• After 20 years of teaching in Texas schools, I am retiring early at 59.
• My pension will be less than half of my current salary, so I'm going to freelance to make ends meet.
• I'm also nervous about the free time I will have and the total lack of structure.

For the last 20 years, I've had the same two alarms set ever weekday — one at 5:15 a.m. and one at 9:17 a.m.

As a Texas high school teacher, the 5:15 alarm is really just a formality. After 20 years of early rising, I'm up before the sun with no prompting required. The 9:17 a.m. alarm is also deeply ingrained; it's the official attendance time when I'm required to pause my instruction and take attendance. It's Texas' official "time of record" by which schools are funded on daily attendance.

It's the schedule I've followed for two decades. But after this week, neither time will matter. I will walk away from teaching and into early retirement at 59, which makes me more than a little nervous.

My income will now be cut in half

I'm unnerved by several things. I'll be "living smaller" on less income. With my pension, my income will be less than half what it has been. My expenses will be lower but won't be cut by 50%.

I've been a remote adjunct instructor at a local community college for the past year, concurrent with my high school job, but the rules of my pension require me to sit out this Fall semester. It took me years of applying to secure that adjunct position. I worry that being forced to sit out the busiest semester of the academic calendar will push me to the back of the adjunct line once again. The pay isn't great, at about $50 per hour, but a few classes certainly can help close the gap in my income.

Since I won't be making nearly enough, I decided to accept a remote writing job, but it doesn't have benefits and won't have any structure or routine. While I'll be doing something I care deeply about, I will still be below the salary I earned this year.

I'm struggling to understand how I will fill my time

For 20 years, the more than 200 teachers in the building have been my daily interaction with adults. We lunch together, and I've shared the rollercoasters of their lives. They've been there to discuss and weigh in on my classroom dilemmas and personal predicaments. Where will the new voices of reason come from?

Wary of only my spouse for interaction, I have big plans. I've applied to join a committee for my community — one that meets monthly to review permits for home improvements, paint colors, and landscape design.

Two Mahjong sets have been growing dusty in my closet for decades. I've found a beginner's group that meets twice monthly that I have every intention of joining. I'm hopeful that Mahjong will keep the cobwebs from settling into the corners of my brain and give me a new group of peers.

Additionally, it's been easy to push off any amount of formal exercise with the "I don't have time" excuse. Now that I'll have the time in retirement, what will my new exercise regime look like? For 20 years, it's been steps in the school building that have been my only exercise. I've always known I need to stave off osteoporosis with weight resistance training, but now will be the time to pick up a dumbbell.

I'm not sure who I am without my job

Finally, for the last 20 years, I have proudly proclaimed that "I teach high school" to anyone who asks about my employment. What will the next answer be? I haven't found one that I'm comfortable with.

I'm not quite ready to say, "I'm retired." That phrase carries too many negative connotations for me. More than 30 years later, I finally understand why my former mother-in-law didn't embrace her new status as "grandmother" with any enthusiasm. Titles carry weight, and I'm not ready to shoulder "retiree."

• Young Gen Z adults are skipping college in favor of trade schools and tech training.
• In doing so, they avoid student loan debt and enter a fast track to steady employment.
• Skilled trades like electricians and plumbers are unlikely to be taken over by AI any time soon.

Despite a bad reputation for devaluing education and sneering at work, Gen Z might just be thinking outside the box.

Turns out, some young workers have no problem with getting their hands dirty — even really dirty — they just have no interest in a desk job or a 4-year degree to get there.

Trade school and technical training are where it's at these days. The National Student Clearinghouse reported that enrollment in vocational-focused community colleges rose about 16% last year — its highest level since the educational nonprofit began tracking the data in 2018.

From spring 2021 to 2022, mechanic and repair programs saw an increase in enrollment of 11.5%, the number of students in construction trade courses rose by 19.3%, and culinary programs saw a boost of 12.7%, according to the Clearinghouse. Two-year and four-year colleges saw enrollment declines of 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively, over the same time period.

Gen Z just doesn't see college as the only road to a well-paying, stable job anymore, according to a survey by New America, which found more than half of 12- to 27-year-old respondents saying they believe it's possible to find a steady career with just a high school diploma.

"These kids are looking for relevance. They want to be able to connect what they're learning with what happens next," Jean Eddy, president of American Student Assistance, a nonprofit dedicated to helping students navigate the educational system and workforce, told the nonprofit education outlet, The Hechinger Report. "I think many, many families and certainly the majority of young people today are questioning the return on investment for higher education."

Business Insider previously reported on a pre-med Gen Z student who found being an electrician is more satisfying than working in medicine and an 18-year-old in New Hampshire looking to work in the solar industry rather than attend a traditional four-year college.

"Unlike in an office job where you go to the same building daily, I work somewhere different every day. I experience different things and see different people every day," 27-year-old Lexis Czumak-Abreu told BI. "When a job is finished, I feel a sense of accomplishment and closure. I finish it and move on to another. It doesn't feel like one long job forever."

Elaina Farnsworth, cofounder of Skillfusion, an electric vehicle diagnostic technician credentialing program, told BI she has seen a significant increase in Gen Z and other young workers applying for her program and other trade credentialing programs over college.

And she thinks that's a good thing, both for the industry and for the young professionals themselves.

"I think there is more opportunity for — and upcoming workers have more of an appetite for — stackable credentials, or what we like to call microlearning tracks," Farnsworth said. "That includes things like Khan Academy, technical schools, and smaller, shorter bits of information that will equip them to do the work they love. That is the trend that we're seeing and it's much more fulfilling to them."

• A terse 2016 email from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has gone viral.
• He told his employees to just "figure out how to do" something, offering little help.
• Here are other infamous times workers might have felt the heat from a tech CEO's tense email.

Face it. We've all had a boss (or two) who scared us. It's a canon event, but it can still be an alarming one for those who have never dealt with it before.

Employees at Meta, for instance, may be feeling the scary boss angst as newly released emails from a terse Mark Zuckerberg went viral this week.

"You should figure out how to do this," the CEO wrote to a subordinate in 2016, according to documents released by a California court this week.

Yikes. Here are some other times executives in the tech sector probably gave their employees the chills over email.

Mark Zuckerberg

Let's start with another one from Zuckerberg. He's had a few.

In 2010, he sent employees an email with the subject line "please resign" after inaccurate information about Facebook's products was leaked to the press.

"I'm asking whoever leaked this to resign immediately," The New York Post reported. "If you believe that it's ever appropriate to leak internal information, you should leave. If you don't resign, we will almost certainly find out who you are anyway."

Elon Musk

Elon Musk is a little more straightforward.

As many execs tried to herd their employees back to the office after the COVID-19 pandemic, Musk gave his Tesla workers more direct return-to-office instructions.

"Anyone who wishes to do remote work must be in the office for a minimum (and I mean minimum) of 40 hours a week or depart Tesla. This is less than we ask of factory workers," Musk wrote in an email in 2022, according to CNN. "If you don't show up, we will assume you have resigned."

Jeff Bezos

When Amazon founder and executive chair Jeff Bezos was unhappy with his team, he let a single question mark express his emotions.

He employed the tactic when he got emails from upset customers, he said in 2018.

"I see most of those emails. I see them and I forward them to the executives in charge of the area with a question mark. It's shorthand [for], 'Can you look into this?' 'Why is this happening?'" Bezos said.

Tim Cook

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, has also taken a sharp tone with employees, leaked emails revealed in 2021.

Cook scolded his employees over email after the contents of an internal meeting leaked to the press, The Verge reported.

"As you know, we do not tolerate disclosures of confidential information," Cook wrote after the incident. "We know that the leakers constitute a small number of people. We also know that people who leak confidential information do not belong here."

Bob Iger

While perhaps not as scathing as others, Disney CEO Bob Iger has delivered brutal news to employees via email.

In early 2023, Iger announced to his staff via email that the company was eliminating 7,000 jobs, telling employees that they would be notified if they were being shown the door "over the next four days."

He added that additional layoffs of "several thousand more staff" would happen in the following months.

Rough.

Andy Jassy

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy gave strict instructions to his employees about returning to the office, putting them on notice that their job security was at stake.

"It's past the time to disagree and commit," he said in 2023. "And if you can't disagree and commit, I also understand that, but it's probably not going to work out for you at Amazon because we are going back to the office at least three days a week, and it's not right for all of our teammates to be in three days a week and for people to refuse to do so."

• Claire Brooks has been an employment partner at a law firm for nearly 20 years. 
• Brooks advises employers in everything from contract issues to complex dismissals. 
• She said employees should emphasise how a sabbatical can  benefit the business and be reasonable.

This is an as-told-to essay based on a transcribed conversation with Claire Brooks, an employment specialist solicitor at Araon and Partners in England. It has been edited for length and clarity.

A sabbatical is a break from work, usually for a defined time period. People might take career breaks to pursue other business interests, participate in a charitable initiative, have an extended holiday, or explore the world. Alternatively, they might have caring responsibilities. Ultimately, it could be for any reason — sometimes people want time out.

There are two main ways of doing it. The first is effectively ending your employment with the option to return. This has more advantages for an employer, who won't have the ongoing liability of an employee accruing length of service and retaining their employment rights — or paying a salary, holiday, and pension — while the employee is away.

The more common option, and the more useful for an employee, is where employment continues. This might be paid or a mixture of paid and unpaid leave. Usually, these kinds of sabbaticals are shorter – between three and six months. For a longer period of a year or more, a mutually agreed termination arrangement is more likely.

A career break has advantages for both employees and employers. It can help hardworking, long-standing staff avoid burnout, particularly where their work is very intense. For employers, it can be hugely beneficial for staff well-being and retention.

How to request a sabbatical

There is no legal entitlement to a sabbatical, but it's still reasonable to discuss one with your employer.

There is no rule about how long you need to have worked for an organization before requesting a sabbatical, but they are generally provided to more senior, long-standing staff.

Check whether your company has a sabbatical policy

If your company already has a sabbatical policy, you should follow it. It should explain the eligibility requirements and criteria for applying, the key arrangements, and the application process.

If there isn't a policy in place, employees should have an initial conversation with their line manager or HR to determine whether they would consider it. You might ask: "If you were open to considering a sabbatical, what would you want to see from me? Is there anything you'd like to see me demonstrating as part of that application?"

Prepare a business case

Prepare a business case for the career break to present to your employer. Your line manager is generally the best person to have this conversation with. Do this with as much notice as possible to give them the opportunity to think about it and decide whether it's something they can support.

Explain what you're looking to do, how long you'd like to take off, and your proposal. Reassure your employer that you're asking for leave for a reason they can support and that it's not for a purpose that might cause concern, like a conflicting business interest.

Show that you have thought about how you'll keep up to date with the role, how you'd like to engage with the organization while you're away, how your responsibilities could be covered, and how you see the return to the role afterward.

Highlight the advantages for the organization

It's useful to demonstrate your value — and your future value. Explain to your boss how the sabbatical can benefit them upon your return, especially if it's being funded.

The key to success is to demonstrate the potential advantages for the organization. Find out what's important to your employer and how your request meets their aims and priorities. Organizations usually have a written set of values — use those to frame your request.

Aim high

You can request a paid sabbatical in the first instance unless your company has a contrary policy or practice. If that is unacceptable to your employer, consider whether an unpaid sabbatical would work for you. If so, follow up with your employer.

Clearly, a paid sabbatical is more attractive to the employee, but the employer may be more willing to support an unpaid sabbatical, given the cost to the company.

Be willing to compromise

My best advice is to be realistic about what you're asking for and willing to compromise. Always think: What would I think if this request were presented to me? Putting yourself in their shoes will help you put together a more reasonable request: one which sets out the reason for the sabbatical, how it will help you and your employer in the long term and puts forward a sensible business case It might include requesting an appropriate length of time away, accepting a combination of paid and unpaid leave, or not receiving a bonus while you are on sabbatical.

You can still negotiate with your employer once you've applied for a sabbatical, and vice versa. Showing reasonableness and a willingness to negotiate will help to reach terms that will work for both parties.

What happens if your employer says yes?

We would always recommend that a sabbatical is set out in a very clear agreement in writing, usually drawn up by a solicitor. A properly drafted agreement avoids ambiguity and confusion. It should state how pay will work — including pay rises, bonuses, holiday and benefits — just like any other form of leave agreement. It should detail arrangements for the return to work: whether the employee will be entitled to return to their role and the circumstances under which they would be offered an alternative.

It will also need a termination provision explaining what notice the employee would be required to give if they didn't return to work and any clawback provisions — which might require the employee to repay any money or the value of any benefits they receive — in place.

It's important to ensure that the employees maintain contact and update their contact information while they are away, too.

And if it's a no?

Consider alternatives like flexible or part-time work. Since 6 April this year, any employee has the right to make a flexible working application from day one, regardless of how long they have been employed at their organization. If you want to go part-time or have a regular volunteering day, for any reason, you can make the request.

I think employers are increasingly open to flexibility, and I would advise them to consider employee requests with an open mind. If requests are taken seriously, employers can maintain trust in a much better way and ensure that employees feel valued moving forwards.

As told to Emma Magnus. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

• As the 2024 race heats up, Trump is getting support from a variety of billionaires.
• Some are true believers, while others backed Trump's GOP rivals before coming around to him.
• Here are some of the billionaires who are contributing to Trump this year.

As former President Donald Trump seeks a second term in the White House, he's increasingly turning to billionaires to power his campaign.

Some of them are longtime associates and supporters — true believers who know the former president from his days in the business world.

Others may be relative newcomers, such as long-time GOP megadonors who backed his 2016 or 2024 rivals.

One of Trump's billionaire supporters is North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, the former software mogul who sought the GOP nomination in 2024 and is now in contention to be VP.

"If you're a billionaire and you care about your shareholders, you care about your family, you care about your grandkids, you should be voting for someone that's going to bring prosperity to America and peace to the world," Burgum said on Fox News in April.

Here's an extensive — though not exhaustive — list of some of the billionaires who are contributing to Trump's 2024 campaign, including to his "Trump 47" joint fundraising committee, which splits proceeds between the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee.

Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein

Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein — the founders of Uline, a packing and shipping company — have long been reliable donors to a variety of conservative causes and candidates.

That included bankrolling an effort to make it harder to amend the Ohio constitution in 2023.

The Uihleins started this cycle supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's presidential bid. Each gave $1.5 million to DeSantis's super PAC, Never Back Down.

Elizabeth told The Financial Times in March that she and her husband would donate a similar amount to Trump — while also bemoaning the fact that she and her husband had to spend money on the presidential race at all.

"These two guys are very well-defined. I don't understand why everybody has to give all this money," she told the outlet, referring to Trump and Biden. "Neither of them have to spend a penny. We all know who they are. It's ridiculous."

Kelly Loeffler and Jeff Sprecher

Former Sen. Kelly Loeffler and her husband, Jeff Sprecher, have each contributed $824,600 to the Trump 47 Committee.

Loeffler was appointed to the Senate at the end of 2019 by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp after the death of Sen. Johnny Isakson.

She later lost in a runoff election in January 2021 to Democrat Raphael Warnock, who went on to win a full term in 2022.

Sprecher, meanwhile, is the CEO of Intercontinental Exchange and previously served as the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.

Joe Ricketts

Joe Ricketts, the founder and former CEO of TD Ameritrade, has given $824,600 to the Trump 47 Committee. His wife, Marleen, gave $814,600.

In 2019, Ricketts — whose family owns the Chicago Cubs — was found to have sent racist and Islamophobic emails during the 2012 election, for which he later apologized.

"Christians and Jews can have a mutual respect for each other to create a civil society. As you know, Islam cannot do that," Ricketts wrote in one 2012 email. "Therefore we cannot ever let Islam become a large part of our society. Muslims are naturally my (our) enemy due to their deep antagonism and bias against non-Muslims."

Last year, one of Ricketts' sons — former Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts — was appointed to the US Senate after former Sen. Ben Sasse opted to retire.

The younger Ricketts is likely to be elected to the remainder of Sasse's term in November.

Robert Bigelow

Robert Bigelow, the hotel chain mogul who launched a spaceflight company in 2018, was originally a major DeSantis donor this cycle.

"I will give him more money and go without food," Bigelow told TIME after pouring more than $20 million into the Florida governor's "Never Back Down" super PAC in March 2023.

He has since pivoted, donating more than $10 million to Trump-aligned PACs since February 2024.

Bigelow also told Reuters in January that he would be contributing $1 million to pay Trump's mounting legal fees as well.

"I was just sympathetic. They didn't solicit anything from me," Bigelow told the outlet.

Linda McMahon

Linda McMahon, who founded World Wrestling Entertainment with her husband Vince, has given $10 million to the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc. super PAC, along with $814,600 to the Trump 47 Committee.

McMahon served as the head of the Small Business Administration from 2017-2019 under Trump.

She's also the chair of the board of the America First Policy Institute, a Trump-aligned think tank.

Phil Ruffin

Phil Ruffin, a casino magnate, has contributed $2 million to Trump's MAGA Inc. super PAC and $814,600 to the Trump 47 Committee.

Ruffin is a long-time associate and business partner of Trump's — he co-owns the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas alongside the Trump Organization.

Ruffin also accompanied Trump to Moscow in 2013 for the Miss Universe Pageant.

That trip figured prominently in the largely unverified Steele Dossier, which alleged that the Russians may have blackmailed Trump by filming him being urinated on by Russian prostitutes.

Geoffrey Palmer

Geoffrey Palmer, a Los Angeles-based real estate developer, has also given $2 million to Trump's MAGA Inc. super PAC and $814,600 to the Trump 47 Committee.

Palmer has hosted Trump for multiple fundraisers in Los Angeles, including one that took place in September 2023.

José "Pepe" Fanjul

Fanjul, a sugar magnate, has given $814,600 to the Trump 47 Committee.

While José Fanjul has long been a GOP megadonor, his brother Alfonso has a history as a major Democratic megadonor.

Kelcy Warren

Kelcy Warren, the chairman and former CEO of the pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners, has given $814,600 to the Trump 47 Committee.

Warren's company is the owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline, the construction of which spurred major protests by environmental activists and the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in 2016.

Though he was a major Trump donor in 2020, he also donated $26,400 to a pro-DeSantis super PAC in June 2023.

Warren co-hosted a fundraiser for Trump in Houston in May.

Robert and Rebekah Mercer

Robert Mercer, a former hedge fund CEO, has given $814,399 to the Trump 47 Committee.

Both Robert and his daughter Rebekah have been major contributors to pro-Trump and more anti-establishment conservative causes, including helping to fund the right-wing Breitbart website and the conservative social media app Parler.

John Paulson

John Paulson, a billionaire hedge fund manager, has contributed $806,300 to the Trump 47 Committee.

He's long been an associate of the former president and has advised him an economic matters. Bloomberg recently reported that he could serve as Treasury Secretary under a second Trump administration.

In April, Paulson hosted Trump and his wife, Melania, for a fundraiser at his Palm Beach home.

That event, attended by several other billionaires on this list, raised more than $50 million, according to the campaign.

Woody Johnson

Woody Johnson, an heir to the Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutical fortune and a co-owner of the New York Jets with his brother, has been a major financial backer of Trump's.

He's given $1 million to the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc. super PAC, and both Johnson and his wife Suzanne recently contributed $806,300 apiece to the Trump 47 Committee.

Johnson served as the US Ambassador to the United Kingdom during Trump's presidency.

Steve Wynn

Casino mogul and real estate developer Steve Wynn has given $806,300 to the Trump 47 Committee this year.

Wynn, a longtime GOP megadonor, served as the vice-chairman of Trump's inaugural committee in 2017.

He has been accused of both sexual misconduct and of acting as a foreign agent on behalf of China, though a judge tossed out the latter charge.

Harold Hamm

Harold Hamm, an oil and gas magnate, has contributed $614,000 to the Trump 47 Committee and $200,000 to the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc. super PAC.

"Republican, Democrat… I'm an oilocrat," he told the Financial Times in 2022.

Despite his current supporter for Trump — and his attendance of numerous fundraisers on the former president's behalf — Hamm contributed thousands to both Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former Ambassador Nikki Haley last year.

He even reportedly told Trump in 2023 that he should end his presidential campaign, citing his "chaos."

"I know he wasn't happy," Hamm told the Financial Times of the call. "That's all I can do. How seriously he takes that recommendation, I don't know."

Ike Perlmutter

Isaac "Ike" Perlmutter, the former chairman of Marvel Entertainment, has long been an informal advisor to Trump, including on veterans' affairs.

He reportedly became friends with the former president through his membership at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

In March, Perlmutter and his wife Laura each gave $5 million to Right for America, a pro-Trump super PAC.

• China is banning social media influencers for flaunting lavish lifestyles and promoting materialism.
• The Cyberspace Administration of China launched a crackdown to discourage wealth displays in April.
• An influencer dubbed "China's Kim Kardashian" was barred from Douyin, the Financial Times reported.

Flaunting a lavish lifestyle to promote materialism can get you thrown off social media in China.

Since April, China has been busy cracking down on influencers who promote ostentatious lifestyles as a means of gaining profit.

China's internet regulator, Cyberspace Administration of China, launched a campaign last month to discourage social media users from "deliberately showcasing a lavish lifestyle built on wealth," the Financial Times reported.

One influencer who's been a casualty of the crackdown is Wang Hongquanxing, who's been dubbed "China's Kim Kardashian" and had 4.3 million followers on the Chinese version of TikTok, Douyin, the report said.

Others, including "Sister Abalone," who had over 2 million followers and gave tours of her luxurious homes, and "Mr Bo," who posted about luxury goods, have also had their accounts restricted, per the FT.

Platforms like Weibo, Douyin, and Xiaohongshu announced a wave of measures to curb ostentatious behavior on May 15.

Weibo's list of conduct that could see influencers barred includes showing off luxury homes and cars to promote products, flaunting large amounts of cash, and posting minors using luxury goods to "attract traffic and hype."

In 2021, China launched similar measures to curb influencers posting "unethical" content.

The Cyberspace Administration of China announced at the time that celebrities could no longer "show off wealth" or "extravagant pleasure" on social media.

China has also clamped down on influencers posting fabricated stories online.

Influencer "Thurman Maoyibei" had her Doyin, Weibo, and BiliBili accounts seized in April after she shared a fake story of a boy whose homework books went missing, BBC News reported.

In the video, which went viral, she reportedly claimed that a coffee shop worker in Paris gave her two homework books that belonged to a Chinese student and said she'd return them to him.

This led to a viral hashtag and campaign to find the student.

China's Ministry of Public Security said the incident was a "typical example" of it taking action against misinformation, the BBC reported.

According to the report, the influencer apologized for "polluting the internet," and police said she and her company could receive a warning or detention as punishment.

Weibo, Douyin and Xiaohongshu didn't immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider, made outside normal working hours.

• In closing arguments, the Trump defense will attack the credibility of key witnesses.
• But jurors may not need to believe Michael Cohen, David Pecker, or Stormy Daniels to convict Trump.
• Here are 10 persuasive pieces of evidence that practically speak for themselves.

During Tuesday's closing arguments in the Donald Trump hush-money trial, jurors are sure to hear a lot about the motives and credibility of key prosecution witnesses Michael Cohen, David Pecker, and Stormy Daniels.

But jurors may not need to believe these witnesses to convict Trump.

Here are 10 stand-alone pieces of evidence that practically speak for themselves.

1. "So, what do we got to pay for this?"

"So, what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?" Trump asks his attorney and "fixer," Cohen, just two months before the 2016 election. "Pay with cash," Trump then instructs.

This phone conversation, secretly recorded by Cohen, catches Trump calling the shots as the two men discuss financing for a $150,000 hush-money payment. The hush money was meant to keep voters in the dark about former Playboy model Karen McDougal's claim — denied by Trump — of a nearly yearlong affair with the then-Apprentice star in 2006.

Why is this taped Trump-Cohen phone call, labeled People's Exhibit 246, important? Because it makes it impossible for Trump to say he had no role in hush-money financing.

Prosecutors can be expected to argue that this recording directly connects Trump to an illegal campaign conspiracy.

As they alleged in opening statements, this conspiracy influenced the election by purchasing the silence of McDougal and — for $130,000 more — of porn star Daniels. Trump's indictment alleges he falsified 34 business records throughout 2017, his first year in office, to cover up Daniels' hush money.

The Trump-Cohen phone call shows Trump in the pilot's seat of the conspiracy, prosecutors will argue. Or, at the very least, he's in the cabin with Cohen. Also in the conspiracy cabin: Trump's then-CFO, Allen Weisselberg, and Pecker, the then-National Enquirer publisher, both of whom are name-dropped in the tape.

People's 248 is a transcript of this important call, available here. The actual audio can be heard here.

2. *** THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS***********

Nine times throughout his first year in office, Trump signed checks that are now key exhibits in the hush-money trial. Each was drawn on his personal bank account. Each paid Cohen $35,000 as a "retainer."

And each check, prosecutors say, is a felony-level falsified business record. These nine checks are our second smoking gun.

According to his indictment, the checks reimbursed Cohen in monthly installments for the $130,000 wired to Daniels just 11 days before the 2016 election, along with some other money Cohen was due.

Why are these hand-signed checks so important?

Trump can argue that he never saw or handled most of the 34 business records that prosecutors say he "caused" to be falsified to hide the Daniels hush money, records that include a year's worth of bogus Cohen "retainer" invoices and entries in the Trump Org business ledgers.

But Trump cannot claim he never saw or handled these nine checks.

And that $35,000 amount on each check?

That amount matches exactly the $35,000 figure that Trump's then-chief financial officer, Weisselberg, landed on when calculating Cohen's monthly reimbursements — as shown in People's Exhibit 35, described below.

3. "PAY … ASAP … OK"

Defense lawyer Todd Blanche will likely argue on Tuesday that Trump was too busy running the country to have bothered with the nitty-gritty of falsifying documents. Trump was especially distracted — even "multi-tasking" — when he signed each of those nine checks, the defense has already suggested.

But People's 71 — a January 2017 invoice from the Winged Foot Golf Club in Mamaroneck, New York — strongly suggests otherwise. See People's 71 in its entirety here.

Why is this evidence — our third smoking gun — so important?

The invoice shows Trump personally signing off on the golf club's $6,974.01 annual dues and "food minimum."

It's proof that Trump continued to pay close attention to his personal spending in 2017.

Trump's former White House executive assistant, Madeleine Westerhout, showed jurors this exhibit when she took the stand earlier this month, delivering a big blow to the "multi-tasking" defense.

Westerhout also showed jurors emails revealing that, in June 2017, she got Trump's advance approval for the purchase, with his money, of a $650 Tiffany picture frame. Trump wanted to display a photo of his mother, Westerhout said, on the credenza behind his desk in the Oval Office.

The frame was 15% off, Trump was told before he approved its purchase.

So even in the White House, we have Trump signing off on golf fees and picture frames.

This proven micromanaging makes it easier for prosecutors to argue that Trump was paying attention when he signed $35,000 of his own cash over to Cohen — who testified that his actual legal work as personal attorney to the president amounted to less than 20 hours in all of 2017.

4. The single most important piece of evidence in the case

We now turn to the most important evidence in the case — People's 35, our fourth smoking gun.

This is an October 2016 First Republic bank statement. Both Cohen and Weisselberg scribbled calculations on it.

Why is this bank statement important?

Because on just one page, it records Cohen wiring the $130,000 in hush money to Daniels' attorney just 11 days before the 2016 election.

But there's more: it also shows the Weisselbergian math behind Cohen's $35,000 hush-money reimbursement checks.

And the two sets of handwriting — Cohen's and Weisselberg's — scrawled across the bottom show the alleged conspiring of Trump's closest lieutenants at the time: his fixer and his top numbers man.

People's 35 does not have Trump's fingerprints on it. Jurors have only Cohen's word that Trump saw it. But prosecutors can argue Tuesday that it clinches the case for conspiracy and records-falsification — subject to connection to Trump himself.

It will be up to jurors to decide if Trump would have blindly affixed his signature to nine $35,000 checks if he really believed they were "retainers" as labeled — and if he really believed he was paying a lawyer who hardly worked for him anymore.

It will also be up to jurors to decide if Cohen and Weisselberg would have cooked Trump's books — hiding the true nature of what Cohen was being paid for — without the knowledge and approval of Trump, the micromanaging boss footing the bill.

Read Business Insider's deep dive on People's 35 here.

5. "Sleep well tonight, you have friends in high places."

Fast forward to 2018. Trump has been in office for a year and, thanks to The Wall Street Journal, the world now knows about his porn-star hush-money scandal.

In early April, the FBI raided Cohen's office and apartment, seizing evidence it would later use to successfully prosecute him for his illegal $130,000 contribution to his boss's campaign.

Throughout April, Trump worried Cohen would "flip" against him, prosecutors argue. So Trump, they say, authorized a communications back channel, whereby Cohen could talk to attorney Robert Costello, who could relay messages to his buddy Rudy Giuliani, then Trump's lawyer.

This alleged Trump-to-Giuliani-to-Costello-to-Cohen back channel is evident in this prosecution exhibit, People's 205. This is the infamous "Friends in high places" email that would be featured in the "obstruction" section of the Mueller Report.

Why is this April 21, 2018 email — People's Exhibit 205 — important?

It suggests the nearly invisible hand of Trump, covertly pulling strings to keep Cohen from cooperating with the justice department and spilling any election conspiracy beans.

6. "He will make sure to tell the President"

In another email from that same day, People's Exhibit 204, Cohen is assured of Giuliani's gratitude for "this back channel of communication" to Trump.

This email, our gun number 6, again shows the covert, thrice-removed hand of Trump, pulling strings.

"I just spoke to Rudy Giuliani and told him I was on your team," Costello tells Cohen in the email.

"Rudy was thrilled and said this could not be a better situation for the President or you. He asked me if it was OK to call the President and (then-Trump lawyer) Jay Sekelow and I said fine," the email continues.

Giuliani "asked me to tell you that he knows how tough this is on your family and he will make sue [CQ] to tell the President," the email says.

7. "From which he entered into, through reimbursement…"

A week later, on May 3, 2018, the hush-money scandal was still in the news, and Trump posted what he may have believed would be a self-exonerating tweet.

Why is this panicked-sounding, somewhat garbled tweet important?

It's Trump acknowledging what prosecutors allege in those 34 felony falsification counts: That he knew Cohen's monthly retainer checks were not for legal fees at all.

Instead, they were "reimbursement" (Trump's word) for "a non-disclosure agreement" (Trump's word again) — also known as hush money.

Trump tweets this admission just five months after signing his last $35,000 "retainer" check to Cohen.

8. "Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017"

Twelve days later, on May 15, 2018, Trump affixed his black-Sharpie signature to a routine government disclosure form called an "Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report."

Prosecutors call this document People's Exhibit 81. It's the then-president's mandatory disclosure of his assets and liabilities.

Under "Liablities" — which is the section where Trump must list the money he's borrowed — Trump certifies that in 2017, he "fully reimbursed" Cohen an interest-free sum of between $100,000 and $250,000.

Why is this footnote on page 45 important? Prosecutors say it reflects Trump's admission that he repaid Cohen's $130,000 hush-money outlay.

In closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutors may well put People's 81 back on the courtroom display screens.

They'll scroll past Trump's signature to page 45 and say the footnote proves the then-president knew he was reimbursing Cohen for hush money throughout 2017 — not paying legal fees as his falsified business records claimed.

9. The AMI non-prosecution agreement

On September 21, 2018, lawyers for Pecker — then the National Enquirer's publisher — signed a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Manhattan.

This is the Department of Justice agreeing not to prosecute the Enquirer's parent company, AMI, for illegal 2016 contributions "to the campaign of a candidate for President of the United States."

In return, Pecker and AMI's other officers and employees agreed to cooperate in the feds' investigation.

Why is this non-prosecution agreement — People's Exhibit 182 — our ninth smoking gun?

It shows Pecker admitting to same kind of federal campaign-contribution offense — in his case, for the $150,000 in hush money that silenced McDougal on Trump's behalf — that's at the center of the falsification case.

The jury also knows that Cohen, too, pleaded guilty to this same offense: making an illegally high campaign contribution on Trump's behalf, in his case the $130,000 paid to Daniels.

Jurors will be instructed by the judge on Tuesday that they cannot view the AMI agreement and Cohen's guilty plea as proof that Trump, too, violated federal campaign finance law — but these are tough bells to unring.

Read Business Insider's deep-dive story on how the Federal Election Campaign Act is a central element of Trump's charges.

10. Finally, a smoking micro-gun

Finally, here's a smoking micro-gun with some assembly required.

Once assembled, it bolsters Cohen's testimony that shortly after 12 noon on October 26, 2017, Trump gave his final approval to the hush-money payment.

People's 373 is a bank document showing that on that day, First Republic Bank employee Melissa Duran processed Cohen's request for a $131,000 advance on his home-equity loan.

People's 374 is an email showing Duran passing this request to her loan servicing department at 12:22 p.m.

People's 349 is a call log showing that on that day, Cohen called Trump at 12:26 p.m. and Trump called Cohen at 12:34 p.m. Their two phones were connected for a total of 4 minutes and 29 seconds.

Cohen testified that immediately after these calls with Trump, he took the elevator down from his Trump Organization offices at Trump Tower.

Then, he told jurors, he walked across Fifth Avenue to his bank, to finalize the $131,000 transfer out of his home-equity loan, money he'd then wire to Daniels' lawyer the next day.

"Do you have any doubt in your mind that Mr. Trump gave you the final sign-off to go ahead and make the payment before you went to the bank to complete that?" prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Cohen during redirect examination.

"No doubt," Cohen answered.

"Would you have paid Stormy Daniels the $130,000 had Mr. Trump not signed off?"

"No, ma'am," Cohen answered.

"Why not?" the prosecutor asked.

"Because I wanted to ensure that I was going to get my funds back," Cohen answered.

• A Polish official said the US told Russia it would strike Russian targets in Ukraine if Putin used a nuke.
• Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said such US strikes would result in a "world war."
• Putin has regularly issued nuclear threats since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Poland's foreign minister said the US had told Russia that it would strike Russian targets in Ukraine if Putin were to use nuclear weapons.

In an interview with the Guardian, Radosław Sikorski seemed doubtful of Russia's threats about using nuclear weapons, saying: "The Americans have told the Russians that if you explode a nuke, even if it doesn't kill anybody, we will hit all your targets [positions] in Ukraine with conventional weapons, we'll destroy all of them."

"I think that's a credible threat," he said. "Also, the Chinese and the Indians have read Russia the riot act. And it's no child's play because if that taboo were also to be breached, like the taboo of not changing borders by force, China knows that Japan and Korea would go nuclear, and presumably they don't want that."

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev hit back at Sikorski's comments in a post on X, formerly Twitter, saying that US strikes on Russian targets would result in a "world war."

"Americans hitting our targets means starting a world war, and a Foreign Minister, even of a country like Poland should understand that," Medvedev said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently threatened to use nuclear weapons since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

In September of that year — when Russia began the partial mobilization of reservists for the war — Putin raised the specter of nuclear war, adding that his warnings were "not a bluff."

In February of this year, Putin made one of his most explicit threats after French President Emmanual Macron suggested NATO troops could be sent to Ukraine.

Western nations "must realize that we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory," Putin said, adding: "All this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilization. Don't they get that?"

In February, the Financial Times reported on the criteria that would lead Russia to consider a nuclear response, citing leaked documents.

The criteria included conditions such as the destruction of 20% of Russia's strategic ballistic missile submarines or an enemy incursion on Russian territory, per the FT.

In his interview with the Guardian, Sikorski also said that Europe had to learn to play the escalation game better by not fully revealing its hand to Putin.

"Always declaring what our own red line is only invites Moscow to tailor its hostile actions to our constantly changing self-imposed limitations," he said.

• Rising unemployment in nearly half of US states points to a recession this year, one economist says.
• 21 states have seen a jump in joblessness over the last year, Piper Sandler's Nancy Lazar told BI.
• Here are the states signaling a recession is on the way.

Unemployment has risen sharply in nearly half of US states, paving the way for a recession later this year, one top economist says.

Piper Sandler's chief global economist, Nancy Lazar, highlighted 21 states to Business Insider where three-month average unemployment has risen by at least 0.5 percentage points over the past 12 months. The states in question account for over 40% of US GDP.

When unemployment has jumped by that much, in that many states, a recession has almost always followed, Lazar said. The economic indicator is known as the "Sahm Rule."

Here are the 21 states signaling a recession may be on the way:

1. Rhode Island

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.03%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 2.63%

Change: +1.40%

2. Connecticut

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.47%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 3.33%

Change: +1.13%

3. Washington

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.77%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 3.80%

Change: +0.97%

4. Louisiana

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.30%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 3.37%

Change: +0.93%

5. Maine

Three-month average unemployment rate: 3.27%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 2.40%

Change: +0.87%

6. New Hampshire

Three-month average unemployment rate: 2.60%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 1.80%

Change: +0.80%

7. California

Three-month average unemployment rate: 5.30%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 4.50%

Change: +0.80%

8. West Virginia

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.30%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 3.50%

Change: +0.80%

9. Oregon

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.20%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 3.43%

Change: +0.77%

10. Alabama

Three-month average unemployment rate: 3.03%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 2.30%

Change: +0.73%

11. New Jersey

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.77%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 4.03%

Change: +0.73%

12. Montana

Three-month average unemployment rate: 3.27%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 2.53%

Change: +0.73%

13. Alaska

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.60%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 3.87%

Change: +0.73%

14. Arkansas

Three-month average unemployment rate: 3.50%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 2.83%

Change: +0.67%

15. Colorado

Three-month average unemployment rate: 3.63%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 3.00%

Change: +0.63%

16. Maryland

Three-month average unemployment rate: 2.50%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 1.90%

Change: +0.60%

17. Illinois

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.80%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 4.20%

Change: +0.60%

18. Oklahoma

Three-month average unemployment rate: 3.53%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 2.97%

Change: +0.57%

19. Kentucky

Three-month average unemployment rate: 4.50%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 4.00%

Change: +0.50%

20. Ohio

Three-month average unemployment rate: 3.83%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 3.33%

Change: +0.50%

21. Missouri

Three-month average unemployment rate: 3.33%

Lowest unemployment rate in past 12 months: 2.83%

Change: +0.50%

• Donald Trump's prized Boeing 757 private jet is a common backdrop at campaign rallies.
• The aircraft is just one in a collection of personal planes Trump has owned since the 1980s.
• The billionaire spent millions to outfit his fleet with gold-plated interiors and his family crest.

Billionaire business tycoon and ex-US president Donald Trump has a history of flaunting his wealth.

Among his most famous displays is the Boeing 757 private jet that became a centerpiece of his 2016 presidential rallies and has followed him on the campaign trail for his 2024 nomination.

Dubbed "Trump Force One," the aircraft cost him a reported $100 million in 2011 and is outfitted with luxuries like an ensuite bedroom, several living areas, and the Trump family crest.

Trump's collection of private aircraft dates back decades, though it has shrunk over the years.

The billionaire has also owned Sikorsky S-76B helicopters, a nine-seater Cessna Citation X, and a Boeing 727 tri-engine airliner — the latter considered the original Trump Force One.

Trump's prized Boeing 757 is among his most-flown private aircraft, having operated 72 flights so far in 2024.

According to the aircraft-tracking website JetSpy, Trump's 757 plane, registered N757AF, has flown 133 total flight hours since January 1.

That compares to the 270 total flight hours across 132 flights the 757 flew in 2023. Most of his flying is between Palm Beach and New York City-area airports, per JetSpy.

The Trump Organization did not immediately respond to questions about Trump's jet usage.

Trump brought the aircraft out of storage in 2021 and has since been seen flying between his various homes and court appearances.

During his four years as head of state, Trump traveled using the government's presidential fleet and likely did not expect to need his own aircraft so soon after winning his first presidential term.

However, it didn't take long for him to spruce up the 757 with maintenance and a fresh paint job so that it could once again parade around the US.

The aircraft, complete with his name plastered in giant letters across the fuselage, has been the backdrop of Trump's 2024 rallies.

The 757 also served at his 2016 campaign rallies but with an old livery.

"Branding is a very effective business tool. That's No.1," Trump told the Business Jet Traveller in 2011 before he ran for president. "I also enjoy the spotlight."

However, it's an expensive and gas-hungry commodity, costing a collective $2.6 million in fuel and emitting about 4,100 tons of CO2 between 2023 and 2024, according to JetSpy data.

The customized plane has living rooms, bedrooms, televisions, gold-plated seatbelts, and a dining room, among other luxuries.

Trump bought the 33-year-old aircraft from Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, and the $100 million price tag includes the jet and the VIP refurbishments.

The 757 is the second rendition of the ex-president's line of 'Trump Force One' planes. The first was an $8 million Boeing 727 tri-jet.

According to The New York Times, Trump's ownership of passenger airliners dates back to 1997, when he acquired his multimillion Boeing 727.

Registered as VP-BDJ and built in 1968, the aircraft previously flew for American Airlines. The aircraft has since been scrapped by a company called MotoArt, using parts of the fuselage to make keychains sold as "PlaneTags," according to the designer's website.

The three-engine 727 aircraft is about half the size of the 757 and was reportedly still worth up to $8 million when sold, per the Times.

Business Jet Traveler reported that the aircraft was sold in May 2011 after logging more than 40,000 flight hours.

In 2009, an aircraft charter broker told CNN Money that the 727 was worth between $4 million and $8 million but would be expensive to maintain and operate due to its old age and three engines.

Luxuries like gold-plated seatbelts, bedrooms, showers, theater, and bidet touted Trump's riches.

Despite the fancy touches, the aircraft's costly operation made selling uniquely difficult.

"The problem with that plane is that the direct operation costs are so high," the broker told CNN Money. "It has three engines, so it would cost about $10,000 an hour to fly."

"There has to be a specific person who wants that plane — someone who wants it because it belonged to Donald Trump."

Before the 727 was his personal plane, it was part of the 'Trump Shuttle' fleet — a now-defunct US carrier that the ex-president owned until 1992.

Trump bought a US airline called Eastern Air Shuttle and its 17 Boeing 727s in 1988 for $365 million, according to a Washington Post article from the same year.

His vision turned the initially no-frills operation into a luxury carrier, outfitting the planes with luxe interiors, inflight calling, and free meals and drinks.

The plan worked for a while, but the high operating costs weren't sustainable, and Trump Shuttle came under US Airways in 1992 and eventually American Airlines via a merger.

Aside from his Boeing airliners, Trump has also galavanted around the world in a smaller Cessna Citation X business jet.

The Trump Organization's website says the Cessna's size makes it useful for flying into smaller airports that the 757 can't.

The speedy 1997 Cessna Citation X, registered N725DT, was regularly seen along Trump's campaign trail.

The tail number nods to Trump Tower's New York City address, 725 Fifth Avenue, while the "DT" is Donald Trump's initials.

Trump's Cessna was less flashy than his airliners, sporting just the family crest on the fuselage instead of his name in giant letters.

The "rocket in the sky" had space for up to nine people in the usual luxe interior.

Trump's Citation X variant could fly up to Mach 0.92, making it the fastest purpose-made business jet in existence until the updated Cessna Citation X+ first flew in 2012.

He could use it for longer journeys, like New York to California or Florida.

The Cessna shuttled Trump to rallies in 2016, though at one point it was flying illegally.

Trump failed to renew the Cessna's registration when it expired in January 2016 but continued to fly it until the error was caught about three months later, The New York Times reported. He said the FAA sent the renewal notices to the wrong address.

Nevertheless, Trump avoided a lengthy re-registration process by establishing a new LLC in Delaware and selling the Cessna to that company.

This triggered a temporary registration, which the Times reported is granted to new aircraft owners and lets the plane fly again almost immediately.

However, Trump has recently sold the 27-year-old Cessna. FAA records show the jet was de-registered on May 13.

Jet Edge Partners, an Ohio-based aircraft broker, organized the sale of Trump's Citation X.

Sale details are unknown, but private charter company EvoJets estimates the acquisition price of a used Cessna Citation X would be around $10 million.

Beyond jet aircraft, Trump's fleet has sported one Airbus and three Sikorsky S-76 helicopters.

In addition to personal helicopters, the business mogul also owned a helicopter service called Trump Air as a connector to his Trump Shuttle flights, BJT reported.

The service used Sikorsky S-61 and Boeing Chinooks before going under alongside the airline.

In total, Trump has owned two 1989 S-76s, one 1990 S-76, and a Eurocopter Super Puma.

According to the Times' 2016 report, the two 1989 S-76s were worth $875,000, and the 1990 version was about $940,000.

While billionaires like Elon Musk fly modern private planes built in the 2010s, Trump typically buys older aircraft. In 2016, he told the Times that this strategy ensured he got good value out of his fleet.

"It was a little more plane than I needed, but I find it hard to resist a good deal when the opportunity presents itself," he said, referring to the 757.

Probably his most famous helicopter, registered N76DT, sported the recognizable Trump logo and his staple red, black, and white livery.

Trump acquired N76DT in 2010 and used it for shorter hops on routes from New York to Boston and Washington, DC.

According to the Times, the other 1989 Sikorsky was purchased in 2014, and the 1990 variant, registered N76TE, was bought in 2012.

N76TE was used for things like marketing Trump's Scotland golf courses, taking the now-deregistered G-TRMP tail number in the UK.

The helicopter interiors sport the same luxe vibes as his private planes, with Trump branding, leather seats, and gold finishings.

Famous for its use on "The Apprentice," the six-seater N67DT had two recliners and a four-person divan. The door panels were covered with leather and gold, and the wood interior was African mahogany.

According to CNBC, the interior of the similarly-looking N76TE helicopter cost Trump $6 million thanks to the significant gold-plating.

Since leaving office, Trump has put up two helicopters for sale, registrations N76TE and N76DT.

FAA records show neither is registered to an active aircraft, but both tail numbers have been reserved by Trump — likely to attach to any future helicopter or planes he chooses to buy.

Trump's third S-76, tail number N7TP, is still registered with the FAA.

The details of the sales are unknown, but The Independent reported that pre-owned S-76Bs typically sell for around $ 1 million.

When Trump put N76DT on the market, anyone could bid. The aircraft had operated some 20,000 flights in its 30 years of life.

The sale of both helicopters would bring Trump's once five-strong fleet of personal aircraft down to two.

Despite selling off some of his aircraft, Trump has still held onto two — and he's hoping to keep them amid his ongoing legal battles.

The Associated Press reported in March that the ex-president could have lost his prized 757 had he not settled the $454 million civil penalty he owed New York after losing a recent fraud case.

Considering the 757 aircraft has not only become an iconic symbol of Trump's riches as he vyes for the 2024 presidency, it's unlikely he'll willingly part with the VIP plane anytime soon.