South Dakota company recalls 2 million pounds of barbecue pork jerky that may contain metal wire

posted in: All news | 0

A South Dakota company is recalling more than 2.2 million pounds of Korean barbecue pork jerky sold at Costco and Sam’s Club stores because the product may be contaminated with pieces of metal, federal health officials said Friday.

Related Articles


Blood tests show highest levels of forever chemicals in those living near New Mexico plume


Rosa Parks and Helen Keller statues unveiled at the Alabama Capitol


NFL reminds players of league gambling policy in light of federal indictments


US coffee prices spike due to tariffs and poor weather


2,000 mink released from Iowa farm in what trade group calls ‘terrorist act’

LSI, Inc., of Alpena, voluntarily pulled the product after customers complained about finding pieces of wiry metal in the jerky, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. Company officials said the metal came from a conveyor belt used in production. No confirmed injuries have been reported,

The recall includes 14.-5-ounce and 16-ounce plastic pouches of meat jerky labeled “Golden Island fire-grilled pork jerky Korean barbecue recipe.” Roughly four dozen lots of jerky are affected. The products have a one-year shelf life with best-by dates ranging from Oct. 23, 2025, to Sept. 23, 2026. The packages contain the establishment number M279A inside the USDA mark of inspection.

People shouldn’t eat the recalled jerky and should throw it away or return it to stores for refund.

Contamination with rocks, sticks, insects and other foreign objects occasionally occurs in food produced in the U.S. Consumers who find foreign materials in food should notify manufacturers, food safety experts said.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

JPMorgan Chase wants out of paying $115M legal tab for convicted fraudsters

posted in: All news | 0

By KEN SWEET

NEW YORK (AP) — For nearly three years, JPMorgan Chase has picking up the legal tab of Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar, the two convicted fraudsters who sold their financial aid startup Frank to the bank.

Related Articles


New Samsung retail store at the MOA acts a lot like Apple


Developer asks St. Paul for $3.5 million loan for housing, retail at Grand and Victoria


US coffee prices spike due to tariffs and poor weather


Government shutdown likely means no inflation data next month for 1st time in decades


Government shutdown continues to add to stress on air traffic controllers and disrupt flights

But the two have racked up an astronomical, nine-figure legal bill that far exceeds any reasonable amount the two may have needed for their defense, the bank said in a court filing late Friday. Chase shouldn’t have to pay and its agreement as part of the startup purchase to shoulder the costs should end, the bank argued.

According to the filing, Javice’s team of lawyers across five law firms have billed JPMorgan approximately $60.1 million in legal fees and expenses, while Amar’s lawyers have billed the bank roughly $55.2 million in fees.

In total, the bank alleges Javice and Amar’s lawyers have racked up legal fees of $115 million, with one law firm receiving $35.6 million in reimbursements alone. In comparison, Elizabeth Holmes, who was convicted of defrauding investors in the Theranos case, reportedly ended up with a legal bill of roughly $30 million.

The bank would be “irreparably injured” if the court does not put an end to “abusive billing,” the bank said. Javice and her lawyers have treated the process “like a blank check,” Chase said.

Javice, 33, was convicted in March of duping the banking giant when it bought her company, called Frank, in the summer of 2021. She made false records that made it seem like Frank had over 4 million customers when it had fewer than 300,000. Amar was convicted of the same charges.

Early in the case, a Delaware court ruled that the bank was required to advance Javice and Amar for any legal fees, which was part of the bank’s agreement when Frank was acquired in 2021.

Part of Javice’s legal team is Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel, who is also the lawyer who has previously represented Elon Musk. Spiro did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.

A law firm representing Amar did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The legal fees sought by Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar are patently excessive and egregious. We look forward to sharing details of this abuse with the court in coming weeks,” said Pablo Rodriguez, a spokesman for the bank

Reagan Foundation becomes the latest US institution drawn into Donald Trump’s controversies

posted in: All news | 0

By BILL BARROW and THALIA BEATY

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute is drawing a volatile mix of blowback and praise for arguing that a Canadian government advertisement playing in U.S. markets misrepresented the 40th president’s words to blast President Donald Trump’s tariff policies.

Related Articles


The CEO of the Alamo’s historic site has resigned after a top Texas Republican criticized her


US starts investigating China’s compliance with 2020 trade deal as Trump heads to Asia


Trump administration won’t tap contingency fund to keep food aid flowing, memo says


Federal employees detail worries over shutdown layoffs


12,000 comments poured in on North Carolina’s new Trump-backed map. And they weren’t positive

It is not clear how the California-based Reagan Foundation decided to enter the fray over the ad, which was purchased by Ontario Premier Doug Ford and used portions of a 1987 Reagan speech on trade in which he questioned the wisdom of using tariffs as economic policy. But shortly after the foundation said on social media that the ad misused “selective audio” of the former president, Trump cited the foundation when, in his own social media critique, he threatened to stop all trade with America’s northern neighbor and blasted the ad as unduly interfering in U.S. politics.

The foundation statement seemingly aligned Reagan, a free-trade acolyte, with Trump, a protectionist who has flouted decades of U.S. policy with high border taxes, including on goods from top U.S. trading partners. The foundation, which helps support the Reagan Presidential Library & Museum, also suggested it could take legal action against Ontario’s provincial government, which sponsored the ad.

Reagan’s speech is included in millions of administration records governed by the Presidential Record Act signed in 1981 by his predecessor, President Jimmy Carter. That law puts presidential remarks in the public domain, meaning no one must seek permission from presidential foundations or libraries to redistribute them.

Ford said Friday that the ad would be phased out so the U.S. and Canadian administrations can resume trade talks. He said the ad had achieved its goal but would continue to air during the first two games of the World Series.

‘Easily intimidated by a call from the White House’

The backlash on social media was explosive, immediate and far from unanimous.

“Incredible cynicism and betrayal of Reagan by his own foundation,” Paul Novosad, a Dartmouth College economist, wrote on X. Novosad said anyone who followed the foundation’s advice to listen to Reagan’s full remarks “would see he says exactly what the Ontario ad claims.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, left, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, right, look on as Quebec Premier Francois Legault speaks at a news conference at the end of the Great Lakes and St.Lawrence Governors & Premiers meeting in Quebec City, Quebec, Monday, Oct. 6, 2025. (Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press via AP)

Jason Kenney, a former Canadian cabinet minister in a Conservative government, questioned the leadership of the Reagan Foundation on X. He said the entity had been “easily intimidated by a call from the White House, yet another sign of the hugely corrosive influence of Trump on the American conservative movement.”

Trump supporters countered on social media with echoes of the president’s assertions and accusations that Canada was meddling in U.S. politics.

Foundation staff did not respond to Associated Press questions about how it has handled the matter. But one board member said in a brief interview that he knew nothing about the statement and had not been asked to participate in any deliberations ahead of its release.

“There may have been discussions about it, but I wasn’t a part of any of them,” Bradford Freeman, a private equity executive, told the AP.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also did not immediately respond when asked via email whether the White House or anyone on the president’s behalf asked the Reagan Foundation to intervene.

Several other board members also did not reply to AP inquiries.

An atypical role for a presidential foundation

At the least, the developments represent an unusually tense application of the foundation’s typical mission, which is to buttress Reagan’s legacy. The situation also highlights the foundation as the latest U.S. establishment institution to be drawn into the controversies of Trump’s aggressive second administration.

Trump previously has elicited policy concessions from multiple U.S. universities, including elite public and private schools, after withholding or threatening to withhold federal funding. Presidents at Columbia University and the University of Virginia resigned as the Trump administration pressured their institutions.

Some U.S. corporations voluntarily rolled back diversity initiatives. More recently, high-profile firms including Amazon, Apple, Coinbase, Comcast, Google, Lockheed Martin and Meta Platforms have agreed to help finance the ballroom Trump plans for the White House after ordering the building’s East Wing to be demolished. Many of those firms have regulatory business before Trump’s administration.

On Truth Social, Trump called the Canadian ad “fake,” despite the TV spot featuring clear audio excerpts from Reagan’s April 25, 1987, radio address.

“CANADA CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!! They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like Tariffs, when actually he LOVED TARIFFS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY,” he posted Friday.

Reagan used the radio address to explain why he was imposing targeted levies on some Japanese products as leverage in the countries’ trade dispute over computer chips.

That gives Trump and his backers a hook to argue that Reagan might not oppose at least some of the current president’s moves on trade. Yet Trump has imposed tariffs, often at unusually high rates, far more broadly than Reagan and other recent U.S. administrations. And even while explaining his Japan policy, Reagan spent much of the 1987 speech – less than 10 minutes long – emphasizing that he remained an opponent of tariffs, a characterization the Ontario ad appeared to accurately represent.

Reagan’s speech affirmed his broad tariff opposition

“Throughout the world there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition,” Reagan said.

He expounded:

“You see, at first, when someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works — but only for a short time.

“What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition.

“So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.”

The Reagan foundation is a tax-exempt nonprofit that helps fund his library, which is part of the National Archives and Records Administration. As part of its tax-exempt status, the foundation is prohibited from endorsing political candidates and, generally, must be nonpartisan in its activities.

Barrow reported from Atlanta and Beaty from New York.

The CEO of the Alamo’s historic site has resigned after a top Texas Republican criticized her

posted in: All news | 0

By JOHN HANNA

The CEO of the nonprofit managing the Alamo resigned after a powerful Republican state official criticized her publicly, suggesting that her views aren’t compatible with the history of the Texas shrine.

Related Articles


Reagan Foundation becomes the latest US institution drawn into Donald Trump’s controversies


US starts investigating China’s compliance with 2020 trade deal as Trump heads to Asia


Trump administration won’t tap contingency fund to keep food aid flowing, memo says


Federal employees detail worries over shutdown layoffs


12,000 comments poured in on North Carolina’s new Trump-backed map. And they weren’t positive

Kate Rogers said in a statement Friday that she had resigned the day before, after Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wrote a letter to the Alamo Trust’s Board of Directors suggesting that she either resign or be removed. Patrick criticized her over an academic paper questioning the GOP-controlled Legislature’s education policies and suggesting she wanted the historic site in Texas to have a broader focus.

“It was with mixed emotions that I resigned my post as President and CEO at the Alamo Trust yesterday,” Rogers said in a statement texted to The Associated Press. “It became evident through recent events that it was time for me to move on.”

Several trust officials did not immediately respond to email or cellphone messages Friday seeking comment.

Patrick had posted a letter to the board Thursday on X, calling her paper “shocking.” She wrote it in 2023 for a doctorate in global education from the University of Southern California. Patrick posted a portion online.

“I believe her judgment is now placed in serious question,” Patrick wrote. “She has a totally different view of how the history of the Alamo should be told.”

It is the latest episode in an ongoing conflict over how the U.S. tells its history. Patrick’s call for Rogers’ ouster follows President Donald Trump’s pressure to get Smithsonian museums in Washington to put less emphasis on slavery and other darker parts of America’s past.

The Alamo, known as “the Shrine of Texas Liberty,” draws more than 1.6 million visitors a year. The trust operates it under a contract with the Texas General Land Office, and the state plans to spend $400 million on a renovation with a new museum and visitor center set to open in 2027. Patrick presides over the Texas Senate.

In San Antonio, Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai, the county’s elected top administrator, decried Patrick’s “gross political interference.”

“We need to get politics out of our teaching of history. Period,” he said in a statement Friday.

FILE – The Texas flag waves in front of the Alamo during a reenactment of the delivery of William B. Travis’ “Victory or Death” letter, Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2016, in San Antonio. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

In the excerpt from her paper, Rogers noted the Texas Legislature’s “conservative agenda” in 2023, including bills to limit what could be taught about race and slavery in history courses.

“Philosophically, I do not believe it is the role of politicians to determine what professional educators can or should teach in the classroom,” she wrote.

Her paper also mentioned a 2021 book, “Forget the Alamo,” which challenges traditional historical narratives surrounding the 13-day siege of the Alamo during Texas’ fight for independence from Mexico in 1836.

Rogers noted that the book argues that a central cause of the war was Anglo settlers’ determination to keep slaves in bondage after Mexico largely abolished it. Texas won the war and was an independent republic until the U.S. annexed it in 1845.

Rogers also wrote that a city advisory council wanted to tell the site’s “full story,” including its history as a home to Indigenous people — something the state’s Republican leaders oppose. She said she would love the Alamo to be “a place that brings people together versus tearing them apart.”

FILE – In this Feb. 24, 2016, file photo, a member of the San Antonio Living History Association stands on the grounds on the Alamo as he waits to take part in a reenactment to deliver William B. Travis’ “Victory or Death” letter, in San Antonio. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

“But,” she added, “politically that may not be possible at this time.”

Traditional narratives obscure the role slavery might have played in Texas’ drive for independence and portray the Alamo’s defenders as freedom fighters. Patrick’s letter called the siege “13 Days of Glory.”

The Mexican Army attacked and overran the Texas defenses. But “Remember the Alamo” became a rallying cry for Texas forces.

“We must ensure that future generations never forget the sacrifice for freedom that was made,” Patrick wrote in his letter to the trust’s board. “I will continue to defend the Alamo today against a rewrite of history.”