President Trump is seen here after signing a range of executive orders on Jan. 23.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
The Office of Management and Budget has rescinded its call for a pause on federal assistance, according to the agency’s memo shared by Democracy Forward, which led a legal challenge over the effort. But the White House said that only the original memo calling for the freeze had been rescinded.
The new memo says the heads of executive departments and agencies should contact their general counsels “if you have questions about implementing the President’s Executive Orders.”
“Facing legal pressure from our clients and in the wake of a federal judge ruling in our case last evening, the Trump-Vance administration has abandoned OMB’s ordered federal funding freeze,” Democracy Forward said in a statement. “We are proud of our courageous clients — who represent communities across the nation — for going to court to stop the administration’s unlawful actions.”
But Caroline Leavitt, the White House spokeswoman, told reporters that the move simply meant a recession of the memo.
She said efforts to “end the egregious waste of federal funding” will continue. She said the OMB memo has been rescinded “to end any confusion on federal policy created by the court ruling and the dishonest media coverage.” The administration expects that rescinding the memo will end the court case against it.
After widespread confusion from the initially very broad memo calling for a halt in federal assistance, pending review, the White House tried Tuesday to further clarify which programs would not be affected, later specifying that it would not impact Medicaid and SNAP programs, for example.
This latest statement from the White House is likely to add to the confusion rather than clarify it.
Wednesday’s developments follow a federal judge’s order Tuesday that temporarily blocked the effort to pause federal payments for grants and other programs.
Under the original OMB memo obtained by NPR, a temporary pause in funding was set to take effect Tuesday evening, but a senior administration official said that the pause could be as short as a day if an agency determines its programs are in compliance.
The official said the directive should not be interpreted as a full funding freeze. The official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the internal memo, said that agencies are supposed to review their grants, loans and programs to ensure that they align with the new administration’s priorities.
Administration officials have insisted that the impacts are misunderstood, but the actual text of the memo is far-reaching and the follow-up guidance has been vague. On Tuesday afternoon, the White House issued a fact sheet that said “the pause does not apply across-the-board” and that “any program that provides direct benefits to Americans” — like Social Security, Medicare and food stamps — “is explicitly excluded.”
The spending memo quickly drew legal challenges on Tuesday.
The nonprofit organizations that won the temporary stay Tuesday had claimed in their filing that the memo “fails to explain the source of OMB’s purported legal authority to gut every grant program in the federal government.” The groups also said that the memo failed to consider the interests of grant recipients, “including those to whom money had already been promised.”
Shortly after the decision by the federal Judge Tuesday, a group of attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a separate challenge in federal court.
Congressional reaction
The order provided an early litmus test for just how willing Congressional Republicans would be to cede their power of the purse in deference to the leader of their party – even temporarily.
The order came late Monday night, as House Republicans were gathered at an annual conference in Trump’s backyard at his Doral golf course and resort.
And, by and large, most Congressional Republicans who spoke about the memo said it was a means to an end to implement Trump’s agenda, which is his prerogative.
House Speaker Mike Johnson called it “an application of common sense,” and said it would “be harmless in the end.”
At least one person at the retreat, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said a heads up would have been helpful.
“How are we supposed to defend [it] if we don’t know what’s coming out and what it really means? And I’ve got constituents calling so it’s just part of life,” he said.
Back on Capitol Hill, North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer acknowledged the move questions the authority of Congress, but said he wasn’t concerned.
“[Trump’s] testing his own authority,” Cramer told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “He’s getting some guidance that presidents have more authority than they’d traditionally used.”
Cramer said he supports a pause to reevaluate spending, although he said the move will likely face legal challenges and called the decision a “major test of separation of powers.”
Idaho Sen. Jim Risch put it more bluntly.
“For all of you who haven’t noticed, this is a different day in Washington, D.C.,” he told reporters Tuesday.
In a recent memo released by the White House, there has been added confusion surrounding the federal funding freeze. This new development has left many wondering about the implications and impact on various programs and services.
The memo, which was issued by the Office of Management and Budget, outlined a temporary freeze on federal funding for certain programs and initiatives. However, the White House response to questions about the memo has only added to the uncertainty and lack of clarity surrounding the issue.
Many are wondering how this freeze will affect critical services and programs that rely on federal funding to operate. Additionally, there is concern about the potential long-term consequences of this decision and how it will impact the most vulnerable populations.
As the situation continues to unfold, it is essential for policymakers and stakeholders to work together to address the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the federal funding freeze. Stay tuned for more updates and developments on this important issue.
Lawyer concepts to testify to clients and to provide counseling in cases, to provide legal relief, … [+] to maintain law and fairness, to proceed with transparency, to attorneys to defend cases in court.
getty
In this episode of Tax Notes Talk, Lili Martin-Mashburn of Morris, Manning & Martin provides an update on where the Corporate Transparency Act stands in light of the recent litigation regarding its constitutionality.
Tax Notes Talk is a podcast produced by Tax Notes. Thistranscript has been edited for clarity.
David D. Stewart: Welcome to the podcast. I’m David Stewart, editor in chief of Tax Notes Today International. This week: on again, off again.
While many of us in the tax world took some time off over the holidays, including myself, the courts handling the Corporate Transparency Act challenges were in full swing. Over the break, we ended up with a sort of Schrödinger’s disclosure rule, where the CTA’s status depended on when it was observed.
For more background on the CTA and how we got to this point, check out our previous episode, which we’ll link to in the show notes. But joining me now to catch us up to speed on where things are is Lili Martin-Mashburn, a partner at Morris, Manning & Martin. Lili, welcome to the podcast.
Lili Martin-Mashburn: Thanks so much for having me.
David D. Stewart: So why don’t we start off with a brief refresher on what this CTA is?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: Absolutely. The Corporate Transparency Act is really a landmark piece of legislation that was enacted in 2021 that gets enforced by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN for short. And the intent of the CTA is to get at the Marty and Wendy Byrdes of the world. The government really wants to increase transparency by creating a centralized beneficial ownership registry, with the goal of preventing bad actors from using shell companies to engage in illicit activities, including money laundering, human and drug trafficking, terrorism, tax evasion, and fraud.
And under the CTA, certain entities created in the U.S. or that are registered to do business in the U.S., which are called reporting companies under the CTA, will be required to report certain information about their businesses, as well as their beneficial owners, to FinCEN. Reporting companies include limited liability companies, corporations, and partnerships. And this is really aimed at those smaller businesses.
So the CTA has 23 different exemptions, mostly related to companies that are already required to report a lot of this information to the government — for example, to the SEC. So the CTA is really trying to fill in that gap. And a couple of things to note about why the CTA is so controversial: First, apart from the constitutional arguments that we’ll discuss in a bit, and in addition to providing a lot of information to the government that was not already previously required, a failure to timely file under the CTA, or even update a report if any of your information changes, can result in significant penalties on a per-entity basis. These penalties include monetary penalties of up to now $590 per day when adjusted for inflation, criminal penalties of up to $10,000, and up to two years of imprisonment.
The second thing to note is that this really applies to a lot of businesses and small businesses. FinCEN estimated that in 2024 the CTA would impact 32.6 million businesses alone, and that each year thereafter it would impact 5 million new businesses.
And the last thing to note is that it is extremely expensive to comply. FinCEN estimates that it would cost over $22.8 billion — with a B — for the 2024 entities, and take over 126 million hours of work to comply. And then for entities in 2025 and beyond that are having to comply, it would cost $5.6 billion, or 35 million hours of work. And based on what I’m seeing with my clients, I think those estimates are actually underestimates.
VIENNA, VIRGINIA – JANUARY 8: U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen speaks to reporters following a … [+] tour at one of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) locations on January 8, 2024 in Vienna, Virginia. Secretary Yellen is making a visit to FinCEN to examine the progress on the program overseeing the U.S. beneficial ownership information registry. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
Getty Images
David D. Stewart: This sort of information is very important to tax authorities. Why hasn’t the U.S. government been collecting it until now?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: So for these smaller businesses, the government has not specifically been collecting this information. In some ways, I guess you could say that it has a lot of the information that it’s asking for, particularly about each individual reporting company: the name, legal address, tax identification number. Most of those entities are going to have to report that on its tax return. And in terms of the beneficial owners, some of that information will be on the reporting company’s tax returns. But up until this point in time, the government has not collected that information, though this has been, honestly, decades in the making.
David D. Stewart: So where are we on enforcement of the CTA?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: So right now the government is enjoined from enforcing the CTA on a universal basis. And what this means is that the CTA’s reporting requirements are currently on hold. Reporting companies are able to file their reports on a voluntary basis, but the government’s not requiring entities to do so.
David D. Stewart: So let’s get into some of these court challenges that have been brought against the CTA. We’ve discussed the Alabama case in the past; could you tell us about where that case stands?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: Sure. So in March 2024 the Alabama district court agreed with the plaintiffs that the CTA was likely unconstitutional under the commerce clause and issued a preliminary injunction that only applied to the plaintiffs in that case. Since then, the government did appeal that case to the Eleventh Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments on September 27, 2024.
We’re still waiting on a decision from the Eleventh Circuit, and I suspect the Eleventh Circuit is waiting to see what the Supreme Court does in the Texas Top Cop Shop case, which is really the one that’s been getting a lot of publicity.
David D. Stewart: All right, well we’ll hold that one back for just one moment longer. Could you tell me where things stand in the Small Business Association of Michigan v. Yellen case?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: Sure. So in the Small Business Association of Michigan v. Yellen case, that one was filed right after the Alabama case came out. They echoed a lot of the arguments that were made in the Alabama case. They asserted a few different arguments, but the district court in Michigan was unpersuaded and they denied the temporary restraining order. So the parties in that case have gone on with their full briefings, which were submitted on December 16.
So in addition to the Michigan case, there are a couple of other pending lawsuits where the district court was unpersuaded, one in Oregon and one in Virginia, where the motions for preliminary injunctions were denied. There are a couple of other lawsuits that are pending, including ones in Oregon and in Virginia where the district courts have denied the motions for preliminary judgment. So there’s a lot of uncertainty right now.
David D. Stewart: All right, so now turning to the main event here. We have the Texas Top Cop Shop, which is kind of fun to say. What is happening with that case?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: Well, it would not be an understatement to say that there has been a lot of whiplash with this one. In Texas Top Cop Shop, like the one that’s now pending before the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiffs asked the court for a preliminary injunction so that the government couldn’t enforce the CTA against them. And notably, the plaintiffs only asked for relief for themselves.
One of the plaintiffs in that case is the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which has roughly 300,000 members across the U.S. So on December 3, 2024, the Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division granted that motion. And in doing so, not only did the court grant the motion for the plaintiffs, but they granted a universal injunction. During the hearing, before the court order came out, the government argued that granting the motion would essentially be a nationwide injunction because of the size of the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
And in its order, the court essentially said, “Hey government, you’re right. Let’s go ahead and make this a universal injunction.” So to no one’s surprise, a couple of days later the government appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit asking the court to stay the injunction or at least to limit it to the plaintiffs. Couple of weeks go by, advisors, small businesses were all nervously waiting. And on December 23, less than 10 days before the original January 1 deadline for most companies to comply with the CTA, a three-judge motions panel on the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction by the district court, meaning the Corporate Transparency Act was back on again.
That same night, FinCEN announced on its website that it would extend the deadlines. Essentially for most companies, even though there was a 20-day delay between the CTA being on to the CTA being off to it being back on, FinCEN announced that it would give most businesses a 12-day extension.
So after this ruling by the motions panel, the plaintiffs requested that the full Fifth Circuit reconsider this panel decision. Then three days later, on December 26, a different “merits panel” on the Fifth Circuit reinstated the injunction to “preserve the constitutional status quo,” meaning that the CTA was once again halted.
So at this point, the plaintiffs withdrew their request for a full Fifth Circuit hearing. Five days later, on December 31, the DOJ submitted an application to the Supreme Court to halt the injunction and narrow its scope, arguing that it unfairly blocked all businesses from compliance rather than just the plaintiffs involved. Since then, there have been many briefs filed, dozens of amicus briefs, briefs from all parties. And at this point, we’re still waiting on the Supreme Court’s decision. And keep in mind that at this point, it’s unlikely that the court will determine whether the CTA is actually constitutional. This all relates to the stay and whether it was appropriate.
WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 28: The U.S. Supreme Court is shown at dusk on June 28, 2023 in Washington, … [+] DC. The high court is expected to release more opinions tomorrow ahead of its summer recess, with cases involving affirmative action and student loan debt relief still to be decided. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Getty Images
David D. Stewart: So could you tell me a bit about these constitutional arguments about the CTA?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: Sure. So the primary argument that the courts are really focused on is the commerce clause argument. The commerce clause is the provision in the constitution that gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate economic activity and commerce with foreign nations. So here, the government has a pretty clear argument that Congress had the ability to enforce the CTA with respect to businesses that are formed in foreign nations and that are just registered to do business in the United States.
But for the cases that we’re seeing now, they relate to those domestic companies that have been formed in the United States. And their argument is that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to enforce the CTA under the commerce clause because forming an entity doesn’t necessarily mean that the entity is engaging in interstate commerce. The act of forming an entity on its own is not economic activity. So therefore, requiring entities that are not involved in any economic activity to comply with the CTA or be subject to these extreme penalties, exceeds the constitutional limits of Congress. And the case that they cite here is the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius relating to the invalidation of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
On the other hand, the government argues that by forming an entity, you’re owning and operating an entity, which in itself is economic activity and even local activities can have potential interstate impact, which would fall under their authority. For example, a business in North Carolina could sell products to out-of-state persons even if that business is only selling its products in North Carolina. So here, the government relies on Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld federal regulation of locally cultivated and consumed marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, finding that the activity affected the broader interstate marijuana market.
The other arguments that the courts have not focused on as much, that you have First Amendment arguments that the CTA burdens the rights of association and it’s compelling speech. It violates the Fourth Amendment because it compels disclosure of private information, so it’s an unreasonable search and seizure. Arguments that it violates the Fifth Amendment, a privilege against self-incrimination. You have arguments that it violates the Eighth Amendment, that the penalties are so excessive that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
You also have arguments that it’s unconstitutionally vague and it violates states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment, but of course the government turns to, “This is a national security concern. We’re trying to prevent these illicit activities. This is our way of catching those people.” So there’s certainly some tension between privacy concerns and national security. And one other thing is that the CTA was passed under the Trump administration. So with the changing of administrations, I’m definitely interested to see how the next Congress will react to all of these challenges.
David D. Stewart: And if it wasn’t enough with all of these cases going back and forth after all of this, we had another decision out of Texas. Could you tell me about Smith v. Treasury?
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS – MARCH 30: A general view of the Texas state flag during the first round of the … [+] Valero Texas Open at TPC San Antonio on March 30, 2023 in San Antonio, Texas. (Photo by Mike Mulholland/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Lili Martin-Mashburn: Absolutely. So on January 7 of this year, 2025, a second federal district court in the Eastern District of Texas this time in the Tyler division, so a different judge, they issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the CTA, again on a universal basis. So what’s interesting here is that even if the Supreme Court rules in Texas Top Cop Shop, however they rule, if they were to limit the injunction in that case to the plaintiffs, in that case, the reporting deadlines would not necessarily automatically spring into place unless the Supreme Court also took action in this case. So your guess is as good as mine about what will happen in the future with the CTA.
David D. Stewart: Now, what has all this on-again off-again, business done for the practice of advising clients in this area?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: It has been chaos. You send out a client alert because of course, advisors want everybody to stay in compliance again because the penalties are so severe. And you send one out and then it feels like as soon as you have sent out that client alert, you have to retract it or change it or provide an update. It’s really been a whirlwind.
David D. Stewart: Were clients far along in the process of compliance and just stopping immediately? Or are you seeing people that say, “You know what, I’ll just use that voluntary side”?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: I’ve seen a little bit of both. So for some of our larger clients who have literally hundreds of entities, their plan and what I have recommended to everyone is that as we’ve seen, this whole thing could change on a dime. So even if we are not filing the actual reports, we should be ready to file those reports. So particularly where a reporting company is part of a much larger complex structure and it’s going to take time to really figure out what needs to be reported, it’s a good idea to go ahead and get that information in hand and know what you would need to report if it comes back.
David D. Stewart: Now, would you expect a long time window before you’d have to comply if this was reinstated?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: I would hope so. But given that FinCEN gave a 12-day extension when we had a period of 20 days where it was unclear what was going to happen, I don’t know how long it would be. Maybe 30 days, but at this rate, it’s all so up in the air and I think it’s going to be chaotic if it does get reinstated, no matter what extensions may be given.
David D. Stewart: Do you have any sense of what’s likely to happen on appeal for these cases?
Lili Martin-Mashburn: So I think for a lot of the lower courts, they’re going to wait to see what the Supreme Court does, and given the Supreme Court’s general distaste for universal preliminary injunctions, I think it’s likely that they will grant the government’s application and get rid of the injunction so that the constitutional claims can be heard at the lower courts. I think it’s also likely that the Supreme Court may just keep things the way they are, much like the merits panel did, where we’re going to keep this injunction in place and hear those constitutional claims. Honestly, I think it’s probably 50/50. That’s how I view it. We’ll just have to see what happens.
David D. Stewart: Well, there’s certainly a lot to keep an eye on. Lili, thank you so much for helping us understand it.
Lili Martin-Mashburn: Oh, thank you for having me.
The Corporate Transparency Act: Recent Challenges And Confusion
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was enacted in January 2021 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The aim of the CTA is to crack down on money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit activities by requiring certain businesses to disclose their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
However, since its implementation, the CTA has faced numerous challenges and caused confusion among businesses and professionals. One of the main challenges is the ambiguity surrounding who is considered a beneficial owner. The CTA defines a beneficial owner as an individual who directly or indirectly owns 25% or more of the company, but determining indirect ownership can be complex and subjective.
Another challenge is the burden of compliance placed on small businesses and startups. Many of these companies do not have the resources or expertise to navigate the CTA’s requirements, leading to potential fines and penalties for non-compliance.
Additionally, there is confusion surrounding the reporting requirements and deadlines under the CTA. Many businesses are unsure of what information needs to be reported, how to submit it to FinCEN, and when the deadlines are for compliance.
Overall, the CTA has the potential to be a powerful tool in combating financial crimes, but its implementation has been met with challenges and confusion. Businesses and professionals need clearer guidance and support to ensure compliance with the CTA and avoid potential penalties.
As we approach the year 2025, many experts are predicting that it will be a year filled with chaos and confusion. From political upheaval to economic instability, there are a number of factors that could contribute to what some are calling a “shit show” of a year.
One of the biggest concerns for 2025 is the state of global politics. With tensions rising between world powers such as the United States, China, and Russia, there is a fear that a major conflict could erupt at any moment. The rise of authoritarian leaders and the decline of democratic values in many countries has also raised concerns about the future of freedom and human rights.
Economically, 2025 is shaping up to be a challenging year. The ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have left many countries struggling to recover, with high levels of unemployment and inflation. In addition, the rise of automation and artificial intelligence is threatening to disrupt traditional industries, leading to further economic uncertainty.
Socially, 2025 could be a year of division and conflict. The growing divide between the rich and the poor, as well as between different racial and ethnic groups, is creating a volatile atmosphere that could boil over into violence. The rise of misinformation and fake news on social media is also contributing to a sense of confusion and distrust among the general population.
Despite these challenges, there is still hope for a better future in 2025. Many people are working towards positive change, whether through grassroots activism, political engagement, or innovative solutions to global problems. By coming together and supporting one another, we can navigate the chaos and confusion of 2025 and build a more just and equitable world for future generations.
#Year #Chaos #Confusion #Shit #Show,shit show 2025
Courtney Cronin joined ESPN in 2017, originally covering the Minnesota Vikings before switching to the Chicago Bears in 2022. Courtney is a frequent panelist on Around the Horn and host of Best Week Ever on ESPN Radio. She also co-hosts The Chicago Bears Podcast on ESPN 1000. She previously worked at the San Jose Mercury News as a multimedia sports journalist.
CHICAGO — One month after clock-management problems against the Detroit Lions led to the firing of coach Matt Eberflus, the Chicago Bears sealed their 10th straight loss when timeout issues and no attempt at a potential tying field goal resulted in a 6-3 loss to the Seattle Seahawks.
Thursday’s Seahawks-Bears matchup was one of two NFL games this season without a touchdown. Chicago totaled 179 yards of offense, its fourth-lowest output in 2024, and managed only a field goal in its final home game of the season.
Similar to how the Bears’ loss to the Lions played out on Thanksgiving Day, Chicago trailed by three entering its final drive. The Bears took possession with 5 minutes, 12 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter at their 11-yard line with all three timeouts.
Chicago ran six plays before facing fourth-and-inches from its 39-yard line when left guard Jake Curhan, who started in place of injured Teven Jenkins (calf), was flagged for a false start.
The Bears were in punt formation when interim head coach Thomas Brown used his team’s first timeout with 2:14 left. A situation that appeared to be the result of confusion on the sideline was a byproduct of Brown deciding to be more aggressive.
“It wasn’t confusion at all,” Brown said. “I just changed my mind. I think being able to use [punter] Tory [Taylor] as a weapon, and we still had, I think it was, 2:16 on the clock, still had our three timeouts, plus the two-minute warning. The way our defense had been playing all day, possibly have a chance to go flip the field and force the three-and-out, get a shorter field and have, like, a last end-of-the-game drive. That was my thought process.
“Over the course of that, I changed my mind and said, ‘Let’s go for it now,’ and sent the offense back on the grass.”
Quarterback Caleb Williams connected with receiver DJ Moore on the subsequent fourth-and-5 play for a 14-yard gain. The Bears ran one play after the two-minute warning and allowed 45 seconds to come off the clock before rookie Rome Odunze gained 15 yards on third-and-14 to get the Bears into Seattle territory.
But Chicago would not advance the ball past the Seahawks’ 40-yard line, and another one-score loss would end in similar confounding fashion.
Williams said he was hit in the throat by Seattle’s pass rush after launching a deep ball to Odunze. Between the time that play began to when Chicago ran its next play on first down, an additional 38 seconds came off the clock.
“I don’t know if the coaches saw me down there after the big completion to Rome,” Williams said. “Even though I got hit in the throat and the face, got to just get up and go run down and snap the ball.”
The Bears ended up using their second timeout on second-and-10 from the Seattle 40-yard line, and a frustrated Williams was seen yelling toward the sideline.
Just like in Detroit, the Bears needed a field goal to tie the score, and they crossed the 50-yard line with 1:05 left. After wasting 83 seconds of game time, Chicago failed to attempt a field goal.
Brown confirmed that kicker Cairo Santos‘ kick line was between the 34- and 37-yard line. Had the Bears kicked a field goal on fourth down, Santos would have had a 57 yard attempt. His career long is 55 yards.
Afterwards, Brown explained his thought process on not running the ball on second or third down from Seattle’s 40-yard line to advance the ball so Santos would have a shorter attempt.
“Couple of things. Felt good about the runs,” Brown said. “Still wanted to go for the win. But like I talked about before, there’s not a ton of great options of running the football versus zero coverage. So felt better about throwing the football.”
After getting to the Seattle 40-yard line, the Bears threw four straight passes, the last of which resulted in Williams launching his first interception after throwing 353 passes without a turnover (fourth most in NFL history).
“I think obviously there’s times where you can have a better call, want a better call, things like that, but we didn’t execute,” Williams said. “I didn’t execute on many different occasions this game, and it’s frustrating. But got to find a way.”
After the game, several Bears players described a chaotic feeling on the sideline as Chicago used two of its three timeouts in situations that didn’t allow the offense to move the ball closer to field goal range.
“There were some wrinkles in there,” Moore said. “The one time that it went all the way down and we really didn’t know what to do. But at the end of the day, shoot, that’s on us. We’ve got to stay prepared throughout the whole game, and, I mean, that’s all I can say.”
In a recent game against the Seattle Seahawks, the Chicago Bears suffered a heartbreaking loss in the final moments of the game. Despite the tough defeat, Bears’ coach Matt Nagy and quarterback Justin Fields have both denied any late-game confusion or miscommunication that may have contributed to the loss.
During a crucial drive in the fourth quarter, the Bears were unable to convert on a key fourth-down play, ultimately leading to the Seahawks’ game-winning touchdown. Some fans and analysts have speculated that there may have been confusion or miscommunication on the play, but both Nagy and Fields have stood by their decisions and play-calling.
In a post-game press conference, Bears’ wide receiver Marquise Brown emphasized that the team was on the same page and that there was no confusion on the final drive. Brown expressed confidence in the team’s ability to bounce back from the tough loss and continue to improve throughout the season.
While the loss was undoubtedly disappointing for Bears fans, it’s clear that the team remains committed to working together and addressing any issues that may have contributed to the defeat. With a positive mindset and a strong sense of unity, the Bears are determined to turn things around and come back stronger in their next game.
MSK Prasad, who worked as a chief selector of the senior men’s team, has questioned the role of Nitish Kumar Reddy in the playing XI. He feels the all-rounder is creating confusion as he is not a complete batter and bowler who can’t win matches because of his two skills.
The former player wants the team management to prefer a specialist player over Reddy. He commented on Day 2 of the fourth Test when Steve Smith and Pat Cummins were going strong with the bat, and India were finding it difficult to break the partnership.
“Nitish Kumar Reddy is creating confusion in Team India. He is not a complete batter and bowler and can’t win matches for the team with his skills. It would have been better to include specialist players.
“I feel Shubman Gill should have been a part of the Playing XI in the fourth Test but it seems the management was more concerned about the batting part and including Washington Sundar. There was no need for two spinners, and Harshit Rana or Prasidh Krishna would have been a better option,” he added.
He is not the only one who has questioned the team combination, as several other ex-players felt that Shubman deserved to play in the match. Meanwhile, Nitish has done well as a batter in the lower order and is the only player after KL Rahul to make important contributions.
Related
In a recent interview, former chief selector Sunil Joshi raised concerns about the role of Nitish Kumar Reddy in Team India, stating that the all-rounder is creating confusion within the team. Joshi pointed out that Reddy’s inconsistent performances and lack of clarity on his position in the playing XI have been a cause for concern.
Joshi further emphasized the importance of clarity and stability in the team, especially in crucial positions like the all-rounder role. He questioned whether Reddy was being given a fair opportunity to showcase his skills and contribute effectively to the team’s success.
The former chief selector also suggested that Team India’s management need to have a clear strategy in place for Reddy, either as a batsman who can bowl occasionally or as a genuine all-rounder. Without a clear direction, Joshi expressed concern that Reddy’s potential could be wasted and could lead to further confusion within the team.
It remains to be seen how Team India’s management will address these concerns and ensure that Nitish Kumar Reddy’s role within the team is defined more clearly in the future.
Disaster to Recovery: Navigating Window and Door Damage
Dealing with window and door damage after a disaster can be overwhelming, but with the right steps, you can cut through the confusion, document the damage, and resolve your insurance claim efficiently. Here are some tips to help you navigate the process:
1. Assess the damage: Start by inspecting all windows and doors in your home to determine the extent of the damage. Look for cracks, broken glass, warped frames, and any other signs of damage.
2. Document the damage: Take photos and videos of the damage from multiple angles. Make sure to capture close-up shots of the affected areas as well as wider shots to provide context.
3. Contact your insurance company: Report the damage to your insurance provider as soon as possible. Provide them with all the documentation you have collected, including photos, videos, and any other relevant information.
4. Get multiple estimates: It’s a good idea to get multiple estimates from reputable contractors for the repair or replacement of your windows and doors. This will help ensure that you are getting a fair price for the work.
5. Stay organized: Keep all communication with your insurance company and contractors in writing. Make sure to keep a record of all phone calls, emails, and documents related to the claim.
By following these steps, you can navigate the process of repairing or replacing your windows and doors after a disaster with confidence. Remember, the key is to stay organized, document the damage thoroughly, and communicate effectively with your insurance company and contractors. With patience and diligence, you can resolve your claim and get your home back to its pre-disaster condition.
#Disaster #Recovery #Navigating #Window #Door #Damage #Cut #Confusion #Document #Damage #Resolve #Claim
Price: $7.99 (as of Nov 24,2024 00:33:43 UTC – Details)
ASIN : B0DNCZF4JC Publisher : Independently published (November 13, 2024) Language : English Paperback : 154 pages Item Weight : 10.2 ounces Dimensions : 6 x 0.35 x 9 inches
Are you tired of constantly forgetting your passwords or having to reset them every time you need to access an account? Look no further, because we have the ultimate solution for every guy out there who’s done with password confusion.
Introducing Man Code: Lock It Down – a no-nonsense guide to simplifying and securing your passwords once and for all. Gone are the days of scribbling down passwords on sticky notes or using the same password for every account. With this guide, you’ll learn how to create strong, unique passwords for each of your accounts and manage them effortlessly.
Say goodbye to the frustration of password resets and the fear of getting hacked. Man Code: Lock It Down will teach you the importance of password security and provide you with practical tips and strategies to keep your accounts safe and secure.
Don’t let password confusion hold you back any longer. Take control of your digital security with Man Code: Lock It Down and never worry about forgotten passwords again. Get your copy today and start locking it down like a pro!
#Man #Code #Lock #Nonsense #Solution #Guy #Password #Confusion
You must be logged in to post a comment.