement it was issuing an interim final rule that removes the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. FinCEN published this interim final rule on March 26, 2025.

In the interim final rule, FinCEN revises the regulatory definition of “reporting company” to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (formerly known as “foreign reporting companies”). FinCEN also exempts entities previously known as “domestic reporting companies” from BOI reporting requirements. Thus, through this interim final rule, all entities created in the United States — including those previously known as “domestic reporting companies” — and their beneficial owners will be exempt from the requirement to report BOI to FinCEN.

The law now mandates reporting of the BENEFICIAL OWNERS of ALL companies and businesses operating in the USA FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK (FInCEN) or face fines and JAIL!

AS SMALL BUSINESS YOU ARE ALL SUSPECTED CRIMINALS1

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule implementing the bipartisan Corporate Transparency Act’s (CTA) beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting provisions. The rule will enhance the ability of FinCEN and other agencies to protect U.S. national security and the U.S. financial system from illicit use and provide essential information to national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies; state, local, and Tribal officials; and financial institutions to help prevent drug traffickers, fraudsters, corrupt actors such as oligarchs, and proliferators from laundering or hiding money and other assets in the United States.

Illicit actors frequently use corporate structures such as shell and front companies to obfuscate their identities and launder their ill-gotten gains through the United States. Not only do such acts undermine U.S. national security, they also threaten U.S. economic prosperity: shell and front companies can shield beneficial owners’ identities and allow criminals to illegally access and transact in the U.S. economy, while disadvantaging small U.S. businesses who are playing by the rules. This rule will strengthen the integrity of the U.S. financial system by making it harder for illicit actors to use shell companies to launder their money or hide assets.

Recent geopolitical events have reinforced the point that abuse of corporate entities, including shell or front companies, by illicit actors and corrupt officials presents a direct threat to the U.S. national security and the U.S. and international financial systems. For example, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 further underscored that Russian elites, state-owned enterprises, and organized crime, as well as Russian government proxies have attempted to use U.S. and non-U.S. shell companies to evade sanctions imposed on Russia. This rule will enhance U.S national security by making it more difficult for criminals to exploit opaque legal structures to launder money, traffic humans and drugs, and commit serious tax fraud and other crimes that harm the American taxpayer.

At the same time, the rule aims to minimize burdens on small businesses and other reporting companies. Millions of businesses are formed in the United States each year. These businesses play an essential and important economic role. In particular, small businesses are a backbone of the U.S. economy, accounting for a large share of U.S. economic activity and driving U.S. innovation and competitiveness. U.S. small businesses also generate millions of jobs, and in 2021, created jobs at the highest rate on record. It is anticipated that it will cost reporting companies with simple management and ownership structures—which FinCEN expects to be the majority of reporting companies—approximately $85 apiece to prepare and submit an initial BOI report. In comparison, the state formation fee for creating a limited liability company (LLC) can cost between $40 and $500, depending on the state.

Beyond the direct benefits to law enforcement and other authorized users, the collection of BOI will help to shed light on criminals who evade taxes, hide their illicit wealth, and defraud employees and customers and hurt honest U.S. businesses through their misuse of shell companies.

The rule describes who must file a BOI report, what information must be reported, and when a report is due. Specifically, the rule requires reporting companies to file reports with FinCEN that identify two categories of individuals: (1) the beneficial owners of the entity; and (2) the company applicants of the entity.

The final rule reflects FinCEN’s careful consideration of detailed public comments received in response to its December 8, 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the same topic, and extensive interagency consultations. FinCEN received comments from a broad array of individuals and organizations, including Members of Congress, government officials, groups representing small business interests, corporate transparency advocacy groups, the financial industry and trade associations representing its members, law enforcement representatives, and other interested groups and individuals.

Balancing both benefits and burden, the following are the key elements of the BOI reporting rule:

Reporting Companies

  • The rule identifies two types of reporting companies: domestic and foreign. A domestic reporting company is a corporation, limited liability company (LLC), or any entity created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or Indian tribe. A foreign reporting company is a corporation, LLC, or other entity formed under the law of a foreign country that is registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office. Under the rule, and in keeping with the CTA, twenty-three types of entities are exempt from the definition of “reporting company.”
  • FinCEN expects that these definitions mean that reporting companies will include (subject to the applicability of specific exemptions) limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts, and most limited partnerships, in addition to corporations and LLCs, because such entities are generally created by a filing with a secretary of state or similar office.
  • Other types of legal entities, including certain trusts, are excluded from the definitions to the extent that they are not created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office. FinCEN recognizes that in many states the creation of most trusts typically does not involve the filing of such a formation document.

Beneficial Owners

  • Under the rule, a beneficial owner includes any individual who, directly or indirectly, either (1) exercises substantial control over a reporting company, or (2) owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company. The rule defines the terms “substantial control” and “ownership interest.” In keeping with the CTA, the rule exempts five types of individuals from the definition of “beneficial owner.”
  • In defining the contours of who has substantial control, the rule sets forth a range of activities that could constitute substantial control of a reporting company. This list captures anyone who is able to make important decisions on behalf of the entity. FinCEN’s approach is designed to close loopholes that allow corporate structuring that obscures owners or decision-makers. This is crucial to unmasking anonymous shell companies.
  • The rule provides standards and mechanisms for determining whether an individual owns or controls 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company. Among other things, these standards and mechanisms address how a reporting company should handle a situation in which ownership interests are held in trust.
  • These definitions have been drafted to account for the various ownership or control structures reporting companies may adopt. However, for reporting companies that have simple organizational structures it should be a straightforward process to identify and report their beneficial owners. FinCEN expects the majority of reporting companies will have simple ownership structures.

Company Applicants

  • The rule defines a company applicant to be only two persons:
    1. the individual who directly files the document that creates the entity, or in the case of a foreign reporting company, the document that first registers the entity to do business in the United States.
    2. the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of the relevant document by another.
  • The rule, however, does not require reporting companies existing or registered at the time of the effective date of the rule to identify and report on their company applicants. In addition, reporting companies formed or registered after the effective date of the rule also do not need to update company applicant information.

Beneficial Ownership Information Reports

  • When filing BOI reports with FinCEN, the rule requires a reporting company to identify itself and report four pieces of information about each of its beneficial owners: name, birthdate, address, and a unique identifying number and issuing jurisdiction from an acceptable identification document (and the image of such document). Additionally, the rule requires that reporting companies created after January 1, 2024, provide the four pieces of information and document image for company applicants.
  • If an individual provides their four pieces of information to FinCEN directly, the individual may obtain a “FinCEN identifier,” which can then be provided to FinCEN on a BOI report in lieu of the required information about the individual.

Timing

  • The effective date for the rule is January 1, 2024.
  • Reporting companies created or registered before January 1, 2024 will have one year (until January 1, 2025) to file their initial reports, while reporting companies created or registered after January 1, 2024, will have 30 days after receiving notice of their creation or registration to file their initial reports.
  • Reporting companies have 30 days to report changes to the information in their previously filed reports and must correct inaccurate information in previously filed reports within 30 days of when the reporting company becomes aware or has reason to know of the inaccuracy of information in earlier reports.

Next Steps

  • The BOI reporting rule is one of three rulemakings planned to implement the CTA. FinCEN will engage in additional rulemakings to (1) establish rules for who may access BOI, for what purposes, and what safeguards will be required to ensure that the information is secured and protected; and (2) revise FinCEN’s customer due diligence rule following the promulgation of the BOI reporting final rule.
  • In addition, FinCEN continues to develop the infrastructure to administer these requirements in accordance with the strict security and confidentiality requirements of the CTA, including the information technology system that will be used to store beneficial ownership information: the Beneficial Ownership Secure System (BOSS).
  • Consistent with its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act, FinCEN will publish in the Federal Register for public comment the reporting forms that persons will use to comply with their obligations under the BOI reporting rule. FinCEN will publish these forms well in advance of the effective date of the BOI reporting rule.
  • FinCEN will develop compliance and guidance documents to assist reporting companies in complying with this rule. Some of these materials will be aimed directly at, and made available to, reporting companies themselves. FinCEN will issue a Small Entity Compliance Guide, pursuant to section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, in order to inform small entities about their responsibilities under the rule. Other materials will be aimed at a wide range of stakeholders that are likely to receive questions about the rule, such as secretaries of state and similar offices. FinCEN also intends to conduct extensive outreach to all stakeholders, including industry associations as well as secretaries of state and similar offices to ensure the effective implementation of the rule.
  • THIS RULE HAS BEEN STAYED FOR NOW:
  • jansen@sterlingcooper.us sent you this article.

    Comment:

    Benficial owmersip rul

    Monday, January 13, 2025

    The law aims to curtail the use of anonymous shells and track illicit money.

    Ownership-Reporting Law’s Return Sought

    Supreme Court is asked to stay an injunction pausing its implementation

    The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the national injunction issued by a lower court that paused the implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act, a law requiring companies to disclose their true ownership.

    The Justice Department, on behalf of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, in an application filed on New Year’s Eve asked the Supreme Court to stay the injunction issued by a Texas district judge in early December.

    The attorneys representing FinCEN said the government is likely to succeed in defending the constitutionality of the law and that the district court’s injunction was “vastly overbroad,” according to the filing.

    The lawyers said the Supreme Court, at a minimum, should narrow the injunction to the plaintiffs in the case.

 

 

 

 

.

PUERTO RICO SHOULD NEVER BE THE 51st STATE-IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN NOTHING BUT A FINANCIAL DRAIN ON THE USA AND ALWAYS WILL BE

Another Blow to Statehood: Puerto Rico’s Political Reality Is Changing

Separation is a good (and growing) idea, but America’s national security matters, and that can be protected.

Autism article image

For years, Puerto Rico’s statehood movement sold Americans on a simple idea: admission as the 51st state was only a matter of time. But a series of recent political, cultural, and fiscal developments—from congressional resistance in Washington to shifting public sentiment on the island—suggests that assumption is rapidly collapsing. What is emerging instead is a new and more realistic conversation, one increasingly centered on sovereignty and strategic partnership rather than permanent territorial dependence.

Many Americans are now realizing that Puerto Rico’s status debate extends beyond political rights or federal benefits. It involves issues of identity, culture, economics, and political viability. Moreover, the push for statehood is increasingly confronting real-world challenges.

The Cultural Turning Point: Bad Bunny and National Identity

The Super Bowl halftime show with Puerto Rican star Bad Bunny was more than just entertainment. It turned into a cultural spotlight that revealed something many Americans seldom think about: although Puerto Ricans have U.S. citizenship (imposed in 1917), they do not see themselves as Americans, and many Americans share this view.

This is not a new phenomenon. Puerto Rican identity has endured for over a century of American rule because Puerto Ricans resisted assimilation policies, English-only initiatives, and attempts to diminish their language and national culture. The maintenance of Spanish, national symbols, the national flag (once banned), and a unique political identity has historically served as a form of nationalist and civic resistance.

Following the halftime show, media outlets and lawmakers resumed open discussions about Puerto Rico’s status, including independence. Even members of Congress who previously sidestepped the issue are now publicly recognizing that sovereignty options are becoming more legitimate. The message Americans receive is straightforward: while Puerto Rico is politically connected to the United States, it considers itself a nation, culturally and nationally distinct.

The second setback to statehood was policy-driven, not cultural. Congress recently barred Puerto Rico from transitioning its local nutrition program (PAN) to the federal SNAP system. The main reason was financial: estimates suggested about $1 billion would be needed over ten years to fund the transition, excluding future spending increases.

This decision highlights a rising trend in Washington: limited willingness to increase federal responsibilities for Puerto Rico, especially amid ongoing debates over the federal deficit. Critics argued that committing another billion dollars would increase colonial welfare dependency rather than foster economic reform. Currently, Puerto Rico receives about $3 billion annually from the PAN block grant. Despite decades of federal support, poverty rates stay high, approximating 50 percent by many standards.

For conservative policymakers, this begs a question: if large-scale federal spending has not resolved Puerto Rico’s economic issues while under territorial status, why do they think statehood—which would significantly increase federal responsibilities—would lead to a different outcome? A 2014 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report even detailed the negative impacts of statehood for the United States (increased federal liabilities) and for Puerto Rico (economic destruction and loss of its tax base).

Advertisement

Image created using AI.

Statehood’s Political Dead End in Washington

Perhaps the most evident indication came from veteran Congressman Steny Hoyer, a Democrat (and Democrats have strongly supported statehood), who has long been involved in status discussions. Hoyer explicitly recognized that statehood does not currently have the necessary Senate votes to pass, particularly the 60 votes needed to clear procedural hurdles.

Hoyer’s remarks reveal what insiders have quietly recognized for years: Congress shows no genuine drive to grant Puerto Rico statehood. Historically, this trend has persisted for over 128 years under U.S. governance, with Congress displaying minimal interest in the island’s statehood. How long is Puerto Rico going to be held in colonial limbo if Congress has already stated that statehood is not a viable option?

The Rise of Sovereignty Sentiment

Although Washington is losing interest in statehood, support for national sovereignty options is increasing. Recent votes and polls show that combined support for independence and free association has reached around 43 percent and continues to rise. Youth trends are particularly notable, with surveys in 2024 revealing strong pro-sovereignty feelings among younger Puerto Ricans reaching 60 percent, a group that will influence future elections.

This generational change is significant because younger voters feel less connected to postwar narratives of federal dependence. Instead, they see sovereignty, foreign relations, economic development, global trade, and international investment as means to promote national growth, prosperity, and opportunities. Relying on the corrupt, stagnant, and dying colonial regime and its empty promises is no longer an option.

This explains why the pro-independence movement is now a significant political force. For the first time in recent history (having overcome decades of repression and persecution), independence supporters and leaders are approaching U.S. policymakers as pragmatic strategists, exploring structured sovereignty arrangements, such as a Treaty of Friendship & Cooperation or free association agreements, similar to Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, that maintain cooperation while ending territorial rule and reliance.

Beyond politics and economics, Washington policymakers are increasingly aware that any long-term solution must also address U.S. national security and strategic interests in the Caribbean, an area where sovereignty strategists argue they have already developed serious, workable proposals.

Security and Strategic Alignment

Supporters of Puerto Rican sovereignty understand that the United States has legitimate and enduring national security interests in Puerto Rico and across the Caribbean basin. The real question is not whether those interests exist, but whether continued territorial control is the most effective or fiscally responsible way to protect them.

With Congress acknowledging that statehood lacks the political support to advance and support for sovereignty rising, policymakers must begin considering realistic alternatives that better serve American strategic and economic interests. Maintaining Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory imposes hundreds of billions in long-term financial obligations on American taxpayers without necessarily enhancing regional stability or deterrence.

For this reason, pro-independence leaders and strategists have been developing a draft Bilateral Security & Defense Agreement for a sovereign Puerto Rico as a dependable U.S. ally and strategic partner in the hemisphere. In meetings with Republican and Democrat congressional staff, we consistently emphasize that a sovereignty framework built on alliance rather than dependency aligns with conservative principles of burden-sharing, fiscal discipline, and strategic realism.

Dependency Politics and the Status Quo

Both the pro-statehood PNP and the commonwealth-supporting PPD, Puerto Rico’s main territorial political parties, have historically depended on federal transfers to maintain their influence. Sovereignty advocates, in line with policymakers, contend that this approach intentionally sustains poverty, as federal aid encourages ongoing consumption without promoting significant economic reforms.

According to both parties, why develop a productive economy when we can get free money from the Americans? Consequently, this creates a political economy where colonial dependency is normalized, celebrated, and politically advantageous for the PNP and the PPD.

A New Alignment Between Sovereignty and U.S. Interests

For many conservative Americans, this ongoing debate likely feels familiar. Key conservative aims include self-sufficiency, lowering long-term federal expenses, and boosting economic competitiveness.

This is why figures like Representative Tom McClintock and others are openly talking about independence legislation for Puerto Rico. What is increasingly clear, both in Puerto Rico and in Washington, is that the status debate has entered a new phase. The old assumption that statehood is inevitable no longer matches political reality, fiscal constraints, or evolving strategic priorities.

As Congress reevaluates its options and Puerto Rican voters continue to shift toward sovereignty, policymakers have an opportunity to pursue a solution that strengthens U.S. interests while allowing Puerto Rico to take responsibility for its own future. The question facing Washington is no longer whether change is coming, but whether leaders will shape that change through a realistic, mutually beneficial partnership or continue defending a status quo that satisfies no one and solves little.

STERLING COOPER’S CEO OWNED AN AIRLINE THAT HAD A PUERTO RICO PRESENCE THERE AND THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF ISLANDS DOWN TO TRINIDAD TOBAGO..

The residents are mostly welfare dependent, have bad government that does not understand  business, , will for the most part not assimilate as AMERICANS and speak English either. So why become a UNITED STATE?

OBAMA’S MONUMENT TO HIMSELF IS RIPPING OFF THE ILLINOIS TAXPAYERS, AND IS STRANGELY UGLY !

Bombshell Investigation Exposes Cover-Up of Obama Center Taxpayer Scam

Barack Obama Presidential Center — Public Domain
Barack Obama promised Chicago a “gift” with his Obama Presidential Center. Instead, he delivered yet another boondoggle, buried in secrecy, with missing money, and stonewalling straight out of a Chicago corruption playbook.When Obama got approval to build his presidential center in Jackson Park, he vowed the project would be privately funded. Every penny, he said, would come from donations to his foundation. Taxpayers, he insisted, wouldn’t be on the hook. That was the sales pitch — and like so many Obama promises, it’s proven to be fiction.

The Obama Foundation may be paying for the building itself, but taxpayers have been secretly shouldering hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden infrastructure costs. Roads were torn up, utilities relocated, and parkland reshaped — all to serve Obama’s monument to himself. Cornell Drive, a major four-lane roadway that once ran along the park’s lagoon, has been erased so Obama’s massive campus could dominate the landscape.

This wasn’t just a minor tweak to city planning. It was a taxpayer-funded overhaul of a historic public park — one that Obama’s team couldn’t have pulled off without Chicago and Illinois residents footing the bill.

Back in 2018, officials estimated public infrastructure costs at $350 million. Fast forward to today, and that number is almost meaningless. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) now admits to roughly $229 million in “state-managed spending.” Chicago’s records show another $206 million linked to the same project. No one in city or state government will say how those figures line up — or whether the total cost is far higher.

And if you don’t think there’s something scandalous going on, then why are all the agencies involved being tight-lipped about it?

Fox News Digital filed Freedom of Information Act requests with IDOT, Chicago’s Department of Transportation, the Office of Budget and Management, Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office, and Governor J.B. Pritzker’s administration. Not one produced a complete accounting of public spending. IDOT offered vague numbers. The city stalled and refused to release records. Pritzker’s office contradicted itself, then stopped responding entirely. OBM even admitted it had “no responsive records” — an absurd claim for the agency that manages the city’s capital budget.

This is a coordinated cover-up, plain and simple.

The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor is now investigating whether multiple agencies violated the state’s open records laws. But you don’t need a court order to see what’s going on. Obama’s so-called “gift” turned into a taxpayer-financed vanity project — protected by the same political machine that made Chicago famous for corruption.

To make matters worse, Obama’s promised $470 million “endowment” to shield taxpayers in case the foundation ran out of cash has barely materialized. The fund has just $1 million in deposits — one-fifth of one percent of what was pledged.

“Illinois Republicans saw this coming a mile away. Now, right on cue, Illinois Democrats are leaving taxpayers high and dry and putting them on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to support the ugliest building in Chicago,” Illinois GOP Chair Kathy Salvi told Fox News Digital. “Illinois’ culture of corruption is humming along with pay-to-play deals to their allies and friends while lying to Illinois voters.”

WHO EXACTLY WILL BE VISITING THIS MONUMENT?

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOARDS MORE CASH THAN ANY COMPANY IN THE WORLD, AND YET FAILS TO PAY DIVIDENDS TO STOCKHOLDERS FOR 60 YEARS, EARNING WARREN BUFFETT THE 2025 CHEAPSKATE OF THE YEAR AWARD

If ‘Cash Is King’, Berkshire Hathaway Leads the World

The cash that companies hold is important for paying employees, funding operations, and as a measure of financial health.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Boyan Girginov, shows the 50 companies with the largest cash holdings, using data from TradingView to highlight who is sitting on the largest war chests.

This metric captures a company’s most liquid assets: cash plus short-term securities like T-bills that typically mature within a year.

Which Companies Hold the Most Cash?

Berkshire Hathaway leads the rankings with an impressive $382 billion.

IN ADDITION IT OWNS STOCK IN PUBLICLY TRADING COMPANIES AND HAVING NOT PAID A DIVIDEND IN 60 YEARS, IT MAY BE SUBJECT TO BE ASSESSED THE DREADED ACCUMULATED EARNINGS TAX BY THE IRS THAT COULD TOP $100 BILLION. 

The data table below shows the top 50 companies worldwide with the largest cash and short-term securities holdings:

Source: TradingView | Cash and Short-Term Investments | as of Feb 11, 2026

Following Berkshire are CITIC—a Chinese state-backed financial conglomerate—and Daiwa Securities Group, one of Japan’s biggest financial brokerages.

Big Tech rounds out the top five, with Alphabet holding $127 billion and Amazon holding $126 billion.

Why Buffett Holds So Much Cash

Among the top 50 companies, the Financials sector collectively holds the largest cash reserves at $1.2 trillion—partially driven by strict capital rules requiring banks to maintain large liquid buffers.

Berkshire Hathaway is different: its cash position is strategic, not regulatory.

After 12 straight quarters as a net seller of stocks, Buffett and the team have parked much of the company’s liquidity in short-term U.S. Treasury bills, implying that equity valuations look expensive.

The Oracle’s cash and cash equivalents as a percentage of total assets is at an all-time high—roughly 31% of total assets.

Historically, this has coincided with periods when he waits for a major economic or market dislocation before deploying capital as prices begin to mean-revert—quietly accumulating dry powder in the meantime.

Why Big Tech Holds So Much Cash

The Magnificent Seven: Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia and Tesla collectively hold $597 billion—enough to buy most S&P 500 companies.

Traditionally, Big Tech companies are massive cash machines: high gross margins and scalable cost structures mean incremental revenue converts into cash quickly.

Despite spending heavily to build AI factories, they’ve used little of their cash reserves to finance them—opting instead for debt.

They hold large cash stockpiles both to fund acquisitions and guard against potential economic turmoil, such as threats from tariffs or geopolitical conflicts.

GAY MEN RUN SILICON VALLEY-THE OPEN SECRET EXPOSED

Inside the Gay Tech Mafia

Gay men have long been rumored to run Silicon Valley. WIRED investigates.
Beefy man posing with the Salesforce tower
ILLUSTRATION: SAM WHITNEY; GETTY IMAGES
No one can say exactly when, or if, gay men started running Silicon Valley. They seem to have dominated its upper ranks at least the past five years, maybe more.
On platforms like X, the clues are there: whispers of private-island retreats, tech executives going “gay for clout,” and the suggestion that a “seed round” is not, strictly speaking, a financial term. It is an idea so taken for granted, in fact, that when I call up a well-connected hedge fund manager to ask his thoughts about what is sometimes referred to in industry circles as the “gay tech mafia,” he audibly yawns. “Of course,” he says. “This has always been the case.”
It had been the case, the hedge funder says, back in 2012, when he was raising money from a venture capitalist whose office was staffed with dozens of “attractive, strong young men,” all of whom were “under 30” and looked as though they had freshly decamped from “the high school debate club.” “They were all sleeping with each other and starting companies,” he says. And it is absolutely the case now, he adds, when gay men are running influential companies in Silicon Valley and maintain entire social calendars with scarcely a straight man, much less a woman, in sight. “Of course the gay tech mafia exists,” he continues. “This is not some Illuminati conspiracy theory. And you do not have to be gay to join. They like straight guys who sleep with them even more.”
Ever since I started covering Silicon Valley in 2017, I’ve heard variations of this rumor—that “gays,” as an AI founder named Emmett Chen-Ran has quipped, “run this joint.” On its face, a gay tech mafia seemed too dumb to warrant actual investigative inquiry. Sure, there were gay men in high places: Peter Thiel, Tim Cook, Sam Altman, Keith Rabois, the list went on. But the idea that they were operating some kind of shadowy cabal seemed born entirely of homophobia, the indulgence of which might play into the hands of conspiracy-minded conservatives like Laura Loomer, who, in 2024, tweeted that the “high tech VC world just seems to be one big, exploitative gay mafia.”
Image may contain Advertisement Poster Body Part Hand Person Adult and Publication
Over time, though, the rumor refused to die, eventually curdling into something closer to conventional wisdom. Last spring, at a venture capitalist’s party in Southern California, a middle-aged investor complained to me at length about how he was struggling to raise his new fund. The problem, he explained, boiled down to discrimination.
I took him in as he spoke. He had the uniform down cold: a white man with a crew cut, wearing a tasteless button-down stretched over mild prosperity, and a fluent conviction that AI was, thank god, the next big thing. He looked exactly like the sort of man Silicon Valley has been built to reward. And yet here he was, insisting that the system was rigged against him. “If I were gay, I wouldn’t be having any trouble,” he said. “That’s the whole thing with Silicon Valley these days. The only way to catch a break,” he claimed, “is if you’re gay.”
Over the course of 2025, similar sentiments bubbled up on X, where Silicon Valley tech workers joked about offering “fractional vizier services to the gay elite.” Anonymous accounts hinted at an underworld of gay Silicon Valley power brokers who influenced and courted—“groomed”—aspiring entrepreneurs. At an AI conference in Los Angeles, an engineer casually referred to a top AI firm’s offices, more than once, as “twink town.”
By the fall, speculation intensified, and then a photo appeared on X of a group of Y Combinator–backed founders crowded near a sauna with Garry Tan, the incubator’s president. The image seemed innocuous enough: a few young, nerdy men in swim trunks, squinting into the camera.
But almost instantly, it set off a round of viral gossip about the peculiar intimacies of venture capital culture. Not long after, a founder from Germany, Joschua Sutee, posted a photo of himself and his male cofounders—apparently naked, swaddled in bedsheets—submitted as part of what seemed to be a Y Combinator application, a move that appeared designed to court a knowingly erotic male audience. “Here I come, @ycombinator,” the caption read.
The notion that Y Combinator was grooming male entrepreneurs makes little sense—for lots of reasons, and for one in particular. “Garry is straight straight straight straight,” says a person who knows Tan. “But he believes in the benefits of the sauna.” When I ask Tan for a comment, he is blunt—some founders were over for dinner and asked to use his recently installed sauna and cold plunge. From there, Tan says, “rejects” of Y Combinator “manufactured this meme that it was somehow more than that.”
And yet, similar rumors persisted and compounded, originating as often from outsiders (sometimes with dubious political motivations) as from insiders. When I call up my longtime industry sources to get their thoughts on the gay tech mafia, not only have they heard of it—they have highly specific notions of how it works.
These are credible people who believe seemingly incredible things. One San Francisco investor tells me that he believes the Thiel Fellowship is a training ground for gay industry leaders.
(When I run this notion past a couple of former Thiel Fellows, they tell me they met Thiel one time at a dinner, where he appeared “slightly bored,” says one of the fellows, a straight man. “I mean, I wish Peter tried to groom me.”) Meanwhile, people’s gaydars are practically overheating. I hear, more than once, that anyone in Silicon Valley who has achieved outsize success is probably gay.
Isn’t it strange, one San Francisco–based venture capitalist muses, how a certain defense-tech executive achieved so much success at a relatively young age? “Isn’t he gay?” the VC asks. “He must be.” I tell him he is mistaken—the executive is married to a woman. “Sure,” he replies. “But have you ever seen them together?” Another entrepreneur who raised capital from two well-known gay investors tells me that he’s accustomed to fielding scrutiny about his sexual orientation. “People say I’m gay,” he says. “There’s always jokes. Like, ‘How’d you get the money, bro?’”
Then there are the anonymous X accounts amplifying allegations of misconduct. Their posts are calibrated for attention: detailed enough to suggest insider knowledge of the Valley, vague enough to invite darker interpretations. I take the bait and, one afternoon in late November, spend nearly an hour texting one such account owner over Signal who agrees to speak to me only if I keep his handle secret.
This person describes the Valley as a place known for “ecstasy, psychedelic fueled gay sex stuff.” Has he experienced any of it himself? No. But he knows people who have—people who are “pretty afraid” and “young af.” He won’t name names, won’t connect me to anyone, but he swears that any negative rumor I’ve heard about gay men in Silicon Valley is true. He suggests a conspiracy so sprawling it rivals QAnon and implicates the entire US government. He gives me vague reporting advice: “It should be easy to find. 2nd page of Google type thing.”
Finally, frustrated by his evasiveness, I ask what he thinks will happen if he tells me what he knows. “I truly believe,” he says, “killed.” Then he offers a suggestion. The only way to expose this blockbuster of a tale is “project veritas style: Take a 20 year old dude, make an X acc[ount]. Send him to the right places in SF and you’ll break the story if you go deep enough.”
Men sitting in an office hot tub
ILLUSTRATION: SAM WHITNEY; GETTY IMAGES
The problem with conspiracy theories, even offensive ones, is that they are rarely wholly invented. They almost always arise from some fragment of truth, which imagination then contorts.
The difficulty with this particular rumor is that, while I was unable to substantiate darker allegations, parts of the story still resonate. In conversations with 51 people—31 of them gay men, many of them influential investors and entrepreneurs—a portrait emerged of gay influence in Silicon Valley that is intricate, layered, and often contradictory. It is a world in which power, desire, and ambition interweave in ways both visible and unseen, a world that is, in some ways, far richer—and more complicated—than the rumors themselves suggest.
Most of the people who speak to me for this story do so on the condition that their names be kept confidential. Some of it is just garden-variety caution. “It may not be wise for me to be talking to a reporter describing all these parties,” says one, “because people would be like, Geez, why would we invite you?” Other excuses are murkier: “It’s not so safe to speak about this in too much detail,” says a founder who works in AI. “Anyone involved is an operator or a VC, and it might lead people to wonder about who is getting advantages.” Amid the deflections and whispers, though, there seems to be an unmistakable truth: Gay men are rising.
“The gays who work in tech are succeeding vastly,” an angel investor, who is a gay man, tells me. “There’s the founder group of gays who all hang out with each other, because the gays always cluster together. By virtue of that, they become friends and vacation together.” Even more importantly: “They support each other, whether that’s to hire someone or angel invest in their companies or lead their funding rounds.”
Some of these networks have begun to spill into public view. There is a Substack called Friend Of, written by Jack Randall, who formerly worked in communications at Robinhood, that chronicles gay ascendence into the centers of power. “We run the tech mafia (see Apple, OpenAI),” Randall writes. “We hold top government posts (see the Treasury Secretary). We anchor primetime news and the NYE Ball Drop. Our dating app’s stock outperforms its straight peers. And in the US, gay men are, on average, better educated and wealthier than the general population.”
A new company called Sector aims to formalize this network. Founded by Brian Tran, a former designer in residence at Kleiner Perkins, Sector has a website that features photos of handsome men on beaches and at dimly lit dinners. One member describes it to me as a curated network where introductions unfold between well-heeled gay men with shared interests. “It’s up to you to decide,” the member tells me. “Is this professional, is it platonic, or is it something romantic?” In an interview with Randall, Tran said, “I think we could displace Grindr in the coming years.”
On any given week in San Francisco, Partiful invites float around the community. If there is a “regular Halloween party, the gays will have their own Halloween party, and Sam Altman will be there,” says Jayden Clark, a straight podcaster who hosts a tech culture podcast and was not invited to the gay Halloween party. (Altman attended dressed as Spider-Man, a nod to Andrew Garfield, who played the superhero and has since been cast as Altman in an upcoming film.) I hear of not one but two White Lotus–themed gay tech parties, both equally extravagant. “Girls are not present,” says that same angel investor. “They are just not there.”
There is also a “Gay VC Mafia” group chat that is, as one member describes it, “60 percent business” and “40 percent hee hee ha ha” about “classically gay topics.” With a steady churn of tech events aimed at gay men, the social incentives stack up fast. Connections blur—“professional, physical, or sometimes romantic,” as an AI founder puts it. The pull of this bubble is so strong, he continues, that it’s “an uphill battle to socialize with straight people.”
None of this is necessarily unfamiliar in the clubby world of Silicon Valley, where the smart, successful, and wildly rich have always formed in-groups. There’s the so-called OpenAI mafia and the Airbnb mafia, and before those the PayPal mafia—alumni of moonshot companies who bankroll the next wave of startups. So some of what reads as advantage is, on closer inspection, structural and unremarkable. San Francisco combines two things in unusual density: one of the country’s largest gay populations and a tech industry that has reshaped global power.
“For sure, gay men are overrepresented and have had an unbelievable run in the Bay Area,” says Mark, another gay entrepreneur who runs an AI startup. “In a city that has the most venture capital in the world, it isn’t surprising that this money is going directly to gay men.” (This perception, for what it’s worth, runs counter to statistics: Between 2000 and 2022, the years for which data is available, only 0.5 percent of startup venture funding went to LGBTQ+ founders.) “It’s not that there is some kind of gay mafia,” Mark continues.
“But if I told you who are my friends that I want to invest in, they happen to be gays. Who are the people without kids who can grind away on the weekends? It’s the gays.” (Sources identified in this story by a first name only, like Mark, preferred the use of pseudonyms.)
Imagine this, Mark says: You are a young, nerdy, closeted gay man. You grow up never quite fitting in. Your parents start asking questions. Why don’t you have a girlfriend? You tell them you’re too busy for a relationship. Eventually, you move to San Francisco, a city that, as one person puts it, is like “Disneyland for gay men.
” Your world opens up. You meet other people like you—men who are openly out, many for the first time in their lives. These men happen to be working at influential companies. They are building technology that is astonishing. And slowly it dawns on you: Maybe you, too—a person who has spent a lifetime overlooked and underestimated—can build something extraordinary. “Gays feel,” Mark says, “that they have something to prove.”
This is, more or less, the nature of how power and money have moved throughout networks since the dawn of time. And gay networks seem naturally aligned to the dynamics of venture funding, where established wealth meets emerging talent. “One of the key things to realize is that gays are different than straights in many different ways,” says a longtime gay venture capitalist.
“Gays are cross-generational.” While straight people tend to spend more time with people their own age, “that is not true with gay men. I can hang out with someone at an event who is 18 years old, and Peter [Thiel] might also be there.”
Just because you are gay and work in tech does not necessarily mean you are part of the so-called gay tech mafia. Much of the queer spectrum is conspicuously absent from events geared toward gay founders. “There are barriers within the community,” says Danny Gray, a leader at Out Professionals, a networking organization for LGBTQ+ businesspeople.
“Cis gay men are the biggest gay group within the acronym, and it is much harder for other letters.” Lesbians tend to be sidelined; when I ask the hyperconnected tech journalist Kara Swisher about the gay tech mafia, she says she wasn’t aware there was one. And even if you are a gay man, inclusion is not necessarily guaranteed. “I’ve found it hard to break into this group myself,” one gay investor tells me. “I probably need to lose 20 pounds.”
It may be that what outsiders perceive as the gay tech mafia is not gay people working in tech, or even, broadly speaking, gay men, but a small, self-selecting group with shared politics and sensibilities.
They are assumed to prize aesthetics and the masculine physique, scorn identity politics, reject DEI in favor of MEI—“merit, excellence, and intelligence”—and lean right-wing, if not MAGA. I’ve heard straight entrepreneurs describe them as “the Greco-Roman gays,” part of “an insular, hypermasculine culture” in which “women are seen as totally redundant and completely unnecessary.” (A woman who once worked for a gay Republican startup founder describes it like this: “You get about the same amount of misogyny, but not the sexual harassment. So that’s nice.”)
Where, then, might these almighty power gays be observed in their natural habitat? This is one of the guiding questions in my research, the answer to which perpetually evades me. When I ask a gay investor if perhaps I can attend one of these parties as a fly-on-the-wall observer, he tells me no, because it would be weird, given that I am—unfortunately for the purposes of this story—a woman.
“People will be like, ‘Is that your sister?’” he says. I float an idea past my editor that I attend a party disguised as a man. Perhaps, I suggest, we should discuss the budget for my makeover? While not entirely disinterested in the idea, my editor offers another suggestion, that he—a gay man—come along as a kind of chaperone, “for safety” purposes. Neither of us revisits the idea.
Image may contain Body Part Hand Person Wrist Baby and Wristwatch
ILLUSTRATION: SAM WHITNEY
There is one place, though, that is mentioned again and again: Barry’s, the fitness bootcamp, which has become a gay mecca, thanks in part to the high-profile investor Keith Rabois, who has long been one of its most avid devotees, to the point of teaching occasional classes. And one Barry’s in particular keeps coming up: “The Barry’s in the Castro is ranked supreme,” says that same gay angel investor. “It is all guys, all gays, and everyone has abs.” (“From what I’ve learned working here, gay men do love to work out,” confirms a female employee at the Castro Barry’s.)
The fact is, most people seem eager to talk about this, no deceptions on my part necessary. Many of them reply almost immediately to my vague inquiries. Even more surprising is their willingness to talk at length. Calls often run for hours, blending measured observations about life in a masculine-dominated culture with tours through the most salacious industry intrigue of my entire career.
There can be an edge to the gossip, though—an implication that one of the most reliable paths to power in Silicon Valley may run through the bedroom. Some men are eager to hop on a call to ask what I may or may not have already heard about them. One gay founder tells me how a rumor has been circulating (a version of which I have, in fact, heard) that he and his husband slept with a gay investor in exchange for a down payment on their home. “Do people really think,” he wonders, “that we can’t afford a condo?”
Many have, at some point or another, been suspected of romantic involvement, even if they’ve never been in the same room together. When I call up Ben Ling, an investor and early Google employee, to ask about long-standing speculation that he might be a good match for Tim Cook—a pairing intriguing enough to be referenced in The Atlantic—he laughs. “People make up these rumors because they have nothing better to do,” he says. “Tim Cook does not know who I am.”
And while it is true that at least some of these men know and see each other socially, these meetups do not reliably lead to romance. A friend of Rabois tells me that Rabois likes to tell a story of the time, years earlier, when he invited Sam Altman as his plus-one to an event. “He said that Sam brought two phones and was texting on both of them the entire time,” the friend says. “Keith says it was the worst date he ever went on.” (Use of the word “date” has, by relevant parties, been disputed.)
For rising figures who have formed genuine friendships with powerful gay industry leaders, success sometimes comes with a penalty: the assumption that it is borrowed, not earned. Brad, a gay industry leader, has long lived with rumors about his friendship with Peter Thiel—rumors that followed him even as his career advanced.
“When I started working with Peter so long ago, people would be like, Oh, did you sleep with him? Blah blah blah.” The answer, he says, is no. And yet, “for some reason everyone felt perfectly comfortable asking me about it. Straight people were interested in it generally, but the people who were really fucking fascinated were other gay guys. Guys would be like: What does he have that I don’t have? So then they assume, Well, Peter must have thought you were cute.” (Thiel did not respond to requests for comment.)
Still, it’s naive to insist that intimacy with power is without its advantages. When Altman’s former boyfriend, early Stripe employee Lachy Groom, raised a $250 million solo venture fund while still in his twenties, some observers read the achievement less as an anomaly of talent, I’m told, than as an artifact of access. This interpretation, according to a gay investor close to both Groom and Altman, is not entirely fair:
“When Lachy and Sam were dating, Sam was kind of famous, but not nearly as famous as he is now, and Lachy was a person in his own right,” the investor says. “I did give a reference to [an investor in Groom’s fund] saying, ‘Yes, he’s unproven as an investor, yes, he’s young.
But he is in the network, and he is Sam’s ex-boyfriend.’ But Lachy didn’t date Sam to get these things.” (Groom declined to comment on the record, as did a representative for Altman.)
Meanwhile, when straight men attempt to tap into the gay network, the gay investors chat amongst themselves. Mark, who hosts dinner parties and events for the gay tech community in San Francisco, says that he noticed one man constantly RSVPing to his events. “We don’t have a purity test,” he says, “but someone said that guy is definitely not gay, he just goes to the gay man events because he wants deal flow.” It isn’t like straight men are excluded per se, but they are not exactly a welcome addition to the world of gay capital.
The joke, if a straight founder does show up, is: Just don’t tell anyone you’re straight.
“I have seen straight men do untoward things,” says a gay investor. “There is a straight guy who is not important enough to be named who would pitch all the gay investors, and in one meeting at the VC partnership he was talking to a gay general partner who I know. And in the meeting, this guy put his hand on the GP’s leg under the table. It is so inappropriate. It became a running joke, like, not this guy again.”
One person in particular has helped fuel the notion that being gay can benefit one’s career: Delian Asparouhov, the mischievous, 31-year-old cofounder of Varda Space Industries, who was once hired as Rabois’ chief of staff. Rabois, who helped Thiel start PayPal and was later a partner at Thiel’s venture firm, Founders Fund, was a subject of corporate scrutiny years earlier.
While at Square, Rabois was accused of sexual harassment by a male colleague, an episode that ultimately ended with Rabois’ departure from the company. (After an internal investigation, the company backed Rabois.)
In 2018, about 100 people attended Rabois’ wedding to Jacob Helberg, a former adviser at Palantir who currently serves as the US undersecretary of state for economic growth. The wedding was a multiday affair with a guest list that included many of the most important people in tech and culminated in a beachside wedding ceremony officiated by Sam Altman. (Rabois’ bad “date” with Altman resulted, apparently, in close friendship.)
During the wedding, Asparouhov gave a toast, which was later recalled by Fred, a longtime gay tech leader who was in attendance. “Delian said something like, ‘I’m the intern that Keith hired, and I would wear short shorts and tank tops at Square.’” Fred says he was sitting at a table with two famous tech executives. “We just raised our eyebrows,” Fred continues. “It was so embarrassing that Delian would say that at someone’s wedding. I mean, here was Keith getting married to Jacob.” (Other wedding attendees claim not to remember the contents of the speech but say it sounds like Asparouhov.)
Rumors of Asparouhov and Rabois’ dating lives have long traveled in industry circles, thanks in part to Asparouhov, who has fanned the flames online. (“Delian is like Gretchen Wieners,” explains Fred.) In 2022, a popular anonymous tech insider X account, Roon, tweeted that it was “crazy how venture capitalists have reinvented the Roman system of pederasty.” Asparouhov responded to the tweet almost immediately: “It only took a little gay and now I get to work on space factories,” he wrote. “Pretty reasonable trade.” Asparouhov, who is married to a woman, now says the tweet was “obviously a joke.”
But as Fred recounted, Asparouhov was known for wearing neon tank tops, short shorts, and mismatched shoes when he joined Square in 2012. “He would jump a lot—it was very odd,” says someone who worked at the company at that time. Others have similar recollections. OpenStore, the Miami-based company Rabois cofounded in 2021, which mostly shut down last year, seemed to be, according to John, who says he visited its offices, “almost like a harem, filled with jacked white men, all of them handsome and good-looking, straight and gay.
People were wearing kind of inappropriate clothing: really short shorts and tight shirts even though the AC was blasting.” Rabois, when I ask him for a comment, denies this categorically. “Attire was quite standard for Florida,” he says. “And I doubt more than two of the 100-plus employees could be reasonably described as ‘jacked.’”
Rabois has been known to take extravagant vacations—helicopter trips to Icelandic volcanoes, white-water rafting in Costa Rica. Exclusion can stir serious envy, as it did with one young gay tech consultant I speak with who says he has begun a kind of “micro-journalism” project to track the appearances of a couple of guys on Rabois’ Instagram. These are “low-level” workers, he says, who nonetheless are “always posting photos in St. Barts.” “Here I am doomscrolling on the A train, and I’m like, ‘How are these guys on a private jet?’”
But how far back do these rumors really go? Has Silicon Valley always been semi-secretly, kinda-sorta gay? More than once, I’m told to connect with Joel, a gay man who works in tech and who spent a lot of time among the older in-group of powerful gay men in Silicon Valley, more than a decade ago. “So,” I say when he answers my call, “are you a member of the gay tech mafia?” He laughs. “Maybe someone thinks I’m in it, which is why you’re calling me.”
When I ask Joel to explain how the gay tech mafia works, he tells me that it’s similar to people who “went to the same college or came from a similar background or a similar town.” And it indeed started, he says, with people like Rabois and Thiel, who, after they rose to power, “brought a lot of people along. Keith hired gays at Square, and Peter hired Mike [Solana] at Founders Fund. Then there was a cohort of Google gays that Marissa Mayer ran in 2010. And there is Sam, who is friends with Keith, and Sam was running in parallel, assembling other gays around him.”
Joel tells me about the parties at the time—the exact specifics of which remain off the record. But they were, in summary, what you might expect. “There was lots of drinking that would turn into weird situations. Random people hooking up. Generally, there was a sexual tone.” But this was years ago. These types of parties, at least from what I’ve heard, have either disappeared or moved entirely underground. (“Once you get to the end of your reporting, you will find that the real story is much less explosive,” says Mark. “Like all these wild orgies: If you do find out where they are, please tell me, because I’d like to go.”)
I tell Joel that I’ve heard from some young men in the tech industry who feel pressured to sleep around to get ahead. Was that true in his experience? “Mmmmm,” he says, and pauses. Then he bursts out laughing. “I mean, in all of this, there are weird gray areas. It can be very sexual. It is not all professional. A lot of people have dated or slept with each other.” He had experienced a kind of coercion firsthand. “I definitely felt pressured to do—not overtly illegal things. But they walked the line.” Joel is older now, and while he can see how someone might describe this as an abuse of power, he resists the framing.
The exchange of sex and status may not be the reason these men rose so quickly, but it can be a factor—if only because sex, as he puts it, “makes people become closer rapidly.”
As Silicon Valley has matured into the power center of the world, it has grown sharply cutthroat. Leverage is scarce, and ambition is often laced with a kind of ruthless opportunism. In gay circles, some feel the Valley resembles the old Hollywood casting couch. Many of the critics are rising gay entrepreneurs and investors themselves, for whom parts of the gay community seem steeped in the attitudes and values of the 1970s and ’80s. “There’s this feeling,” one observes, “that because there were years of historical oppressions only recently recognized, certain people think, ‘I can do this, or I deserve this, because no one will cancel me for it.’”
Image may contain Person Skin and Baby
ILLUSTRATION: SAM WHITNEY; GETTY IMAGES
This is a community that, as one young gay investor describes it, is “power-hungry, network-driven, and, at times, very horny.” The arrangement, he suggests, is tacitly understood by everyone involved: “Both sides know they are in the game and want something from each other. Which is fine, I guess, if you’re into that.” This is not, in his telling, the whole of the gay tech scene, most of which is a “lovely, amazing community that supports its people and their career progress
.” But alongside that exists a sexual undercurrent—one that, he insists, is impossible to deny and especially pronounced in AI circles. “It’s like a gay nepo thing,” he says. “While it’s not explicitly for sexual favors, there is an element at work in the background. Like, you’re young and you’re hot and I’m down to hook up.”
One gay man, Dean, describes moving through a professional world in which sexual suggestion flowed freely. Early on, it came from limited partners curious about his prospective fund; after he raised the fund, it came from founders seeking capital. In one instance, a potential limited partner proposed a meeting at his home. “He was like, ‘We don’t need to wear clothes, we can just sit around and talk about your fund in my hot tub.’” Dean frames these encounters as an irritation—ambient, expected, and largely inconsequential. “Sex is devalued in gay male culture,” he says. “Often, it’s just another piece of currency.”
After Dean raised his fund, he was occasionally approached by young men, “founders looking for money who indicated they were open to whatever it takes to raise it.” At events geared toward LGBT founders, young men would ask to grab drinks one on one. Sometimes, they’d send nudes on Instagram. “Like ‘Hey …’ with a winky face. And ‘Do you like that?’ And I’d be like, ‘No, that’s actually inappropriate,’” he says. It’s not confined to Silicon Valley, he adds. Having left tech for a different industry, Dean has come to see the entanglement of sex, power, and ambition as a recurring feature of certain pockets of gay professional life.
Another man who works in the queer tech space puts it this way: “There is an aspect of being queer and in business and in life and having relationships that can be frankly sexual and not sexual at the same time. You can turn off and do business with someone you were hooking up with yesterday.” Plus, he continues, there is the inescapable fact that much of gay male culture tends to be sexually charged. “Straight guys have the golf course. Gay guys have the orgy,” he says. “It doesn’t mean it’s problematic. It’s consensual, but it is a way we bond and connect.”
Of the 31 gay men I spoke to for this story, nine tell me they experienced unwanted advances from other gay men in the industry. Some of these advances were mild but annoying: repeated invitations to soak in hot tubs or explore wine cellars. Others involved unwanted touches. One person, an up-and-coming gay investor, tells me that he believes that turning down a sexual advance from a senior colleague cost him a job. Multiple sources speak of “sex pests” who send unsolicited dick pics and make overt come-ons.
“What demoralizes me in the conversations around the gays in tech in San Francisco is that none of this is entirely a secret,” says one gay investor who experienced an unwanted sexual advance. “People are aware this is an issue.” Another gay man who works in tech adds: “There is an element to this story that is a cautionary tale. You take a brilliant entrepreneur who has a great idea trying to make it in the world of venture capital. And then they have to put up with someone sending them dick pics and asking for an investment meeting. It shouldn’t be normalized. And right now, everything is so gray. Like, it’s our little thing, our little world. But it has a massive impact.”
Again and again, gay men working in tech ask me: Why has this story never been written? The question somewhat answers itself. Unfair stereotypes about gay men persist, and why else would sources insist on pseudonyms? I am warned, more than once, to be careful, that figures in Silicon Valley are “vindictive.” Even as many consider this culture of sexual pressure a feature of Silicon Valley life, it is, as someone else tells me, “a true minefield” to write about.
.
Gerald knows the feeling. He’s a young gay man in San Francisco, described by acquaintances as a “quirky individual” and a “social puppeteer.” Over a call, Gerald lays out the reasons he has hesitated to talk about his time in tech. “This is a complex subject,” he says, “and I don’t think readers can draw the distinction between some bad men being gay and all gay men being bad. It can be a slippery slope into homophobia.”
He won’t give his story to me.
Not yet. But he does tell me he suspects that other stories, in the coming months, will surface. “People have a difficult time articulating power with nuance,” he says. “This is not just one story. There will be many.” From what he’s told me so far, and from everything else I’ve heard—the heartfelt, late-night confessions over the phone; the insights shared quietly and kept off the record; the admissions of dozens of funny, brilliant, young gay men competing for, yes, power and money and recognition, but also for love, romance, and a place to belong in the heart of San Francisco—I believe him.

HOW MUCH DO OLYMPIC ATHLETES GET PAID?

How Much Do Olympians Get Paid When They Medal? All About the Cash Prizes for Winners

Gold medalists Ellie Kam and Danny O'Shea of Team United States on day two of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic games on February 08, 2026 in Milan, Italy ; Breezy Johnson of Team United States competes on day four of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics on February 10, 2026 in Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy. Elsa/Getty ; Christophe Pallot/Agence Zoom/Gett
Gold medalists Ellie Kam and Danny O’Shea of Team United States on day two of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic games on February 08, 2026 in Milan, Italy ; Breezy Johnson of Team United States competes on day four of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics on February 10, 2026 in Cortina d’Ampezzo, Italy. Elsa/Getty ; Christophe Pallot/Agence Zoom/Gett

NEED TO KNOW

  • Olympic athletes are not paid to compete in the games

  • However, some athletes are paid if they medal

  • A new $100 million donation will change the way Team USA Olympians are paid

It’s not just medals that Olympic athletes can walk away with — for some, there’s a tidy pile of cash involved.

While qualifying for the Olympics is an accomplishment of a lifetime, topping the podium and earning a medal is undoubtedly the ultimate goal for the thousands of athletes competing.

During the 1904 Olympic Games in St. Louis, the tradition of handing out medals — gold for first place, silver for second and bronze for third — was first introduced. The prize distribution continued through the years, though the medals’ designs differ depending on the Olympic host city.

The medals don’t just attract the eyes of the competitors, however, as their nearly unattainable allure attracts the public watching the Games from all over the world. While many are curious about their worth, questions are also asked about athlete payout in addition to receiving medals.

Whether athletes get paid to compete in the Olympics has been a commonly discussed topic over the years, with many Olympians opening up about their experiences trying to make ends meet while training to be the best in the world at their sport.

However, the compensation model will be changing a bit for the 2026 Winter Olympics after financier Ross Stevens donated $100 million to the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC), promising $200,000 to each U.S. athlete who competes. The first half of the money will pay out 20 years after the first Olympic games they competed in, or when they’re 45, with the second half being a “guaranteed benefit for their families after they pass away.”

Read on to learn more about whether Olympic athletes get paid, how much medals are worth and the other prizes awarded on the podium.

Do Olympic athletes get paid?

Team USA's Katie Ledecky poses with her gold medal after winning the women's 1,500m freestyle final at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu via Getty 
Team USA’s Katie Ledecky poses with her gold medal after winning the women’s 1,500m freestyle final at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu via Getty

In short, Olympic athletes are not paid to compete. The International Olympic Committee explained in a statement to NBC Insider why a “for-profit business model” was never a goal for the Games.

If that was the case, the IOC hypothesized: “The event would be limited to those sports that generate the most significant revenues, and it would not involve athletes representing teams from 206 NOCs… It would not be Olympic Games as we know them.”

Still, athletes can profit in other ways. In fact, NBC reports that “Olympians are compensated directly from their country’s respective Olympic competition committee.”

This isn’t true for all athletes competing in the Olympics, however, as they’re primarily paid only if they medal. “Team USA athletes who medal will be paid by the country’s Olympic committee,” according to Forbes, “but a majority of American athletes aren’t paid to compete.”

According to USA Today, the U.S. payment process is deemed “Operation Gold” by the USOPC. Athletes earn $37,500 for gold, $22,500 for silver and $15,000 for bronze, which is the same as their earnings in the 2022 and 2024 Olympics.

In comparison to other countries, the payout for American athletes is on the lower end of the spectrum.

Singapore pays its athletes much more, offering their athletes $788,907 for what would be their first gold medal in the Olympic Games, per USA Today. Meanwhile, Hong Kong is offering $767,747 for gold, and Italy is celebrating those who place in their home country with $209,804 for gold medalists.

What do first-place athletes win at the Olympics?

Team USA's Simone Biles poses with the Olympic Rings and a goat charm on her necklace during the Artistic Gymnastics Women's All-Around Final medal ceremony at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Jamie Squire/Getty
Team USA’s Simone Biles poses with the Olympic Rings and a goat charm on her necklace during the Artistic Gymnastics Women’s All-Around Final medal ceremony at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Jamie Squire/Getty

Athletes are awarded a gold medal for winning first place at the Olympics, a tradition that began at the St. Louis Games in 1904. The medals are customized year to year — and according to the official Olympics website, the design “is the responsibility of the host city’s organizing committee.”

The 2024 Paris Olympics made history with its medals, which were designed by expert French jeweler Chaumet. For the first time ever in the history of the Games, the medals were adorned with the original iron used in the construction of the Eiffel Tower.

How much is an Olympic gold medal worth?

Gold medalist Kristen Faulkner of Team United States bites her medal on the podium during the Women's Road Race Tim de Waele/Getty 
Gold medalist Kristen Faulkner of Team United States bites her medal on the podium during the Women’s Road Race Tim de Waele/Getty

The medals handed out at the 2026 Winter Olympics are worth more than ever, according to CTV News, due to the rising costs of the material itself.

Gold medals have doubled in value since the Paris Olympics, with a cost of about $2,300 — even though the medals are not pure gold. Only six grams of the medal’s 506 grams are made of gold, the rest are silver.

How much are Olympic silver and bronze medals worth?

Team USA's Sha`carri Richardson poses with her silver medal during the 100 meter medal ceremony at the 2024 Paris Olympics Harry Langer/DeFodi Images via Getty
Team USA’s Sha`carri Richardson poses with her silver medal during the 100 meter medal ceremony at the 2024 Paris Olympics Harry Langer/DeFodi Images via Getty

Similar to the gold medals, silver and bronze medals aren’t 100% pure. The silver medal weighs around 500 grams, while the bronze medal weighs 420 grams.

Silver medals have almost tripled in value, coming in at $1,400. However, bronze medals, which are made of copper, are only worth about $5.60 each.

RANKING THE MOST AND LEAST EDUCATED STATE SIN THE USA…SOME SURPRISES?

The United States may be a democracy, but if knowledge is power, some states clearly have a stronger claim to the crown than others. Higher education is a privilege not everyone gets, yet those who do often gain access to higher incomes, greater job security, and more career mobility.

That opportunity gap isn’t evenly distributed. From high school graduation rates to graduate degrees, education levels vary widely across the country, shaping local economies and long-term quality of life. So which states are the most educated, and which are still playing catch-up?

The Smartest States

To rank the most and least educated states in America, WalletHub analyzed all 50 states using 18 metrics tied to both educational achievement and access. The analysis considers how educated a state’s population is, how strong its schools are, and how evenly opportunities are shared across gender and race. Higher scores point to states where education is both effective and widely accessible, while lower scores highlight deeper, more persistent gaps-shown on the map below.

WalletHub© WalletHub

Topping the list is Massachusetts, home to world-renowned colleges like MIT and Harvard. Nearly half of adults hold a bachelor’s degree, and a significant share have graduate or professional degrees. But the Bay State isn’t just about the Ivies-its public schools rank among the best in the country, and some state-sponsored programs even help make college more affordable.

A little further up the East Coast is Vermont, the second-most educated state in America. Small but mighty, the Green Mountain State boasts nearly universal high school graduation and a large share of adults with bachelor’s degrees. Top-ranked colleges and broad access to postsecondary education give residents plenty of opportunities to keep learning, making lifelong education feel like a community tradition.

Heading down south, Maryland rounds out the top three most educated states. The Old Line State boasts strong high schools that prepare students to become highly educated adults, many of whom hold bachelor’s or graduate degrees. Free community college programs open doors for scholars, while the state’s universities rank among the nation’s best. Maryland also keeps things fair, with one of the smallest gender gaps in bachelor’s degree attainment and policies that encourage learning year-round.

Quality vs. Quantity

Education isn’t just about how many diplomas are hanging on the wall: it’s also about how strong the system is behind them. This study evaluates states across two dimensions: quantity (the number of degrees residents earn) and quality (school performance and overall system strength).

Here are the top 10 most educated states in America, along with their educational attainment and quality of education rankings:

Overall Rank State Educational Attainment Rank Quality of Education Rank
1 Massachusetts 1 4
2 Vermont 3 9
3 Maryland 4 3
4 Connecticut 7 6
5 Colorado 2 38
6 New Jersey 10 1
7 Virginia 6 11
8 New Hampshire 5 14
9 Minnesota 8 20
10 Washington 9 21

The most educated states tend to strike a balance, pairing high levels of college completion with strong public schools, colleges, and universities. But the two don’t always move in lockstep. Some states, like Colorado, turn out plenty of graduates despite a more middle-of-the-pack system quality. In contrast, others, such as New Jersey, boast top-tier schools that haven’t fully translated into the highest levels of adult degree attainment.

More Education, More Money?

WalletHub© WalletHub

At a glance, the pattern is hard to ignore: states with higher education rankings tend to land higher in median household income as well. The green dots-states that rank highly in both education and income-cluster toward the top left of the chart, reinforcing the idea that strong schools and a well-educated population often go hand in hand with economic prosperity.

But the story isn’t perfectly linear. The blue states rank highly in education but lag in income, suggesting that degrees don’t always translate immediately into higher household earnings. On the flip side, the gray states post stronger income rankings despite lower education standings-likely benefiting from industry mix, natural resources, or other economic advantages.

Meanwhile, the red cluster shows the toughest reality: states that rank lower in education often also lag in income, underscoring how deeply intertwined opportunity and earning power can be.

In the end, education isn’t the only factor shaping a state’s wealth, but the overall upward trend makes one thing clear: more education generally means more money.

USA DECLINING BIRTHRATES CALL FOR BOOT-CAMPS TO BOLSTER THE DECLINE

Social media users are denouncing the idea of “marriage bootcamps” as “ridiculous” and “demographic control” online after an unadopted policy plan from the conservative think tank that helped create Project 2025 proposed the camps as a way to boost birthrates.

The online report, titled “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years,” published Jan. 8 by The Heritage Foundation, lays out ways the group says the United States can “restore the family home,” including through monetarily incentivizing couples to have children and stay married, among other efforts.

The report has since drawn some criticism online, much of it aimed at the “marriage bootcamps” outlined in the plan that would end with people who participated in the program taking part in a communal wedding.

What’s in the Heritage Foundation report? Call for more marriage, babies.

In its report, the Heritage Foundation calls on the Trump administration and Congress to consider a plethora of proposed actions that they say would help reverse the declining birth rate in the United States, which they call “America’s family crisis.”

Overall population growth has slowed “significantly,” with an increase of just 1.8 million people between July 1, 2024, and July 1, 2025, according to U.S. census estimates released on Jan. 27.

There were about 519,000 more births than deaths in the United States between July 2024 and July 2025, representing similar growth as the year before, the Census Bureau said. The birth rate is higher than during the pandemic, but it still “represents a significant decline from prior decades,” according to the agency.

The report outlines The Heritage Foundation’s plan to combat this, including reforming current programs related to welfare, higher education, surrogacy and more, while placing family building and marriage at the focus of both American lives and politics.

Some of the other major suggestions in the report include:

  • Reviewing grants, policies, and regulations that the federal government is involved with to “measure how it helps or harms marriage and family.”
  • Financially incentivizing marriage and childbearing by placing $2,500 into investment accounts for newlyweds.
  • Rerouting the current $17,670 adoption tax credit to married parents for each of their own newborns, as long as one parent is employed.
  • Reforming educational curriculum to teach life skills like relationship management, parenting basics, and financial literacy.
  • Revising higher education subsidies to allow Americans to “avoid pointless debt, start their careers earlier, and form families sooner.”

‘Marriage bootcamps’ and a communal wedding

The report also floated the idea of “marriage bootcamps” that aim to cover topics like communication, money management and conflict resolution for “cohabiting couples with children.”

The successful completion of the program would conclude with couples “ready to walk down the aisle at a communal wedding,” the report states, and a potential $5,000 monetary incentive − funded by foundations or private donors − for couples to get married. Additionally, newlyweds would leave with a mentor couple to guide them through marriage following the wedding.

Delano Squires, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Human Flourishing, told USA TODAY that programs supporting marriage like this already exist, and federal funding has in the past been designated for marriage education, including by the Administration for Children & Families. Ideally, he added, the program would create and support a culture of marriage in what he called “marriage deserts,” or places where people want to get married but aren’t.

“We know that in some of these neighborhoods, particularly low-income, working-class neighborhoods, people are not getting married before having children. But you can find a critical mass of cohabiting couples, right? So, they have kids together, they live together. Oftentimes, their finances are mixed up together,” Squires said. “How about we … work with them to move them from, as old folks would say, shacking up to settling down.”

Paul Eastwick, relationship psychology expert and author of “Bonded by Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection,” said that while he views the mentor couple idea as potentially beneficial for newlyweds, he is unsure how successful the overall bootcamps would be based on the usefulness of similar past programs, like former President George W. Bush’s Healthy Marriage Initiative.

“It’s kind of based on a broken idea about what makes for good relationships, or at least what prevents bad relationships. Because the assumption was, if we just give people the skills, they’ll like do coupledom better,” Eastwick said.

However, there’s a risk that the delivery of these skills and marriage tips, such as in a classroom format, might not resonate with people trying to manage their marriage or be beneficial in the end, he added.

“There’s good evidence that therapy can work, but a lot of ways that therapy works, it’s not like teaching skills in the abstract. It’s not like you take a class and you get an ‘A’ and now you’re ready to be married,” Eastwick said. “That’s not where most of the goodness or the badness of a relationship comes from.”

Alternatively, Eastwick said he is more concerned with loneliness than marriage when it comes to a lack of socialization and relationships in the U.S. Getting people to spend time together and form connections in person would be his first step to reduce that loneliness that could eventually result in more relationships, he added.

“We don’t want to go back to where we were stigmatizing people for wanting to be single,” Eastwick said. “But if you’re single and looking, if there are creative ways of helping these people to find each other that aren’t swiping, I think that’d be great.”

Social media users react to ‘Saving the Family’ plan

The Heritage Foundation’s plan is a recommendation to the Trump administration that has not been adopted. The camp is also designated as being for cohabiting couples with children.

But the report is still receiving mixed responses from some social media users who view the plan as a potential way for the government to control aspects of their personal lives.

“It’s every bride’s dream,” says user @wiscocowboy sarcastically in a TikTok video. “A forced communal wedding.”

 

COSTCO HAS FIGURED OUT HOW TO STOP RETAIL THEFT!

As rampant shoplifting across the US has forced store closures and inflicted billions of dollars in losses on retailers, one industry giant appears to have cracked the problem.

Costco has largely defied the retail theft surge that has plagued chains such as Walmart and Target – because it runs its stores differently.

S

In its most recent annual report, Costco explained how its business model keeps losses low.

‘By strictly controlling the entrances and exits and using a membership format, we believe our inventory losses are well below those of typical retail operations,’ the report for 2025 said.

Unlike Walmart or Target, Costco doesn’t let just anyone wander in off the street.

Shoppers must show a paid membership – often with photo ID – before they’re allowed through the door. Once inside, there’s usually just one way in and one way out, and every purchase is checked against a receipt before customers leave.

These all add up. Fewer entrances mean fewer blind spots. Receipt checks make it much harder to walk out with unpaid items. And because everyone inside has already paid to be there, there’s far fewer anonymous shoppers  – a key driver of retail theft.

The contrast comes as US retailers are estimated to have lost more than $47 billion to shoplifting in 2025.

A Costco worker checks a receipt at the store exit in Teterboro, New Jersey, on February 28, 2024 – a small step that makes walking out with unpaid items harder

According to the National Retail Federation, the average number of shoplifting incidents rose 93 percent in 2023 compared with 2019, while dollar losses increased by 90 percent over the same period.

Companies including Target, Walgreens, Whole Foods, and Nordstrom have previously cited retail crime as a factor behind store closures.

Costco has long said shoplifting has been a much smaller problem for them than for competitors. During an earnings call in 2023, then chief financial officer Richard Galanti told investors: ‘Thankfully, it’s not a big issue for us.’

Speaking to Daily Mail after the call, Galanti said Costco’s theft rate sat between 0.1 and 0.2 percent – roughly ten times lower than the retail industry average.

‘Our shrinkage has historically been low,’ he said. ‘And we’ve gotten better with time.’ Shrinkage is an industry term for stock losses, including theft.

While theft has never been a major problem for Costco, losses were more than twice today’s level roughly 30 years ago, showing how the company’s approach has steadily tightened.

Beyond store design, he said Costco’s bulk-buying model also helps. Large items like multi-packs of groceries or household goods are far harder to steal than small, high-value products that are often targeted in other stores.

In the US, Costco membership costs $65 per year for a standard Gold Star or Business membership, or $130 for an Executive one.

Executive members also get 2 percent cashback on most purchases- paid yearly – and can also start shopping an hour earlier.

Bulk items stacked high on both sides of a Costco aisle reflect the retailer’s simple design – fewer frills, fewer blind spots

A shopper packs a car with purchases outside Costco, whose focus on large, high-volume items reduces the risk of unpaid goods leaving the store 

Those membership fees allow Costco to operate on thin margins while keeping prices low – and investing in security without locking up everyday items.

While Costco experiences low levels of in-store theft, it has not been immune to crime altogether.

In late 2025, the company suffered a high-profile cargo theft involving a hijacked $400,000 shipment of live lobsters.

Financially, the retailer remains on solid footing. In early 2026, Costco shares are up more than 13 percent year to date, rebounding from a dip in 2025 and buoyed by strong January sales growth of 7.1 percent.

 

BITCOIN BOMBS…HOW SAFE AND SECURE IS IT…IT HAS NO VALUE ANYWAY, ALL BASED ON GULLIBILITY OF “INVESTING PUBLIC”

OOPS: Crypto Company Accidentally Sent $40B in Bitcoin to Users PLEASE SEND ME SOME TOO!

South Korean exchange Bithumb just delivered a masterclass in operational disaster. On Friday, what started as a routine promotional giveaway spiraled into one of the industry’s most embarrassing mishaps: the accidental crediting of over 620,000 Bitcoins—valued at more than $40 billion—to hundreds of users. This wasn’t a generous windfall but a ledger error that triggered a flash crash on the platform, exposing the fragility of centralized exchanges and igniting debates about their true reserves.

The incident unfolded during a promotional event intended to reward users with small cash prizes of around 2,000 Korean won, roughly $1.50. Instead, due to what Bithumb described as a staff input error—mistakenly entering “BTC” instead of “KRW”—select users saw their accounts balloon with phantom balances of up to 2,000 Bitcoins each.

Reports vary on the exact number of affected users, with some sources citing 695 and others 249, but the total credited amount consistently lands at 620,000 BTC, representing nearly 3% of Bitcoin’s entire supply. These weren’t actual transfers of real coins; they were “ghost balances” created in the exchange’s internal system, allowing users to attempt trades as if the funds were legitimate.

Chaos ensued almost immediately. Recipients, spotting the massive windfalls, rushed to sell, flooding the order books and driving Bitcoin’s price on Bithumb down by as much as 17% to about 81 million won, equivalent to $55,000—well below the global market rate of around $68,000 to $70,000. The exchange acted swiftly, halting trading and withdrawals for the affected accounts within 35 minutes, and claimed to have stabilized the situation in just five minutes after the price volatility began. Bithumb emphasized that no external hack or security breach was involved, pinning the blame squarely on internal human error.

Today, Bithumb issued a public apology: “We sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused to our customers due to the confusion that occurred during the distribution process of this (promotional) event.”

The company reported recovering 99.7% of the erroneously credited Bitcoins, pledging to cover the remaining 0.3%—likely from small sales that slipped through before the freeze—using its own assets. This quick response mitigated immediate financial losses, but the damage to user trust and market stability was already done.

Social media erupted with a mix of amusement and alarm. One X user quipped about the “dream drop” turned nightmare, noting how a staff member’s typo turned $1.50 prizes into $133 million illusions. Others highlighted the operational risks, with posts warning that such errors underscore the perils of relying on centralized platforms. The incident even prompted discussions about market liquidity and the potential for similar glitches to cause broader disruptions.

Digging deeper, this blunder raises uncomfortable questions about Bithumb’s reserves. As of the third quarter of 2024, the exchange held only 42,619 BTC—far less than the 620,000 it “allocated” in error. How could a system allow for such massive over-crediting without safeguards? Critics in the crypto community are now debating whether this exposes fractional reserve practices, where exchanges might not hold full backing for user balances, echoing concerns from past scandals like FTX. South Korean regulators have launched an investigation, which could lead to stricter oversight on exchange operations.

This comes at a precarious time for Bitcoin, which has been reeling from a recent dip that erased much of the gains following President Donald Trump’s election victory in November 2024. Trump’s pro-crypto stance had initially buoyed the market, but ongoing volatility reminds investors of the asset’s inherent risks. Bithumb’s mishap amplifies those dangers, showing how even established players can falter spectacularly.

While Bithumb insists it was a simple mistake, some observers speculate it could reveal systemic flaws. There’s no concrete evidence of foul play, but history teaches us that dismissed “conspiracies” in finance—like hidden leverage or insider manipulations—sometimes prove true. For now, the facts point to incompetence rather than malice, but the episode demands accountability.

Users affected by the freeze and volatility deserve more than apologies; they need assurances that such errors won’t recur. Bithumb’s promise to self-fund losses is a start, but rebuilding confidence will require transparency about internal controls and reserves.

In the end, this $40 billion fiasco serves as a stark reminder: In crypto, where decentralization is the ideal, centralized exchanges remain a weak link. Investors should weigh the convenience against the risks, and regulators must step up to prevent the next blunder from becoming a catastrophe.

YOUR SHAW AND MOHAWK CARPETING MAY BE POISONING YOUR HOME AND FAMILY LIFE! BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SUBSIDIARY COULD FACE BILLIONS IN FUTURE CLAIMS

Inside America’s carpet capital: an empire and its toxic legacy

Covering the world in carpet came with a cost no one wants to pay

Bob Shaw glared at the executives from the chemical giant 3M across the table from him. He held up a carpet sample and pointed at the logo for Scotchgard on the back.

“That’s not a logo,” fumed Shaw, CEO of the world’s largest carpet company, one attendee later recalled. “That’s a target.”

SHAW IS A BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC., WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY.

gGREG ABEL, CEO BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC.

GREG ABEL, CEO OF BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC.

Weeks earlier, 3M Company announced it would reformulate its signature stain-resistance brand under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency because of human health and environmental concerns.

Mills like Shaw’s had been using Scotchgard in carpet production, releasing its chemical ingredients into the environment for decades. And on a massive scale: The shrewd CEO built Shaw Industries from a family firm in Dalton, Georgia, into a globally dominant carpet maker worth billions.

“I got 15 million of these out in the marketplace,” Shaw told his 3M visitors. “What am I supposed to do about that?”

AGING CHAIRMAN WARREN BUFFETT OF BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC.

Shaw Industries is indeed facing major PFAS‑related litigation tied to land and water contamination around Dalton, Georgia — but whether liabilities reach “billions” is not yet established in court. The city of Dalton has already filed a federal lawsuit directly against Shaw Industries over PFAS contamination.

Below is a clear, structured breakdown of what is known from current reporting and litigation.

 

What We Know About Shaw Industries’ Potential Liability

1. Shaw Industries is directly named in PFAS contamination lawsuits

  • The City of Dalton, Georgia filed a federal lawsuit against Shaw Industries on December 10, 2024, alleging widespread PFAS contamination in municipal wastewater systems.
  • PFAS (“forever chemicals”) were used for decades in the carpet industry for stain‑resistant treatments (e.g., Scotchgard).

2. The contamination is well‑documented across Northwest Georgia

Investigations by AP, PBS Frontline, and Georgia Public Broadcasting show:

  • PFAS from carpet manufacturing wastewater entered the Conasauga River, soil, and drinking water systems downstream of Dalton.
  • University of Georgia testing found some of the highest PFAS levels in surface water in the region.
  • PFAS contamination has been ongoing since the 1970s, tied to carpet mills including Shaw.

3. Are the potential liabilities “in the billions”?

There is no public court finding yet assigning a dollar figure to Shaw’s liability. However:

  • PFAS litigation nationwide (e.g., 3M, DuPont) has resulted in multi‑billion‑dollar settlements.
  • Dalton’s lawsuit is still in early stages, but the scope of contamination (municipal systems, rivers, soil, and potentially human exposure) suggests theoretical exposure could be very large.
  • Reporting describes the region’s PFAS legacy as “decades of contamination,” which often leads to long‑tail health and environmental claims.

Conclusion:
While no court has yet determined that Shaw owes “billions,” the scale of contamination and the precedent from other PFAS cases make major financial exposure plausible, depending on how litigation evolves.

 

4. Is Berkshire Hathaway (as parent) responsible?

Shaw Industries is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.
Parent‑company liability depends on:

  • Corporate structure
  • Degree of operational control
  • Whether plaintiffs attempt to pierce the corporate veil
  • Environmental statutes that may impose direct or derivative liability

As of now, lawsuits target Shaw Industries directly, not Berkshire Hathaway. No public filings indicate Berkshire itself has been named as a defendant.

 

5. Health Claims: What’s Alleged?

PFAS exposure is associated with:

  • Increased cancer risk
  • Thyroid disease
  • Immune system effects
  • Developmental issues

The lawsuits and investigations allege:

  • PFAS from carpet manufacturing entered drinking water systems
  • Residents and workers may have elevated PFAS levels in blood

These claims are still being litigated and not yet adjudicated.

A 3M executive replied that he didn’t know. Shaw threw the sample at him and left the room.

The answer to Shaw’s Scotchgard question from that moment in 2000 would be the same as that of the broader industry. Carpet makers kept using closely related chemical alternatives for years, even after scientific studies and regulators warned of their accumulation in human blood and possible health effects. Customers expected stain resistance; nothing worked better than the family of chemicals known as PFAS.

A lack of state and federal regulations allowed carpet companies and their suppliers to legally switch among different versions of these stain-and-soil resistant products. Meanwhile, the local public utility in Dalton responsible for ensuring safe drinking water coordinated with carpet executives in private meetings that would effectively shield their companies from oversight.

Year after year, the chemicals traveled in water discarded during manufacturing from mills across northwest Georgia, eventually reaching a river system that provides drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people in Georgia and eastern Alabama.

The pollution is so bad some researchers have identified the region as one of the nation’s PFAS hot spots. Today, the consequences can be found everywhere. PFAS, often called forever chemicals because they can take decades or more to break down, are in the water and the soil.

They’re in the dust on floors where children crawl, the local fish and wildlife, and as ongoing research has shown, the people.

Doctors have few answers for those like Dolly Baker who live downriver from Dalton’s carpet plants. She recently learned her blood has extraordinarily high PFAS levels.

“I feel like, I don’t know, almost like there’s a blanket over me, smothering me that I can’t get out from under,” she said. “It’s just, you’re trapped.”

An investigation by newsrooms including The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Associated Press and FRONTLINE (PBS) has revealed how the economic engine that sustained northwest Georgia contaminated the area and neighboring states, too. Downriver from Dalton, AL.com found cities in Alabama are struggling to remove PFAS from drinking water. And in South Carolina, The Post and Courier traced a local watchdog’s discovery of forever chemicals to a river by a Shaw factory.

The full story of Georgia’s power structures prioritizing a prized industry over public health is only now emerging through dozens of interviews and thousands of pages of court records from lawsuits against the industry and its chemical suppliers. Those records, including testimony from key executives, emails and other internal documents, detail how carpet companies benefited from chemistry and regulatory inaction to keep using forever chemicals.

All the while, the mills still hummed.

Pointing fingers in a company town

A sign welcomes Dalton’s visitors to the “Carpet Capital of the World.”

Fleets of semitrucks stamped with company logos rumble out of behemoth warehouses. Textiles have employed generations here, propelling the city from 19th-century cotton mills into a manufacturing hub — and the region into a supplier of carpet to the globe.

The durability that makes PFAS so good at protecting carpets from spilled tomato sauce and muddy boots lets them survive in the environment. It also makes them dangerous for humans. Because they bind to a protein in human blood and absorb into some organs, PFAS linger.

A welcome sign reading “Carpet Capital of the World” is displayed in Dalton, Ga., about 80 miles northwest of Atlanta, on Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2025. (Hyosub Shin/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP)

The blood of nearly all Americans has some amount of the chemicals, which have been used in a variety of consumer products: nonstick cookware, waterproof sunscreen, dental floss, microwave popcorn bags.

Few industries used them as much as carpet did in northwest Georgia. While huge amounts were needed for stain resistance on an industrial scale, minuscule amounts — the equivalent of less than a drop in an Olympic-sized swimming pool — can make drinking water a health risk. For certain PFAS, U.S. regulators now say no level is safe to drink.

More than a year before the Scotchgard announcement in 2000, 3M informed Shaw Industries and its biggest competitor, Mohawk Industries Inc., that it was finding Scotchgard’s chemical in human blood and that it stayed in the environment, 3M records show.

Carpet executives have long insisted they are not to blame. They point out that 3M and fellow chemical manufacturer DuPont assured them their products were safe, for decades hiding internal studies that were finding harm to the environment, animals and people.

Shaw and Mohawk both said they relied on and complied with regulators and stopped using PFAS in U.S. carpet production in 2019.

In an interview, a Shaw executive said the company acted in good faith as it worked hard to exit PFAS as quickly as suitable substitutes could be found.

“Hindsight is 20/20,” said Kellie Ballew, Shaw’s vice president of environmental affairs. “I don’t think that we can call into question our intentions. I think Shaw had every good intention along the way.”

Shaw in a follow-up statement said it complied with its wastewater permits and took guidance from chemical companies, some of which “instructed Shaw to put spills of product into the public sewer system.”

Mohawk declined an interview request, instead referring to a 2024 filing in its lawsuit against chemical companies: “For decades, DuPont and 3M sold their carpet treatment products to Mohawk without disclosing the actual or potential presence of PFAS in their products.”

Later, in response to detailed questions, Mohawk attorney Jason Rottner wrote that, “Any PFAS contamination issues in northwest Georgia are a problem of the chemical manufacturers’ making.”

Shaw Industries, based in Dalton, and Mohawk Industries Inc., based in Calhoun, dominate the carpet manufacturing business in northwest Georgia. (Hyosub Shin/AJC)

Now, uncertainty and feelings of betrayal are boiling across the region. Communities fear their drinking water is unsafe and local governments say the problem is too vast for them to fix alone.

In Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike have been slow to act. Under President Joe Biden, the Environmental Protection Agency in 2024 established the first PFAS drinking water protections. The Trump administration has announced plans to roll back some and delay enforcement of others.

The agency declined interview requests but in a statement said it is committed to combating PFAS contamination to protect human health and the environment, without causing undue burden to industry.

Georgia’s regulatory system has done little to scrutinize PFAS and depends mostly on industry to self-report chemical spills, imposing modest penalties when companies do. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division, which declined an interview request, said it “relies on the expertise of” the EPA.

Meanwhile, carpet makers still can’t seem to shake PFAS. Just last year, EPA concluded “PFAS have been and continue to be used” by the industry, based on wastewater testing. The agency did not name companies and said it’s unclear whether the chemicals were from current or prior use.

The mess in northwest Georgia has led to a series of lawsuits over the past decade with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.

Buried in this avalanche of litigation, finger-pointing and politics are the people who live here. They have been forced to navigate a public health and economic crisis of a magnitude still not fully understood.

“They ought to have to clean this land up,” Faye Jackson said, referring to carpet companies. A former industry worker, she raised her family in a house next to a polluted river and has elevated PFAS levels in her blood. “They ought to have to pay for it.”

The creek ran blood red

Lisa Martin watched the creek beside the Mohawk Industries mill run red with carpet dye.

It was one of her first days as a planning manager at Mohawk in 2005, and she tried to hide her unease as the dye runoff turned the water into what looked like blood.

The red she saw in Drowning Bear Creek had come from the nearby dyehouse, where carpets got their colors. There, machines whirred as workers sloshed around in rubber boots in ankle-deep dyewater, reminding Martin of fishermen. The acrid odor made her eyes tear up.

A recent California transplant at the time, Martin recalled her initial culture shock.

“At a gut level, you know it’s not right. And unfortunately, when you try to raise the flag and everybody’s like, ‘Well, that’s just the way it is,’” Martin said in an interview.

“I became complacent.”

Like Shaw, Mohawk is based in northwest Georgia and is among the largest carpet companies in the world. The industry supported the entire community, employing someone in what seems like every family. Martin realized carpet was in the region’s DNA.

Martin said the chemical runoff was routine during her 20 years at Mohawk, which ended with her 2024 retirement. Sometimes, when the company dyed carpets blue, the water in the creek would be blue, too. One spill that turned the creek purple for a mile downstream killed thousands of fish, records show.

Mohawk’s attorney called such spills “rare instances” that were promptly reported and said there is no evidence any spills directly discharged PFAS.

In the dyehouse, what neither Martin nor the workers could detect were the colorless, odorless compounds also included in the wastewater: forever chemicals. Machines bathed the carpets in these soil-and-stain blockers, and what didn’t stick washed away.

For decades, Mohawk’s and Shaw’s mills sent PFAS-polluted wastewater through sewer pipes to the local Dalton Utilities plants for treatment that did not remove the chemicals. Much of the tainted water ended up in the Conasauga River.

Both Shaw and Mohawk said they operated in accordance with permits issued by Dalton Utilities. The utility said it takes direction from federal and state regulators, who have not prohibited PFAS in industrial wastewater.

The Conasauga watershed is filled with lush green pastures, creeks and tributaries that help fuel the water-hungry industry. The river’s waters emerge out of Georgia’s Blue Ridge Mountains and eventually flow southwest, past Dalton, Calhoun and Rome, and then into Alabama.

his northwest Georgia city is known as the Carpet Capital of the World.

Carpet industry facilities like these are prominent fixtures here.

After decades of PFAS being disposed in wastewater, the chemicals have made their way into the Conasauga River.

Which transports PFAS into the environment and other communities downstream.

Residents downriver from the mills didn’t know about the chemicals running through their towns. But the industry’s top leaders did.

PFAS is a catchall term for a group of thousands of related synthetic compounds also known as fluorochemicals. They have been fundamental to the carpet business since the 1970s, as market demand for stain resistance transformed the industry, and carpet makers began buying millions of pounds. In the mid-1980s, the introduction of DuPont’s Stainmaster, accompanied by a successful marketing blitz, further established these products as essential.

Neither DuPont nor its related chemical companies that supplied PFAS provided comment for this story.

The carpet industry used so much PFAS that Dalton’s mills became the largest combined emitters of the chemicals among 3M’s U.S. customers, according to a 1999 internal 3M study that looked at 38 industrial locations.

Before 3M had pulled Scotchgard, leading to Bob Shaw’s showdown in the spring of 2000, both Shaw Industries and Mohawk had been privy to inside information that PFAS were accumulating in human blood. Bob Shaw did not respond to requests for comment.

In late 1998 and early 1999, 3M held a series of meetings with carpet executives to disclose its blood-study research, according to 3M’s internal meeting notes from court records.

“When we started finding the chemical in everybody’s blood, one of the biggest worries was Dalton, because we knew how sloppy they were,” Rich Purdy, a 3M toxicologist who alerted the EPA to his company’s hiding of PFAS’ dangers, said in an interview.

Notes by a 3M employee from a January 1999 meeting said Mohawk executives did not express grave concerns about the revelations. “No real sense of Mohawk problem/responsibility,” 3M noted. “If it’s good enough for 3M, it’s good enough for Mohawk.” Mohawk’s attorney said of the meetings over two decades ago that 3M assured the company its chemicals were safe.

At another meeting that January, Shaw executives were “concerned but quiet,” with one executive expressing he “felt plaintiffs’ attorneys would be involved immediately,” according to 3M’s notes. Shaw Industries maintains it learned of the concerns about Scotchgard at the same time everyone else did.

In follow-up letters to top executives with Shaw and Mohawk later that month, 3M noted the company’s efforts were guided by the idea that reducing exposure “to a persistent chemical is the prudent and responsible thing to do” while emphasizing current evidence did not show human health effects.

“We trust that you appreciate the delicate nature of this information and its potential for misuse,” the letters said. “We ask that you treat it accordingly.”

3M then asked for access to Shaw and Mohawk mills to see if they were handling the chemicals safely, records show. Those internal reports, produced in 1999, would fault how carpet companies handled PFAS products, exposing workers and the environment, according to court records.

The next year, 3M and EPA announced concerns about Scotchgard.

The day of the announcement, the director of EPA’s Chemical Control Division sent an email to his colleagues and counterparts in other countries calling the key ingredient in Scotchgard an “unacceptable technology” and a “toxic chemical.” The email said the compound should be eliminated “to protect human health and the environment from potentially severe long-term consequences.”

3M declined an interview request. In a statement, the company said it has stopped all PFAS manufacturing and has invested $1 billion in water treatment at its facilities. “3M has taken, and will continue to take, actions to address PFAS manufactured prior to the phase out,” the company said.

In 2000, the year 3M announced it was pulling Scotchgard, Mohawk logged more than $3.4 billion in net sales. Shaw Industries reported $4.2 billion.

EPA would not issue its first provisional health advisories for nearly another decade. Absent federal guidance, the carpet industry could legally continue to use these products.

Despite accumulating health and environmental concerns, federal law at the time did not let EPA ban any chemical without “enormous evidence” of harm, said Betsy Southerland, a former director of the agency’s water protection division who spent over three decades there.

“So we were really hamstrung at the time,” said Southerland, who has become a critic of EPA.

At Mohawk, Lisa Martin was not an executive making decisions about PFAS, she said, but her time at the company weighs on her still.

“Unfortunately, I later learned that there are more people that I worked with that were aware of it,” she said. “They were aware of it and didn’t do the things they should have done.”

Years into her tenure, the athletic and inquisitive Martin began getting sick and feeling lethargic. Her doctor said she’d grown nodules on her thyroid, a gland that is a key part of the immune system and which studies have shown forever chemicals can harm.

She had no family history of thyroid issues. It was a mystery to her.

Cozy relationship

Inside the Dalton headquarters of the Carpet and Rug Institute, industry executives and the local water utility conferred in 2004 about EPA’s growing scrutiny.

For several months, EPA representatives had negotiated with Dalton Utilities and the carpet industry through the institute, its influential trade group, over gaining access to their facilities to test the water. Mohawk and Shaw were using DuPont’s Stainmaster and other products, which also contained forever chemicals akin to Scotchgard’s older formulation.

Still, federal regulators worried these compounds were exhibiting similar harmful properties. Dalton Utilities and the carpet industry were uneasy about welcoming in government officials. Companies could not be guaranteed confidentiality and feared test results could lead to “inaccurate public perceptions and inappropriate media coverage,” records show.

The public utility and the carpet industry chose to resist.

Their close ties went back years. Carpet executives have long sat on Dalton Utilities’ board, appointed by the city’s mayor and city council. Fueled by the growth of the carpet industry, Dalton Utilities’ fortunes rose with the industry’s success.

At the carpet institute’s 2004 annual meeting, officials with carpet and chemical companies convened to discuss the EPA’s increasingly aggressive posture. Shaw’s director of technical services, Carey Mitchell, addressed his colleagues. He was blunt. No company would allow testing.

“Dalton Utilities has said not no, but hell no,” Mitchell said, according to notes made by a 3M attendee. Mitchell did not respond to requests for comment.

In response to questions for this story, Dalton Utilities declined an interview request but said it and the carpet industry “have always operated independently of one another” and that the EPA testing request was informal.

The carpet institute declined an interview request, sending a written statement instead.

“The CRI’s conduct was and continues to be appropriate, lawful, and focused on our customers, communities, and the millions of people who rely on our products every day,” institute President Russ DeLozier said, adding: “Today’s carpet products reflect decades of progress, and The CRI members remain committed to moving forward responsibly.”

The EPA stiff-arm was the latest run-in between Dalton Utilities and federal regulators.

A public water utility’s obligation, above all else, is to ensure clean drinking water. Dalton’s utility had previously gone to criminal lengths to deceive regulators.

In the early 1990s, Dalton Utilities’ staff traced a drop in oxygen levels in its wastewater treatment to stain-resistant chemicals from carpet mills, the utility’s top engineer at the time, Richard Belanger, said in an interview. While the utility didn’t know about PFAS then, something in these chemicals was impacting its ability to process the wastewater, he said. Rather than clamping down on industry, according to Belanger, his bosses ordered him to manipulate pollution figures the utility reported to government regulators.

“I was told, OK, make this work,” Belanger, now retired, said.

In June 1995, EPA investigators interviewed Belanger. He told them Dalton Utilities’ program to clean industrial pollutants was “a sham.” The treatment was so poor, the smell of carpet chemicals carried throughout the utility’s plant, and local creeks were often “purple and foamy,” according to investigators’ notes from the interview.

Two months later, agents with the FBI and EPA raided Dalton Utilities’ offices.

Federal prosecutors charged the utility with violating the Clean Water Act by falsifying wastewater reports, which concealed the full extent of the carpet industry’s pollution. The case did not address PFAS specifically, which was not yet a pollutant of concern for EPA. Dalton Utilities pleaded guilty in 1999 and was fined $1 million. Its CEO was removed.

The utility was also put under federal monitoring in 2001 to ensure it was making key changes to protect the water supply and agreed to pay a $6 million penalty.

The era of legal troubles with the federal government was pivotal, the utility said, adding it “has remained committed to avoiding the issues that led to those proceedings” and is transparent with regulators.

Around the same time, emerging data showed the fluorochemicals used in carpets caused cancer in rats.

The carpet institute’s then-president, Werner Braun, forwarded the rat study to several carpet and chemical executives in a 2002 email, calling the findings a “troubling issue,” records show. Braun, now in his 90s, was unable to comment for this story due to his health, his wife said.

In preparing to respond to Braun, a 2002 email shows DuPont officials planned to explain that Stainmaster didn’t contain the type of PFAS that was then EPA’s focus. The next year, DuPont would tell carpet companies the opposite, acknowledging the chemical was indeed in Stainmaster. DuPont maintained in later legal proceedings it wasn’t aware until 2003 that Stainmaster contained the chemical.

Despite its success in fending off EPA testing, the industry faced a mounting challenge, and the carpet institute focused on shoring up its influence and image.

At a meeting in the spring of 2004 attended by top executives, the carpet institute decided to solicit donations from company employees for its political action committee “in an effort to submit friendships, gain access, and say thank you to legislators,” according to meeting notes.

Later that year, PFAS made news in a high-profile legal case involving DuPont. The class-action lawsuit brought by residents in West Virginia claimed their water had been contaminated by a nearby chemical plant that used PFAS. Although DuPont said the settlement did not imply legal liability, it agreed to pay $70 million and to establish a health monitoring panel. Some two decades later, Braun was shown the rat study email during a legal deposition.

“I wouldn’t necessarily call it a red flag but a flag, you know, that you might want to be aware of,” he said.

Only years later did people downstream begin to learn the toll.

The river brought the poison

When Marie Jackson’s goats started dying about a year ago, nobody could explain why. Jackson saw it as just another sign something was wrong with her land.

Marie and her mother, Faye Jackson, have lived on their 12 acres near Calhoun for decades. Today they keep mostly to themselves, inseparable, equal parts bickering and loving.

Most days, Marie makes the short drive down a gravel road, Jackson Drive, to her mother’s house to check on her. She tends to Faye’s chickens, mows her grass and drives her to doctor’s appointments. Behind their homes is a rolling stretch of grassy pasture where their cattle graze — and the goats did as well, she said, until they all died.

Past a curtain of trees on the far end of the pasture lies the Conasauga.

Marie, 50, spent her childhood playing and swimming in the muddy river with rocks on the banks that made a good fishing spot. The Jacksons now know the water that sustains their homestead, about 15 miles downstream from Dalton, is contaminated.

Tests of the river by the AJC found levels of what was once a key ingredient in Scotchgard at more than 30 times the proposed EPA limits for drinking water. Tests of Faye’s drinking water well by the AJC and the city of Calhoun found PFAS just under these federal health limits.

Calhoun city officials used that health standard to guide a program designed to address contaminated wells. A 2024 legal settlement between the city and the Southern Environmental Law Center included a condition to test local water. As of August, 30% of private wells tested had levels above the health limit.

Because Faye’s test was just below the cutoff, she does not qualify to receive a filtration system.

Uncertainty about the chemicals continues to permeate every aspect of the Jacksons’ lives. They fear PFAS are behind their declining health. They fear their drinking water. They fear for the health of the cattle and chickens they raise; and for the health of those who may eat them.

“I know they’ve got it in their systems,” Faye said.

Even Marie’s memories are filled with second-guessing. Idyllic scenes of her childhood are now overshadowed by recollections of foam on the river and dead fish. She blames the mills.

The Jacksons, like generations of northwest Georgians, relied on the carpet industry. Both of Marie’s parents worked in the mills: Faye with yarn machines and her dad in the dyehouse. Marie would end up working in carpet, too.

Everyone suspected the work was dangerous. Faye said she’d get headaches from the strong chemical smells. The hours were long. But with the risk came a steady wage.

“Around here, you have to understand the people, that’s all we know, right? That’s all we’ve ever been around,” Marie said, fidgeting with her plastic water bottle. “It’s like you don’t think. It’s routine. You go in, you know your job, you do your job, you go home.”

Faye’s failing health eventually forced her to stop working. Today she drinks water she buys from the store.

In 2022, Faye’s husband, Robert, died after struggling with several illnesses. She now wonders whether decades of PFAS exposure was to blame. And Marie has nodules growing on her thyroid.

The Jacksons long suspected they had forever chemicals in their blood. With their consent, the AJC commissioned testing last fall and the mother and daughter finally learned the truth. Their PFAS levels were above the safety threshold outlined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

“They’ve poisoned us,” Faye said.

The forever chemicals found in their blood

PFAS blood levels higher than 2 ng/mL have a potential for adverse health effects, according to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.  Studies have connected PFAS exposure to increased risks of thyroid  disease, immune system disorders and certain cancers.

Marie Jackson

PFAS BLOOD LEVEL

6 ng/mL

Faye Jackson

PFAS BLOOD LEVEL

6.5 ng/mL

Lisa Martin

PFAS BLOOD LEVEL

19.6 ng/mL

Dolly Baker

PFAS BLOOD LEVEL

1336.5 ng/mL

Among the highest ever recorded

In 2006, the carpet industry and Dalton Utilities faced a new dilemma.

University of Georgia researchers were testing the Conasauga for PFAS, and early results seen by carpet companies showed high levels. Shaw Industries began conducting its own tests, which confirmed UGA’s results: PFAS coursed through the river.

As Georgia’s scientists worked on their PFAS study, the majority of outside experts on an EPA advisory panel determined the PFAS associated with DuPont’s Stainmaster was “likely to be carcinogenic.” In 2005, the year prior, EPA and DuPont settled a claim that the chemical company failed to report for decades what it knew about the risks. At $10.25 million, it was then the largest penalty ever obtained under a federal environmental law. DuPont did not admit liability.

The university’s study, eventually published in 2008, made headlines. The UGA researchers reported PFAS levels in the Conasauga were “among the highest ever recorded in surface water” like a river or a lake. Not just in the United States, but worldwide.

Journalists from a local newspaper also began asking questions about the study and the earlier decision by the utility and the industry to deny regulators access for testing.

A Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter was “hot on the trail” of a story, wrote Denise Wood, at the time a Mohawk environmental executive and Dalton City Council member, in a February 2008 email to Dalton Utilities CEO Don Cope.

One of the university researchers told the paper that UGA’s test results were “staggeringly high.” Cope did not respond to requests by the AJC and AP for an interview, and Wood declined to comment.

At the carpet institute, officials rushed to create a crisis management team, internal records and emails show. The industry downplayed the UGA study and broader concerns about PFAS.

“In our society today, it is absolutely known that you report the presence of some chemical and everybody gets all up and arms,” the institute’s head, Braun, told reporters.

UGA’s study had an impact. The EPA returned in 2009. Unlike before, the agency now had provisional health advisory limits for certain PFAS compounds, offering regulators some enforcement authority.

This new scrutiny would uncover a major source of pollution along the Conasauga.

On the edge of Dalton, the Loopers Bend “land application system” occupies more than 9,600 acres on the river’s banks. The public utility had long hosted hunts for wildlife at the forested site, which is crisscrossed by a network of 19,000 sprinklers that sprayed PFAS-laden wastewater for decades.

The Dalton Utilities’ land application system in Chatsworth, Ga., on the banks of the Conasauga River, is used to dispose of industrial wastewater from the carpet industry, seen on Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2022. (Hyosub Shin/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP)

For years, the site’s design allowed runoff to leak into the river, according to EPA’s former water programs enforcement chief. The wastewater was so poorly filtered the ground felt like walking on “shag carpet” due to all the fibers, the EPA official, Scott Gordon, said in an interview. He noted gullies cut by wastewater led directly to creeks and the river.

Because Dalton Utilities distributed the treated wastewater over land instead of discharging it into the river directly, it didn’t need a federal Clean Water Act permit. After EPA inspected and saw the conditions, the agency ordered the local utility to apply for one. The state, however, had approval power in Georgia and rejected the application, saying the permit wasn’t necessary.

For 40 years, Dalton Utilities has operated a massive land application system in a forested area outside the city.

Most PFAS discarded by the carpet industry wound up here, sprayed onto the land via a vast sprinkler system.

Millions of gallons of PFAS-laden wastewater were sprayed on the site. The pollutants seeped into the soil and spread to the Conasuaga River.

Upstream from the sprayfields, federal testing in 2019 found that levels of PFAS were safe or nonexistant (below 4 parts per trillion).

Downstream, levels were measured above 200 parts per trillion, well above what the EPA considers safe.

Over decades, the industry’s forever chemicals have kept flowing further downstream, threatening drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people.

Today, Loopers Bend remains a significant source of PFAS in the Conasauga.

The EPA worked with Dalton Utilities to upgrade the site starting in 1999, but it would be years before the agency would require testing of the Conasauga’s water.

In 2009, testing reports submitted by Dalton Utilities to EPA confirmed what the UGA research had already shown: Forever chemicals had infiltrated the region. In addition to river and well water, deer and turkey taken from Loopers Bend had PFAS in their muscles and organs.

Dalton Utilities said that levels of PFAS in its wastewater and the compost it provided to enrich soil for farmers and homeowners were not a health risk. PFAS were everywhere and a “societal problem,” and not one Dalton Utilities could solve, the utility’s lawyer wrote the EPA in 2010.

Nonetheless, the utility agreed to restrict its compost distribution and test wastewater from a quarter of its industrial customers annually.

As later testing showed, the chemicals would persist for years.

A health reckoning

Why is the doctor calling? Dolly Baker wondered as she rinsed the hair of a client at her salon “Dolled Up” in Calhoun. Dr. Dana Barr’s number had popped up on her cellphone.

Baker had taken part in a 2025 Emory University study of northwest Georgia, where she was one of 177 people who had their blood tested. Now one of the study’s lead scientists was on the phone.

Barr, an analytical chemist with epidemiological experience, had been mailing study participants about the results. When she saw Baker’s test data, she dialed her phone.

Baker, a lifelong Calhoun resident now in her 40s, had PFAS levels hundreds of times above the U.S. average.

“I don’t want to alarm you, but we’re just trying to figure out what can be causing this,” Barr told her, Baker later recalled. “I suggest you talk to your doctor and let them know that there are certain cancers that can come into play later.”

Baker was speechless.

She walked back to her wash station and slowly started rinsing her client’s hair again, quietly processing what this all meant. How did she have such high levels? Her mind raced.

What was she supposed to do about the forever chemicals in her body?

unfortunately, there is no easy answer,” Baker said Barr told her.

Emory tested Baker’s water and hair products, but the tests came back low. Almost a year after learning her blood test results, Baker is no closer to knowing why her levels are so high.

She said she’s frustrated by the lack of action and leadership, especially after years of testing and community meetings to discuss the problem.

“You know, people go in other countries to help them get clean water,” Baker said, “and do we have clean water?”

Barr, who spent years at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studying environmental toxicants, realized there was too little data to grasp the problem in northwest Georgia. She helped launch Emory’s study to understand the extent of contamination in human blood.

Three out of four residents tested by Emory had PFAS levels that warrant medical screening, according to clinical guidelines from the National Academy of Sciences.

“People in Rome and in Calhoun tended to have higher levels of PFAS than most of the people in the U.S. population,” Barr said.

Mohawk and Shaw say they stopped using older fluorochemicals around 2008. These were known by chemists as “long-chain” or C8 because each had eight or more carbon atoms on their molecular chains. Scotchgard, Stainmaster and Daikin’s Unidyne have since been reformulated without these C8 compounds.

Chemical manufacturers made new “short-chain” or C6 versions with six carbon atoms. Daikin U.S. Corp. said in a statement it “is committed, as it always has been, to regulatory compliance, evolving PFAS science, and global standards.”

Despite the chemical variations, short-chain PFAS had the stain-busting and water-repellant traits of the older chemicals. Scientists in the 2010s also expressed concerns that the newer formulations might carry similar environmental and health risks. Some began calling them “regrettable substitutes.”

After saying it got out of PFAS completely in 2019, Shaw has struggled to remove the chemicals from its facilities. The company said the compounds have so many applications they appear elsewhere in the machines and processes it takes to produce carpet.

“You can’t just say you stopped using them and you’re done,” said Ballew, Shaw’s vice president for environmental affairs.

She said the company installed filters at some mills and sleuthed out PFAS sources from its supply chain to remove them. Shaw developed a testing technology and shared it with suppliers so they could do the same, offering it as an example of strong corporate citizenry from a company with roots in the region.

“Shaw didn’t quit looking, and that’s what I’m really proud of,” Ballew said. “That’s the story. It’s not how long it took us to get here.”

Worries, but few answers

Down the road from Baker’s hair salon, Dr. Katherine Naymick operates a private medical practice. She’s practiced in Calhoun since moving there in 1996.

Naymick’s office sits in a small strip mall off Calhoun’s main road — a tidy, white-walled office decorated with retro medical equipment. She’s been mystified that many of her young patients’ thyroid glands had just “quit on them.” Similarly, she said her patients also had higher rates of endocrine cancers than the national average.

Doctors have few tools to address patient concerns, as the understanding of these chemicals’ links to health effects is still evolving. One resource is guidance the National Academy published in 2022 for physicians, which cites the “alarming” pervasiveness of PFAS contamination.

That guidance recommended doctors offer blood testing to patients who live in high exposure areas. The panel also cautioned the results could raise questions about links to possible health effects that cannot be easily answered.

People like Dolly Baker are at higher risk of kidney or other cancers, and thyroid problems, research shows.

When Naymick started in Calhoun, chemical manufacturers knew about the potential dangers of forever chemicals, but the public did not. The doctor said she did her best to treat her patients while feeling powerless to understand why they were so sick.

Then studies began to emerge in the 2000s showing high levels of forever chemicals in the Conasauga. In the 2010s, the first large health studies tied PFAS to issues with childhood development and the immune system.

Naymick enrolled in environmental medicine training, which focuses on patients’ exposure to contaminants, among other factors. Through study, Naymick gained tools to investigate the area’s heavy industrial footprint she long suspected. She started looking for clues, including blood tests, that might help explain her patients’ problems. Soon she zeroed in on forever chemicals.

In 2025, Dr. Barr’s group at Emory used Dr. Naymick’s clinic to draw blood. Naymick now thinks all her patients should get tested because of their high chance of exposure. But insurers rarely cover PFAS tests, and many of her clients can’t afford the hundreds of dollars they cost.

As they wait, the full extent of the human toll in northwest Georgia remains unknown.