Shares in the Trump family’s latest cryptocurrency made its stock market debut Wednesday, triggering more ethical concerns as the Trumps look to cash in on crypto as the president’s administration weakens regulations for the nascent industry.

American Bitcoin, a firm co-founded this spring by Eric Trump, the president’s son, saw its share price climb as much as 39% by early afternoon to about $9.60.

It ended the day at $8.04, lower than its opening price of $9.22.

According to a release, the company is set up to accumulate bitcoin through computer “mining” of the cryptocurrency, as well as “opportunistic bitcoin purchases.” By owning a share of American Bitcoin, investors are betting that the company will be able to grow its bitcoin holdings faster than competitors. It also assumes bitcoin’s price will keep going up.

American Bitcoin’s stock debut is renewing ethics concerns about the Trump family’s ability to benefit from the president’s influence on the crypto industry, where it is increasingly seeing windfalls.

On Monday, the first public sales of a digital token minted by World Liberty Financial, a crypto firm co-founded by the Trump family, created as much as $5 billion in paper wealth for them and other insiders based on existing holdings. Last week, Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of President Donald Trump’s Truth Social platform, announced it had struck a deal with Crypto.com to accumulate Crypto.com’s native token Cronos, or CRO. Since the announcement, the value of CRO has climbed about 69%.

Shortly before 1 p.m, the value of Eric Trump’s American Bitcoin stake had climbed to as much as $600 million, according to calculations by Bloomberg News. Donald Trump Jr. also owns a stake, though its extent was not immediately clear. A representative for Trump Jr. did not respond to a request for comment.

“There’s no question there’s a conflict of interest here,” said Virginia Canter, chief counsel for ethics and anticorruption with the Democracy Defenders Action group, a bipartisan advocacy group that seeks to oppose authoritarianism. Canter served as a legal adviser in four different presidential administrations. Beyond having the ability to appoint regulators charged with overseeing the crypto industry, Trump can also create an uneven playing field for other crypto market participants who might believe they may pay a price for competing with his entities — or failing to engage with them, Canter said.

In a post on X last night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said of the start of American Bitcoin’s stock trading: “it’s corruption, plain and simple.”

A representative for the Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment about the ethics concerns.

Estimates about how much President Trump and his family have earned from their crypto ventures vary. Reuters calculated that they made as much $500 million from the World Liberty decentralized finance platform, which debuted last year.

The figure is a moving target. In May, Zach Witkoff, a World Liberty co-founder and the son of White House Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, announced that an Abu Dhabi-based firm had purchased $2 billion-worth of World Liberty’s stablecoin as part of an investment in the Binance crypto exchange. In July, Trump Media announced it had accumulated roughly $2 billion in bitcoin and related assets, accounting for about two-thirds of Trump Media’s total liquid assets. The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, a financial instrument Trump created in advance of returning to the Oval Office, owns 52% of Trump Media.

The group that created Trump’s memecoin, $TRUMP, earned $350 million from initial sales, the Financial Times reported in March, though its ownership structure and Trump family members’ direct stakes are unclear.

The White House has maintained that the president is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of Trump family businesses. Some ethics experts have argued that presidents are exempt from conflict-of-interest laws because they oversee too many areas to make enforcement practical.

In a statement, the White House blasted any insinuation of a conflict of interest.

“The media’s continued attempts to fabricate conflicts of interest are irresponsible and reinforce the public’s distrust in what they read,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “Neither the President nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest.” She said the administration “is fulfilling the President’s promise to make the United States the crypto capital of the world by driving innovation and economic opportunity for all Americans.”

At a conference last week, Eric Trump said the bitcoin community had embraced his father “unlike anything I had ever seen before.” Since then, the crypto industry has become one of the most influential players in politics: Its super PAC, Fairshake, was the largest-single donor group during the 2024 election and has already accumulated $140 million in advance of next year’s midterms, Politico reported.

The Trump brothers have announced a flurry of business moves since their father took office that parallel the president’s policies and agenda. Last month, they announced they would serve as advisers to New America, a firm that aims to buy businesses that “play a meaningful role in revitalizing domestic manufacturing, expanding innovation ecosystems, and strengthening critical supply chains.”

The brothers are receiving a combined 5 million shares in the company, which seeks to raise $300 million from investors in advance of going public.

When Tim Cook gifted President Donald Trump a gold and glass plaque last month, the Apple CEO was hailed by Wall Street for his job managing the iPhone-maker’s relationship with the White House.

Cook, Wall Street commentators said, had largely navigated the threat of tariffs on Apple’s business successfully by offering Trump an additional $100 billion U.S. investment, a win the president could tout on American manufacturing. But despite the 24-carat trophy Cook handed Trump, the true costs of those tariffs may finally show up for Apple customers later this month.

“Thank you all, and thank you President Trump for putting American innovation and American jobs front and center,” Cook said at the event, which brought Apple’s total planned spend to $600 billion in the U.S. over the next five years. Trump, at the event, said that Apple would be exempt from forthcoming tariffs on chips that could double their price.

But as Apple prepares to announce new iPhones on Tuesday, some analysts are forecasting the company to raise prices on its devices even after all Cook has done to avoid the worst of the tariffs.

“A lot of the chatter is: Will the iPhone go up in price?” said CounterPoint research director Jeff Fieldhack.

Although smartphones haven’t seen significant price increases yet, other consumer products are seeing price increases driven by tariffs costs, including apparel, footwear, and coffee. And the tariffs have hit some electronics, notably video games — Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, have raised console prices this year in the U.S.

Some Wall Street analysts are counting on Apple to follow. Jeffries analyst Edison Lee baked in a $50 price increase into his iPhone 17 average selling price projections in a note in July. He’s got a hold rating on Apple stock.

Goldman Sachs analysts say that the potential for price increases could increase the average selling price of Apple’s devices over time, and the company’s mix of phones have been skewing toward more expensive prices.

Analysts expect Apple to release four new iPhone models this month, which will likely be named the “iPhone 17” series. Last year, Apple released four iPhone 16 models: the base iPhone 16 for $829, the iPhone 16 Plus at $899, the iPhone 16 Pro at $999 and the iPhone 16 Pro Max at $1,199.

This year, many supply chain watchers expect Apple to replace the Plus model, which has lagged the rest of the lineup, with a new, slimmer device that trades extra cameras and features for a thinner, lighter body.

The “thinner, lighter form factor may drive some demand interest,” wrote Goldman analysts, but tradeoffs like battery life may make it hard to compete with Apple’s entry-level models.

Analysts have said they expect the slim device to cost about $899, similar to how much the iPhone 16 Plus costs, but they haven’t ruled out a price bump. That would still undercut Samsung’s thin Galaxy Edge, which debuted earlier this year at $1,099.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

When Trump announced sweeping tariffs on China and the rest of the world in February, it seemed like Apple was in the crosshairs.

Apple famously makes the majority of its iPhones and other products in China, and Trump was threatening to place tariffs that could double Apple’s costs or more. Some of Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” tariffs would hit countries like Vietnam and India where Apple had hedged its production bets.

But seven months later, Apple has weathered the tariffs better than many had imagined.

The U.S. government has paused the most draconian Chinese tariffs several times, smartphones got an exemption from tariffs and Cook in May told investors that the company was able to rearrange its supply chain to import iPhones to the U.S. from India, where tariffs are lower.

Cook also successfully leaned on his relationship with Trump, visiting him in White House and taking his side in August, when Cook presented the shiny keepsake to Trump. That commitment bolstered Trump’s push to bring more high-tech manufacturing to the U.S. In exchange, Trump said he would exempt Apple from a forthcoming semiconductor tariff, too. And Trump’s IEEPA tariffs were ruled illegal in late August, although they are still in effect.

Apple hasn’t completely missed the tariff consequences. Cook said the company spent $800 million on tariff costs in the June quarter, mainly due to the IEEPA-based tariffs on China. That was less than 4% of the company’s profit, but Apple warned it could spend $1.1 billion in the current quarter on tariff expenses.

After months of eating the tariff costs itself, Apple may finally pass those costs to consumers with this month’s launch of the iPhone 17 models.

Apple has been judicious about hardware price increases in the U.S. The smaller Pro phone, for example, hasn’t gotten a price increase since its debut in 2017, holding at $999. But Apple has made some price changes.

The company raised the price of its entry level phones from $699 to $829 in 2020. And in 2022 when Apple eliminated the smaller iPhone Mini that started at $699, the company replaced it with the bigger-screen Plus that costs $899. The Pro Max also got a hike in 2023 when Apple bumped it from $1,099 to its current price of $1,199.

If Apple does increase prices on its phones this year, don’t expect management to blame tariffs.

The average selling price of smartphones around the world is rising, according to IDC. The price of smartphone components, such as the camera module and chips, have been increasing in recent years.

Apple is much more likely to focus on highlighting its phones’ new features and quietly note the new price. Analysts expect the new iPhones to have larger screens, increased memory and new, faster chips for AI.

“No one’s going to come out and say it’s related to tariffs,” said IDC analyst Nabila Popal.

One way that Apple could subtly raise prices is by eliminating the entry-level version of its phones, forcing users to upgrade to get more storage at a higher starting price. Apple typically charges $100 to double the amount of the iPhone’s storage from 128GB to 256GB.

That’s what JPMorgan analysts expect Apple to announce next week.

They forecast that Apple will leave the prices of the entry level and high-end Pro Max models alone, but they wrote that they expect the company to eliminate the entry-level version of the Pro, meaning that users will have to pay $1,099 for an iPhone 17 Pro that has more starting-level storage than its predecessor. That’s how Apple raised the price of the entry-level Pro Max in 2023.

“However, with Apple’s recent announcements relative to investments in US, the assumption is that the company will largely be shielded from tariffs, driving expectations for limited pricing changes except for those associated with changes in the base storage configuration for the Pro model,” wrote JP Morgan analyst Samik Chatterjee.

When Cook was asked about potential Apple price increases on an earnings call in May, he said there was “nothing to announce.”

“I’ll just say that the operational team has done an incredible job around optimizing the supply chain and the inventory,” Cook said.

David Ellison continues to put his stamp on Paramount after its acquisition by Skydance.

The CEO and chairman told employees Thursday that they will be expected to work in the office five days a week starting Jan. 5, 2026, according to a memo obtained by CNBC. Employees who do not wish to make the transition can seek a buyout starting Thursday and until Sept. 15.

“To achieve what we’ve set out to do — and to truly unlock Paramount’s full potential — we must make meaningful changes that position us for long-term success,” Ellison wrote to staffers. “These changes are about building a stronger, more connected, and agile organization that can deliver on our goals and compete at the highest level. We have a lot to accomplish and we’re moving fast. We need to all be rowing in the same direction. And especially when you’re dealing with a creative business like ours, that begins with being together in person.”

The move could help Paramount thin the herd ahead of looming staffing cuts.

Variety reported last month that the company is expected to lay off between 2,000 and 3,000 employees as part of its postmerger cost-cutting measures. These cuts are slated for early November, Variety reported.

Paramount is looking to take $2 billion in costs out of the conglomerate amid advertising losses and industrywide struggles with traditional cable networks.

Phase one of Ellison’s back-to-work plan will see employees in Los Angeles and New York returning to a full five-day workweek in the new year.

Phase two will focus on offices outside LA and New York, including international locations. A similar buyout program will be offered in 2026 for those who operate in these locations.

“We recognize this represents a significant change for many, and we’re committed to supporting you throughout this transition,” Ellison wrote. “We will work closely with managers to ensure you have the time and flexibility to make the necessary adjustments.”

Amazon is eliminating a program that allows members of its Prime subscription program to share free shipping benefits with people outside their household.

The company began notifying users in recent days that it plans to end the Prime Invitee Program on Oct. 1, according to a notice viewed by CNBC.

“We are writing to inform you that the Prime Invitee Program, which allowed sharing Prime’s fast, free delivery with others, will end on October 1, 2025,” the notice states. “Your invited guests will be notified directly about this change by September 5, 2025.”

Amazon previously let Prime members share free, two-day shipping with one other adult in their household, even if they used a different address.

Starting next month, the company will require invitees who don’t live with the account holder to sign up for their own Prime membership.

It’s phasing out the program in favor of Amazon Family, which lets Prime members share free shipping and other benefits with one other adult, four children and up to four teens added before April 7, 2025.

All users must share the same primary residential address, or the “address you consider to be your home and where you spend the majority of your time,” Amazon said.

The change comes as Reuters reported Monday that Amazon’s Prime signups in the U.S. fell short of last year’s total and its own targets, citing internal company documents. Amazon told the outlet that Prime membership continues to grow in the U.S. and internationally.

Families who lost loved ones in two crashes of Boeing 737 Max jetliners may get their last chance to demand the company face criminal prosecution Wednesday. That’s when a federal judge in Texas is set to hear arguments on a U.S. government motion to dismiss a felony charge against Boeing.

U.S. prosecutors charged Boeing with conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with the crashes that killed 346 people off the coast of Indonesia and in Ethiopia. Federal prosecutors alleged Boeing deceived government regulators about a flight-control system that was later implicated in the fatal flights, which took place less than five months apart in 2018 and 2019.

Boeing decided to plead guilty instead of going to trial, but U.S. District Chief Judge Reed O’Connor rejected the aircraft maker’s plea agreement in December. O’Connor, who also will consider whether to let prosecutors dismiss the conspiracy charge, objected to diversity, equity and inclusion policies potentially influencing the selection of an independent monitor to oversee the company’s promised reforms.

Lawyers representing relatives of some of the passengers who died cheered O’Connor’s decision, hoping it would further their goal of seeing former Boeing executives prosecuted during a public trial and more severe financial punishment for the company. Instead, the delay worked to Boeing’s favor.

The judge’s refusal to accept the agreement meant the company was free to challenge the Justice Department’s rationale for charging Boeing as a corporation. It also meant prosecutors would have to secure a new deal for a guilty plea.

The government and Boeing spent six months renegotiating their plea deal. During that time, President Donald Trump returned to office and ordered an end to the diversity initiatives that gave O’Connor pause.

By the time the Justice Department’s criminal fraud section briefed the judge in late May, the charge and the plea were off the table. A non-prosecution agreement the two sides struck said the government would dismiss the charge in exchange for Boeing paying or investing another $1.1 billion in fines, compensation for the crash victims’ families, and internal safety and quality measures.

The Justice Department said it offered Boeing those terms in light of “significant changes” Boeing made to its quality control and anti-fraud programs since entering into the July 2024 plea deal.

The department also said it thought that persuading a jury to punish the company with a criminal conviction would be risky, while the revised agreement ensures “meaningful accountability, delivers substantial and immediate public benefits, and brings finality to a difficult and complex case whose outcome would otherwise be uncertain.”

Judge O’Connor has invited some of the families to address the court on Wednesday. One of the people who plans to speak is Catherine Berthet, whose daughter, Camille Geoffrey, died at age 28 when a 737 Max crashed shortly after takeoff from Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa Bole International Airport.

Berthet, who lives in France, is part of a group of about 30 families who want the judge to deny the government’s request and to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case.

“While it is no surprise that Boeing is trying to buy everyone off, the fact that the DOJ, which had a guilty plea in its hands last year, has now decided not to prosecute Boeing regardless of the judge’s decision is a denial of justice, a total disregard for the victims and, above all, a disregard for the judge,” she said in a statement.

Justice Department lawyers maintain the families of 110 crash victims either support a pre-trial resolution or do not oppose the non-prosecution agreement. The department’s lawyers also dispute whether O’Connor has authority to deny the motion without finding prosecutors acted in bad faith instead of the public interest.

While federal judges typically defer to the discretion of prosecutors in such situations, court approval is not automatic.

In the Boeing case, the Justice Department has asked to preserve the option of refiling the conspiracy charge if the company does not hold up its end of the deal over the next two years.

Boeing reached a settlement in 2021 that protected it from criminal prosecution, but the Justice Department determined last year that the company had violated the agreement and revived the charge.

The case revolves around a new software system Boeing developed for the Max. In the 2018 and 2019 crashes, the software pitched the nose of the plane down repeatedly based on faulty readings from a single sensor, and pilots flying then-new planes for Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines were unable to regain control.

The Transportation Department’s inspector general found that Boeing did not inform key Federal Aviation Administration personnel about changes it made to the MCAS software before regulators set pilot training requirements for the Max and certified the airliner for flight.

Acting on the incomplete information, the FAA approved minimal, computer-based training for Boeing 737 pilots, avoiding the need for flight simulators that would have made it more expensive for airlines to adopt the latest version of the jetliner.

Airlines began flying the Max in 2017. After the Ethiopia crash, the planes were grounded worldwide for 20 months while the company redesigned the software.

In the final weeks of Trump’s first term, the Justice Department charged Boeing with conspiring to defraud the U.S. government but agreed to defer prosecution and drop the charge after three years if the company paid a $2.5 billion settlement and strengthened its ethics and legal compliance programs.

The 2021 settlement agreement was on the verge of expiring when a panel covering an unused emergency exit blew off a 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight over Oregon at the beginning of last year. No one was seriously injured, but the potential disaster put Boeing’s safety record under renewed scrutiny.

A former Boeing test pilot remains the only individual charged with a crime in connection with the crashes. In March 2022, a federal jury acquitted him of misleading the FAA about the amount of training pilots would need to fly the Max.

The Walt Disney Company will pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that it enabled the unlawful collection of children’s personal data on YouTube.

The FTC claimed the company allowed data to be collected from kids who viewed videos directed at children on YouTube without notifying parents or obtaining their consent.

The complaint alleged that Disney violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule by not labeling some YouTube videos as being made for children. The agency claimed the company was able to collect data from viewers of child-directed content who were under the age of 13 and use it for targeted advertising.

In 2019, after a settlement with the FTC, YouTube began requiring content creators to list whether uploaded videos were “made for kids” or “not made for kids.” The designation ensures that personal information is not collected from the “made for kids” videos and personalized ads will not be served to viewers. Comments are also disabled on those videos.

The proposed settlement would require Disney to pay a $10 million civil penalty, comply with the children’s data protection rule and implement a program to review whether videos posted to YouTube should be designated as “made for kids.”

“Supporting the well-being and safety of kids and families is at the heart of what we do,” the company said in a statement obtained by CNBC. “This settlement does not involve Disney owned and operated digital platforms but rather is limited to the distribution of some of our content on YouTube’s platform. Disney has a long tradition of embracing the highest standards of compliance with children’s privacy laws, and we remain committed to investing in the tools needed to continue being a leader in this space.”

Axios was the first to report the settlement.