Michael and Susan Dell pledge $6.25 billion for kids’ savings accounts
Michael Dell, CEO of Dell Computer, and wife Susan announce the donation of $50 million over 10 years to the University of Texas at Austin for the creation of a new Dell Medical School. (Robert Daemmrich/Corbis via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — In a major philanthropic move, billionaires Michael and Susan Dell are donating $6.25 billion dollars to deposit $250 into savings accounts for up to 25 million American children.
The announcement from the Dells, which was confirmed by a White House official, gives the funds to Invest America, which sets up a tax-advantaged investment account for American children starting at birth.
The so-called Trump Accounts are a key piece of President Trump’s signature tax and spending legislation, which passed earlier this year.
Under that law, the Treasury Department will give $1,000 to the accounts for children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. Those accounts become the property of a child’s guardian and “will track a stock index and allow for additional private contributions of up to $5,000 per year,” according to the White House.
The donations from the Dells will supplement that federal funding, expanding the number of children who will qualify for accounts.
The more than $6 billion in funds from the Dells will go to “most children age 10 and under who were born prior to the qualifying date for the federal newborn contribution,” though Tuesday’s announcement adds that some children older than 10 may also be eligible if there is funding left over after the initial sign-ups.
There are still logistical questions about the donations, but the website for Invest America says sign-ups for the accounts are expected to open July 4, 2026.
“We’ve seen what happens when a child gets even a small financial head start – their world expands,” Michael Dell said in a video announcing the news.
Trump celebrated the move Tuesday morning, posting a link to a new article about the announcement and calling the Dells “TWO GREAT PEOPLE.”
“I LOVE DELL!!!,” Trump added in the social media post.
A White House official confirmed that Dell will join Trump at the White House Tuesday for the 2 p.m. announcement. White House spokesperson Kush Desai called the accounts “revolutionary investment by the federal government into the next generation of American children” in a statement about the donation.
“It’s also President Trump’s call to action for American businesses and philanthropists to do their part, too – Michael and Susan Dell’s $6 billion investment into America’s children is the first of many announcements to come for America’s children,” Desai added.
In June, Michael Dell attended a roundtable at the White House and spoke alongside Trump about how access to the savings accounts for American children will be a “simple yet powerful way to transform lives.”
(NEW YORK) — There is a paragraph on page 22 of the Trump administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s requirement that it make full November SNAP payments that has to be seen to be believed.
The opening sentence asserts that “the district court’s order threatens significant and irreparable harm to the government which outweighs any claimed injury to plaintiffs.”
In plain English, the Justice Department is telling the court that it would hurt the federal government more to comply with a judge’s order requiring full food stamp payments than it would hurt millions of low-income Americans to potentially starve.
Let’s simplify this further: the government is arguing that once the money is spent, it can’t be unspent (and that would be horrible). But the hungry can’t eat tomorrow (and that’s not as bad). That is the contention.
In a 40-page filing to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, the administration insisted that being forced to spend money Congress has already appropriated is a graver injury than the hunger and disruption that would follow from withholding it. Friday night, the administration filed a nearly identical emergency stay request with the Supreme Court, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a temporary pause that will remain in effect until the circuit court issues a judgment on the matter.
At stake is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—SNAP—which provides monthly benefits to roughly 42 million Americans. During the ongoing government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) planned to fund only part of the November payments, prompting lawsuits from cities, religious groups, and nonprofits that argued that the administration was flouting its legal obligation to deliver full benefits.
Twice, a Rhode Island federal judge, John J. McConnell Jr., agreed, ordering the government to draw on existing accounts to cover the gap. Twice, the administration appealed, contending that the judiciary had usurped Congress’s spending power by directing the executive branch to find the money.
The Justice Department’s latest emergency filing makes that claim in even starker terms. It asserts that McConnell’s injunction “makes a mockery of the separation of powers” and that there is “no lawful basis” for forcing the USDA “to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions.” It also warns that by compelling compliance, the court has “thrust the Judiciary into the ongoing shutdown negotiations,” implying that judicial enforcement of basic statutory duties somehow exacerbates the fiscal standoff.
But what makes the filing remarkable is not just its tone—it’s the value judgment embedded in it. Traditionally, when courts decide whether to grant emergency relief, there is a calculus: the courts consider which outcome would cause greater damage, keeping the challenged policy on hold or letting it take effect? Here, the “policy” in question is the administration’s refusal to fully fund SNAP despite having ample reserves.
The Justice Department argues that the “irreparable harm” lies in being required to obey the court order and spend the money. By that logic, the government’s institutional discomfort outweighs the hunger of millions of families, seniors, veterans and children whose grocery money hangs in the balance.
Whether in disputes over public health, environmental regulation, or economic relief, the Trump administration’s lawyers have often equated executive prerogative with public interest—as though what benefits the administration necessarily benefits the nation. In this case, that conflation leads to the extraordinary claim that “the government” suffers greater harm by feeding people than by letting them go hungry.
The administration’s insistence that it “cannot” find the funds also rings hollow. By its own admission, the USDA controls multiple accounts with more than enough money to sustain SNAP for the month—including a $5 billion emergency reserve created by Congress specifically for that purpose. It has already drawn on similar pools of money to protect other nutrition programs from shutdown disruptions. The problem, in other words, is not fiscal incapacity but political choice.
The Justice Department’s appeal thus functions as both legal brief and ideological statement. It asks the courts to privilege administrative convenience over human need.
If that argument succeeds, the precedent would reach far beyond SNAP. It would signal that any time a court orders the government to meet a statutory duty—to pay benefits, deliver services, or enforce protections—the executive may claim “irreparable harm” merely because it prefers not to act. That is not separation of powers; it is the substitution of political preference for law.
Judge McConnell, for his part, put the matter bluntly: “This should never happen in America.” He was referring to the spectacle of a federal government choosing to let its citizens go hungry while pleading poverty amid abundant reserves.
The Justice Department’s legal arguments transform that spectacle into doctrine.
James Sample is an ABC News legal contributor and a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University. The views expressed in this story do not necessarily reflect those of ABC News or The Walt Disney Company.
Pedestrians walk past Purdue Pharma LP headquarters stands in Stamford, Connecticut, U.S., on Monday, Sept. 16, 2019. Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Purdue Pharma begins several days of hearings Wednesday to finalize a $7.4 billion bankruptcy restricting plan that no longer fully protects the company’s owners, members of the Sackler families, from opioid litigation.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year blocked an earlier version of Purdue’s bankruptcy settlement because it gave the Sacklers immunity from lawsuits over the misleading marketing of OxyContin, the painkiller that Purdue began marketing in 1996.
Under the new plan, the Sacklers and Purdue boost their settlement contribution to $7.4 billion. The revised agreement settles all civil claims against Purdue, but individual creditors can choose to litigate claims against the Sacklers, who have long argued that although they regret their company’s role in the nation’s opioid epidemic, they are not directly or personally responsible for it.
Purdue said the new plan received support from more than 99% of voting creditors.
“The high level of support for this Plan is gratifying after years of intense work with our creditors to craft a settlement that maximizes value for victims and communities and puts billions of dollars to work for the public good,” Purdue Chairman Steve Miller said in a statement last month. “Following the outcome of this vote, we are focused on preparing for the confirmation hearing and ultimately the emergence of a new company with a public-minded mission.”
In addition to paying billions to creditors, the plan “will generate substantial further value” by creating a new company, Knoa Pharma, that “will provide millions of doses of lifesaving opioid use disorder treatments and overdose reversal medicines at no profit,” according to the Purdue statement.
(CHARLOTTE, N.C.) — A federal immigration crackdown dubbed Charlotte’s Web has netted 250 arrests in North Carolina’s largest city, officials said on Wednesday.
The arrests of people allegedly in the country illegally came in a span of just four days, officials said.
“The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and federal agencies continue to target some of the most dangerous criminal illegal aliens as Operation Charlotte’s Web progresses,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement on Wednesday. “This immigration enforcement surge in the Charlotte area has led to the arrest of over 250 illegal aliens as of the evening of 11/18.”
The announcement of the arrest tally in Charlotte came a day after Greg Bovino, the commander-at-large of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), blamed North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein for what he said was an increase in violent rhetoric that federal agents are facing in their immigration enforcement blitz in the state.
Bovino took to social media on Tuesday to slam Stein, a Democrat who released a statement over the weekend asking residents of the Tar Heel State to report any “inappropriate behavior” they witness from federal agents.
“If you see any inappropriate behavior, use your phones to record and notify local law enforcement, who will continue to keep our communities safe after these federal agents leave,” Stein said.
In a social media post, Bovino told Stein, “You need to check yourself,” and cited an online video of a woman threatening to use a screwdriver to stab U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents if they pull her over.
“Governor Stein, you caused this,” Bovino said in the post. “Let me say that again, Governor. When you spout lies about a lawful law enforcement operation, you spark something in weaker-minded people like this who may act upon your direction.”
Bovino did not specifically say what statements from Stein prompted his social media response.
On Sunday, Stein issued a statement, saying, “We’ve seen masked, heavily armed agents in paramilitary garb driving unmarked cars, targeting American citizens based on their skin color, racially profiling, and picking up random people in parking lots and off of our sidewalks.”
Bovino’s warning to Stein came after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cited two incidents this week in Charlotte in which people allegedly rammed the vehicles of federal agents or drove directly at the agents.
In one case, the DHS alleged that a U.S. citizen allegedly drove a “large van” at agents as they were conducting an immigration operation dubbed Charlotte’s Web.
“He immediately fled the scene, starting a dangerous high-speed chase through a densely populated area,” according to a DHS statement posted on X. “During the chase, he attempted to ram into law enforcement vehicles — posing a serious public safety threat. As agents were boxing him in — the driver proceeded to ram law enforcement vehicles in an attempt to escape.”
One federal agent was injured in the incident, according to the DHS.
The DHS statement said that after the suspect, whose name was not released, was arrested, a firearm was allegedly found in his van. The DHS said the man “has prior arrests for resisting law enforcement, public disturbance and intoxication/disruptive conduct.”
The DHS said another driver arrested in Charlotte on Monday jumped a curb, drove into a parking lot and sped toward agents.
“The driver was warned to stop and back up,” the DHS said in a statement. “The driver then drove the vehicle toward the exit of the parking lot and waited to try and box in Border Patrol. As agents went to confront the driver, the car rammed a law enforcement vehicle and fled the scene.”
In a statement on Tuesday, the DHS said CBP and ICE agents have faced nearly 100 vehicular attacks this year, nearly double the number from 2024.
Charlotte is the latest city targeted by the Trump administration to enforce immigration laws in a nationwide effort that has included Los Angeles and Chicago, which are so-called “sanctuary” cities and states that limit actions their local authorities take to aid the work of immigration agents.
Immigration advocates, elected leaders and lawyers representing people arrested elsewhere in the country on charges of ramming the vehicles of federal agents denied the charges have criticized how masked federal agents have stoked fear.
DHS, in announcing its action in North Carolina, said the state also has “sanctuary” politicians.
Elsewhere in the country where ICE and CBP sweeps have occurred, immigration advocates, elected leaders and residents have criticized the federal operations, saying they were not requested and that they are stoking fear in their communities. Lawyers representing people arrested elsewhere in the country on charges of ramming the vehicles of federal agents have denied the charges.
The lawyer for 30-year-old Marimar Martinez, who was shot in Chicago in October by Border Patrol agents, who accused her of ramming their vehicle, claimed in court that he viewed a body-camera video from one of the agents that proves his client did nothing wrong.
Martinez’s lawyer, Christopher Parente, said during an Oct. 6 court hearing that the federal agents appeared to swerve into Martinez’s car after one of them was heard in the footage saying, “Do something, bitch.”
“When I watched the video after this agent says, ‘Do something, bitch,’ I see the driver of this vehicle turn the wheel to the left. Which would be consistent with him running into Ms. Martinez’s vehicle, okay,” Parente said. “And then seconds later, he jumps out and just starts shooting.”
Raleigh, N.C., Mayor Janet Cowell said in a statement on Monday that federal agents were expected to continue their operations in her city on Tuesday after they fanned out across nearby Charlotte over the weekend, detaining more than 130 people within about 48 hours.
Cowell, a Democrat, said the federal action was not requested.
“As the capital city, it is important to us that everyone who lives, works, plays, and learns in Raleigh feels safe,” Cowell said. “We have been made aware that Customs and Border Protection are coming to Raleigh. While [the Raleigh Police Department] is not involved in immigration enforcement, we are committed to protecting our residents and to following the law.”
Federal agents are expected to stay in North Carolina until Friday, according to preliminary information from federal authorities. By the end of the week, about 200 agents are expected to be redeployed to New Orleans to begin “Operation Catahoula Crunch” in the Big Easy, according to multiple law enforcement sources.
ABC News’ Jessica Gorman contributed to this report.
