Thursday, October 15, 2026

Opt Out October. Let’s Take Control of Our Data and Our Devices

“A man without a vote is a man without protection.”
 ― Lyndon B. Johnson

 Don't run from adversity — run towards it


Avi-Yonah: Should Large Partnerships Be Taxed as Corporations?

Reuven Avi-Yonah (Michigan) has a new Tax Notes column evaluating a recent policy paper from the Tax Law Center and the Hamilton Project on taxing pass-through entities as corporations. Here is the underlying policy paper and here is the column, which begins as follows: 

The Tax Law Center at New York University School of Law and the Hamilton Project recently released a paper proposing that tax large or complex passthrough entities as C corporations. This thorough proposal deserves serious consideration by policy makers, given the complexities of large partnership structures that present major challenges for the IRS. The proposal draws from a long series of similar proposals. Ultimately, however, it does not address a more fundamental question: Why should we tax legal entities to begin with?

 

Opt Out October. Let’s Take Control of Our Data and Our Devices

EFF: “Big tech companies are hell-bent on taking away our agency and forcing us to use their surveillance-based services, apps, and devices. It’s hard to fight against, and it often feels much easier to give in, accept their walled gardens, and move on with our lives. But we don’t have to stand in the middle of the information super highway and let companies run us over. 

With a little work, we can stand our ground and take control over what happens with our data. This month—Opt Out October—we’re walking through some of the steps to do just that. Last year, we detailed 22 daily tips to trim down the amount of data that’s collected about you or available online, throwing sand in the gears of corporate surveillance. Those steps are still worth taking. 

This year we’re looking to abandon those gears altogether and cut that data collection off at the head. Below find links for guides to tell artificial intelligence (AI) tools they can’t train on your data, as well as tips to find alternative software, social media, and even new operating systems that provide stronger privacy and better ways to control how your data is used.  Opting out isn’t about disengaging with computers or the internet. 

It’s about finding alternatives that align with your values and needs. But it takes effort. The major tech companies have tried to suck all the air out of the room by claiming that it’s inevitable you’ll use their platforms. They’ve installed their own software and made it difficult to change the defaults. This can make it difficult to find alternatives. But not impossible. While EFF does not endorse specific products, we can be a guiding light towards your options…

INTRODUCTION


Doxxing Jane Doe

The Verge, no paywall – X and Substack aren’t doing anything to stop users from harassing women they believe are connected to the rape case — and the women who aren’t: “Who is Jane Doe? Online vigilantes have tried to expose the Cornell University student who filed a lawsuit accusing seven fraternity members of gang rape, and in so doing have invited a torrent of abuse on several other women. 

Her lawyers say three women have been falsely identified and harassed — and the real Jane Doe is being inundated with threats, too. “She’s not doing well,” her attorney Thomas Guiffra told CNN on Sunday. “She’s under siege on social media, where people are trying to identify her.” The fact several women are now facing a torrent of online abuse in connection to Jane Doe’s lawsuit isn’t surprising. Targeted harassment and intimidation campaigns were a hallmark of the backlash to #MeToo. These targeted harassment campaigns were once organized on websites like Kiwi Farms and 4chan.

 But the effort to unmask Jane Doe — and to terrorize any woman they believe to be Jane Doe — is happening right in the open, on mainstream social media platforms that aren’t doing anything to stop it. Jane Doe’s identity isn’t a total secret: It’s known to her attorneys, the judge presiding over the case, the seven men she’s accusing of rape, and their attorneys, too. 

In civil cases, a plaintiff’s anonymity is ultimately up to the judge, who weighs several factors, including whether identifying the plaintiff by name will put them at risk of physical or mental injury. “In New York, there’s no automatic right to proceed anonymously,” said Annie Seifullah, a founding partner at the victims’ rights firm Incendii Law. 

Still, “the law recognizes that survivors’ lives are routinely put on trial, and that forcing them to sue under their real names would keep many victims of sexual violence from coming forward at all.” Similarly, journalistic ethics guidestypically suggest showing sensitivity to victims of alleged sex crimes, and reporters will often allow people alleging abuse to do so anonymously, so long as their identity can be independently corroborated…”

See also The Grudge Report “The Good Guy With the Text” fallacy…There were 57 sons, 57 men on the group text. I’m going to say something about fraternity brothers that many of you will immediately begin to qualify with counter examples. No frat bro, not even “one of the good ones,” is calling the cops on his friends. No frat bro is in any way intimating that he in any way disapproves of anything his fellow frat bro says, no matter how racist or misogynistic or homophobic or outright fucking rape-announcing. Here’s why…”

See also Source paper – Treat, T. A., Corbin, W. R., Papova, A., Richner, K., Craney, R., & Fromme, K. (2021). Selection and socialization accounts of the relation between fraternity membership and sexual aggression. Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 35(3), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000662

Analyses revealed three key findings. Fraternity membership was prospectively correlated with sexual aggression in years one and two of college (socialization effect), controlling for selection effects, when the two prospective paths were constrained to be equivalent. Second, more frequent binge drinking and sociosexual attitudes prior to college prospectively correlated with an increased likelihood of joining a fraternity (selection effect), and both selection variables indirectly correlated with future sexual aggression via fraternity membership. Third, fraternity membership was associated with increased binge drinking and perceived peer sexual aggression (socialization effects).”…

 

Trump’s Cascade of Canceled Corporate Enforcement Against Over 200 Corporations

These enforcement actions include investigations, enforcement lawsuits, and other accountability measures for alleged lawbreaking by many of the largest and most powerful corporations, from Amazon to Zoom and hundreds in between. This updated analysis documents the extent of Trump’s retreat from enforcement against corporate crime and lawbreaking. Key Findings

  • So far, the Trump administration has canceled enforcement actions inherited from the Biden administration against 205 corporations. The canceled enforcement actions include federal investigations, enforcement lawsuits, prior settlements, and other accountability measures for alleged lawbreaking.
  • Corporations with ties to Trump and/or the administration make up 44% (90 out of 205) of those benefiting from enforcement cancellations, and include:
    • 53 corporate gift givers that contributed to Trump’s inaugural committee, pro-Trump super PACs, the demolition of the East Wing of the White House, and other Trump priorities;
    • 32 Trump crony employersthat hired a Trump-allied lobbyist, lawyer, or official to curry favor with the administration;
    • 15 corporate business partners that have or have had deals with Trump’s private businesses; and
    • 8 former employers of executives, employees, and/or investors selected for leadership roles within the Trump administration.
  • The 212 canceled enforcement actions against 205 corporations include:
    • 80 closed investigations(including 10 criminal investigations);
    • 67 dismissed enforcement lawsuits the federal agencies were actively litigating (including 10 criminal cases); and
    • 54 canceled consequences in which the Trump administration terminated or reversed enforcement actions that were resolved before Trump’s second term, including 14 pardons of corporations and executives and five canceled corporate leniency deals…”

The bill has to be paid for the credit card free lunch

ATO credit card backflip a sign of ‘good government’

  Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has defended the leadership abilities of his treasurer despite a botched ban on credit card use that would have hurt thousands of small businesses. 

The Australian Taxation Office recently abruptly announced it would stop taking credit card payments after the Reserve Bank banned passing on surcharges to customers.

That was immediately criticised by business owners and the coalition, which said the changes would hurt families already doing it tough.

 

The bill has to be paid for the credit card free lunch

It’s not as simple as the popular narrative that small business are the good guys and the Tax Office are the bad guys.

There has been plenty of spin from the government and business on the surcharge ban and the Australian Taxation Office’s plan to stop accepting credit card payments.

The surcharge controversy implicates an extremely complex web of stakeholders, including the government, banks, credit card companies Visa and Mastercard, their regulator the Reserve Bank of Australia, payments platforms such as Square, merchants and the ATO.

After a very stable period for card fees, the financial services industry innovated to push up costs for merchants and consumers. Dominic Lorrimer

These special interests are not innocent bystanders and there is blame to be shared over where the convoluted system has ended up.

But it’s not as simple as the popular political narrative that has developed over the past week that small businesses are the hard-done-by good guys and the ATO are the bad guys.

The big mistake the Albanese government made in trumpeting the surcharge ban from October 1 was the dubious claim that it would help reduce prices for consumers by eliminating $1.6 billion in fees charged by merchants such as cafes, some retailers and, indeed, the ATO.


Economic common sense suggested the extra costs merchants would be forced to swallow were always going to be recovered by raising prices.

Indeed, the RBA publicly estimated that ending surcharges would result in a small, one-off increase to inflation of about 0.1 of a percentage point.

Perhaps the inflationary impact will be a bit bigger if businesses use the opportunity in an already high-cost environment to jack up prices even more.

Originally I was not sold on the idea of banning surcharges. Economic principles suggest that a user-pays system and cost recovery from the people using credit payments is sound.

That was the RBA’s long-standing position, too, since the early 2000s. Back then, more than 70 per cent of transactions were paid in cash and credit cards were a rare and relatively expensive form of payment. The RBA gave merchants the right to recover costs via surcharge.

Today, cash use has plunged to below 15 per cent and shoppers often carry only a phone to buy things, not a wallet with cash. After a very stable period for card fees, the financial services industry innovated to push up costs for merchants and consumers.

The number of transactions on which merchants added a surcharge doubled from about 8 per cent in 2022 to 16 per cent in 2025.

Non-bank payment service providers, such as Smartpay, entered the market offering merchants “free” payments systems. But the quid pro quo was the payments providers would control the merchant fee and pocket the charge to customers.

Others, such as Square and Stripe, offered flat-fee plans to merchants regardless of the type of card being used, such as lower-cost eftpos debit cards and higher-cost American Express credit cards.

The single price did not reflect the true cost in servicing different customers. Consumers began paying more than the real underlying cost and the user-pays system broke down.

Moreover, consumers accumulating reward points on credit cards were having their flights and holidays cross-subsidised by other consumers overpaying on fees. This was neither a fair nor economically efficient way to run a payment system. Particularly when people with high reward point balances were generally higher income and being cross-subsidised by unsuspecting ordinary consumers.

Hence, the RBA’s simple solution was to ban surcharges. The advertised price will be the price consumers pay.

The transition will undoubtedly be disruptive, as evidenced by the ATO, some private schools and rent platforms refusing to accept credit card payments.

To help merchants digest the cost, the RBA reduced the cap on interchange fees paid to banks issuing the credit cards from 0.8 per cent to 0.3 per cent.

But merchants will still have to pay other fees to Visa and Mastercard, as well as to payments services providers such as Square or banks offering payment platforms. The total fees incurred by small merchants could be up to 1.7 per cent.

Now that merchants can no longer pass on these fees to customers, they will have a financial incentive to shop around for cheaper payment providers. The hope is this will inject more competition into the payments system and reduce costs.

Despite the howls of protest from small business, there is merit in Taxation Commissioner Rob Heferen’s decision to stop accepting credit card payments. Sure, the snap November 30 deadline was arguably not enough time to transition, but the revised June 30 2027 timeline seems reasonable.

Undoubtedly, there is a double standard in the government requiring merchants to absorb the costs of credit card fees and its monopoly tax collector not allowing credit payments.

Previously, the ATO charged taxpayers between 0.9 per cent and 1.5 per cent to pay monthly, quarterly and annual PAYG and GST bills by credit card.

Heferen estimates it would cost the ATO $200 million a year to absorb the cost of fees to accept credit cards.

The cost could rise significantly over time as more taxpayers wake up to the revelation they can pay their tax bill on credit.

And what rational person in debt to the ATO would not choose this option? They would pay no surcharge, collect credit card reward points and benefit from an interest-free period of 30 to 45 days before having to repay the credit card balance.

The losers? The other mug taxpayers who don’t have a tax debt or are not paying their bills by credit. Why should they cross-subsidise people paying tax by credit?

The ATO estimates that only 2 per cent of individuals and 5 per cent of small businesses have been paying their tax bills by credit card. So more than 90 per cent of taxpayers do not benefit.

Moreover, the dirty little secret is that many businesses and individuals paying their tax bill by credit card do so to accumulate reward points. It’s another cross-subsidy that regular taxpayers don’t benefit from.

Usually, it makes sense to pay a tax bill by credit card only if you pay it off within the interest-free period and avoid the 20 per cent to 25 per cent interest rates.

However, if business taxpayers do incur interest on their credit card for a tax bill, they can claim the interest expense as a tax deduction. That tax deduction opportunity will disappear in nine months, consistent with general interest charges directly from the ATO no longer being tax-deductible since a rule change in 2025.

Undoubtedly, there will be some short-term cashflow adjustments for small business under the pending new regime. For most of those using credit, it will bring forward their cash liability by 30 to 45 days.

But innovative options already exist that will enable taxpayers to pay tax bills by credit.

Third-party payment platforms such as pay.com.au enable customers to pay their tax bills via credit card, in return for a processing fee of 1 per cent to 2 per cent (technically not a surcharge).

Pay.com.au settles the tax bill on behalf of the client via a low-cost channel such as Bpay. Credit card reward points continue to be accumulated by the customer.

Other innovative fintech companies will surely emerge to offer similar competing services to small business.

The market will develop solutions in response to the RBA’s surcharge ban and the ATO’s phase-out of credit payments.

 is The Australian Financial Review’s economics editor at Parliament House, Canberra. He writes on economics, politics and business. John was Washington correspondent covering Donald Trump’s first election. He joined the AFR in 2008 from Treasury.Connect with John on Twitter. Email John at jkehoe@afr.com

Anthony Albanese appears to have two versions of how his government delayed the Australian Tax Office's credit card ban. 
But the one you get depends on whether he is accepting applause or answering questions.
At Tuesday night's Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry event, the Prime Minister was the man who got things done.
Chief Executive Andrew McKellar sent him a text on Thursday morning last week. By Friday morning, there was an announcement. 
Perhaps small businesses should forget navigating government departments and simply ask for Albanese's mobile number?
He even supplied the dialogue: 'It is in hand, I agree with what you are saying and I will get it done.'
One man. One phone. A nation's tax payment arrangements saved before breakfast. 
Then came Question Time on Wednesday. Asked about his intervention by Opposition Leader Angus Taylor, Albanese suddenly discovered the joys of collective government.
'The whole premise [of the question] is completely wrong,' he declared, before explaining that he and Treasurer Jim Chalmers had discussed the matter, convened the expenditure review committee and secured unanimous agreement across the government's leadership group.
How touching. At dinner, Albanese gets it done. In Parliament, everyone gets a participation certificate.
Of course, both accounts probably describe different parts of the same process. 

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

A Trump Loyalist, a Turkish Investor and a Battle for Wealth and Influence

The corruption is so deep and widespread in the Trump regime. This story is just crazy!
Obviously, this Turkish billionaire married Habba to help him with the Venezuelan government and the Trump regime.

 It prompted the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew McKellar, to contact the prime minister directly and request the government intervene. 

”That was an example of a relationship that takes time to develop. That trust, where you can have a discussion and say ‘it is in hand, I agree with what you are saying, and I will get it done’,” Mr Albanese told a commerce industry gala.

Shortly after the text, Treasurer Jim Chalmers fronted the media and confirmed the government would cover surcharge costs while undertaking more consultation.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor on Wednesday called for the prime minister to put Dr Chalmers “out of his misery and sack him”…




A Turkish businessman once allied with the Maduro regime has tied the knot with President Trump’s former personal lawyer, Alina Habba, at the same time he is seeking to retain a big contract in Venezuela.



When President Trump’s former personal lawyer, Alina Habba, married a Turkish businessman last month, the lavish ceremony cemented their status as a MAGA power couple.
Ms. Habba, 42, a longtime Trump loyalist, and Turhan Mildon, a 29-year-old investor, hosted some of Washington’s most powerful people, including Attorney General Todd Blanche, the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, and Will Scharf, the White House counsel.
It was a striking official entry into Trumpworld for Mr. Mildon, who nearly a year ago faced the loss of his extensive business interests in Venezuela because of his ties to the inner circle of Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan leader who was captured by U.S. commandos in January.
It also put a new focus on the intermingling of personal relationships and foreign policy in the Trump era, in this case highlighting a battle for wealth and influence involving well-connected people in both Caracas and Washington seeking to use access to Mr. Trump to their benefit.

Before the United States captured Mr. Maduro, aides to Mr. Trump and some U.S. intelligence officials expressed concern about Mr. Mildon’s work with the Maduro government, according to multiple people briefed on the matter. Mr. Mildon had spent months trying to build ties between Alex Saab, one of Mr. Maduro’s closest confidants in Venezuela, and Republicans in Mr. Trump’s orbit. The Trump administration had considered placing sanctions on Mr. Mildon, two people involved in the discussions at the time said. 
Once Mr. Maduro was out of the picture, things for Mr. Mildon got even worse.
Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodríguez, ordered an audit of the state-owned cement plants that Mr. Mildon was operating. In June, she issued an order revoking his contract altogether, citing a failure to meet investment targets, according to a copy of the document seen by The New York Times.

At that point, his patrons could no longer protect him. Mr. Maduro was not only out of power, but sitting in an American jail. Mr. Saab, Mr. Mildon’s most powerful ally in Venezuela, was arrested and extradited to the United States.
But there was a bright spot: Mr. Mildon had met Ms. Habba, one of Mr. Trump’s most prominent legal defenders. They started dating this year, soon after Mr. Maduro’s downfall. By this past summer, the couple’s burgeoning romance had begun to draw attention. Specifically, it caught the eye of Ms. Rodríguez, according to two people close to her. Mr. Mildon was in a serious relationship with a woman who had high-level access to Mr. Trump — the one person keeping Ms. Rodríguez in power.

Since taking office, Ms. Rodríguez has been trying to balance the interests of the competing MAGA factions, and gauging their relative influence over Mr. Trump. After learning of Mr. Mildon’s powerful allies, she decided to pause her order terminating his cement contracts, allowing him to continue to profit from them, according to people familiar with her thinking. 

A spokesman for Mr. Mildon said the government had never carried out the audit and that his company was only notified of the contract’s termination on Oct. 8, the day The Times began inquiring about the status of his operation in Venezuela. 

The spokesman for Mr. Mildon said his client believed the letter was a mistake and that he was working to address the issue. The spokesman also took issue with the suggestion that the United States had considered sanctioning Mr. Mildon, calling it a “totally false and malicious rumor.” 

An administration official also disputed whether the government had considered sanctions against Mr. Mildon. 

The Venezuelan government did not respond to a request for comment.

White House officials say that Ms. Habba, who now goes by Mrs. Mildon, has not discussed her husband’s business dealings with Mr. Trump or any other White House officials.

“I have never, under any circumstances got involved with this White House or administration on behalf of my husband, nor would he ever ask me to,” she said in a statement.

The U.S. sanctions proceedings against Mr. Mildon were shelved after the regime change in Caracas, overtaken by bigger targets inside the government, according to a person familiar with the matter.

In the meantime, Mr. Mildon’s relationship with Ms. Habba grew closer. In September, they were married, in a ballroom in New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel.

This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen people with knowledge of the events, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the details of the relationship and Mr. Mildon’s business interests.


Mr. Mildon explained his business strategy in an interview published earlier this month with Forbes Turkey. “In my grandfather’s time, know-how, (knowledge) was very important,” Mr. Mildon told the magazine. “Now, know-who (who you know) is important.”
Mr. Mildon grew up in a provincial Turkish town near the strait of the Dardanelles, where his family ran a network of local businesses, including auto-repair shops and gas stations. 

His big break coincided with his first marriage, in 2021, to a daughter of a construction magnate close to Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Shortly after the wedding, Mr. Mildon met the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Félix Tshisekedi, at an event in Istanbul and jumped on an airplane to explore investment opportunities in the country, Mr. Mildon’s spokesman said. He quickly built close ties with the Congolese political elites and won contracts for prominent construction projects.

Mr. Mildon became an adviser to Mr. Tshisekedi in 2023 and obtained a Congolese diplomatic passport. People who have met him in Washington and Caracas said he had on multiple occasions introduced himself as a Congolese official.

Mr. Mildon’s spokesman denied that his client had ever introduced himself as a Congolese official. Congo’s foreign ministry declined to comment.

In late 2023, Mr. Mildon, who portrays himself as a billionaire, flew into the Venezuelan capital at the invitation of a Venezuelan friend.


As he had in Congo, Mr. Mildon quickly made powerful friends. He won the support of the local Turkish ambassador and met the daughter of a powerful admiral. 
His most critical relationship was with Mr. Saab, the Maduro confidant who had recently returned to Caracas from an American jail and been appointed as industry minister.

The spokesman for Mr. Mildon said his client had had only professional, and occasional, interactions with Mr. Saab, who was the official responsible for dealing with foreign investors. Numerous people close to the Venezuelan government, however, said the two became personally close. 

In March 2025, Mr. Saab gave Mr. Mildon a contract to operate the cement plants.

A few months later, the Venezuelan government awarded Mr. Mildon a shrimp production and export business in western Venezuela. The government had seized the business months earlier from its private founder, José Enrique Rincón, after accusing him of financing the political opposition. Mr. Rincón remains in jail.

The spokesman for Mr. Mildon said Mr. Saab had played no role in the shrimp business award and that Mr. Mildon had participated in a bidding process with four others to obtain the cement business. The spokesman said he did not know who the other bidders were.

Mr. Mildon’s account is disputed by numerous prominent Venezuelan businessmen and people close to the government, who said that Mr. Saab and other Venezuelan ministers handed out state-run assets to private investors without competitive bidding.

Back-Channel Diplomacy

As his fortunes rose, Mr. Mildon’s first marriage crumbled.

In June 2025, he became engaged to María Eugenia Ceballos, a Venezuelan admiral’s daughter, Mr. Mildon’s spokesman said. Her father, Adm. Remigio Ceballos, served for years as the operational head of Venezuelan military and is under U.S. sanctions for participating in corruption and human rights abuses.

The Trump administration at the time was escalating economic and military pressure on Mr. Maduro, and Mr. Mildon became increasingly involved in back-channel diplomacy between Washington and Caracas. His efforts put him in a group of multinational businessmen who had sought preferential treatment by ferrying messages between the capitals last year. These intermediaries have included a Brazilian beef billionaire, an American asphalt tycoon and a Venezuelan oil magnate.

Mr. Mildon also began attending social events organized by Republican insiders.

He became a frequent guest at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, where he networked with the man in charge of the institution at the time, Richard Grenell. Mr. Grenell was also working as Mr. Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela, and trying to broker Mr. Maduro’s exit from power.

Mr. Grenell introduced Mr. Mildon to some of the MAGA crowd. Mr. Mildon’s spokesman said his client and Ms. Habba had first met at an event at the Kennedy Center in late 2025, and started dating in early 2026. 

Ms. Habba’s ties to Mr. Trump go back years. She met Mr. Trump through his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., and joined his legal team after his first term, representing him in two civil trials. She joined the White House at the start of Mr. Trump’s second term, then served briefly as New Jersey’s interim U.S. attorney.

She has maintained a close relationship with the president to this day, and met with him in the Oval Office last week. 

Even as he was meeting Ms. Habba, Mr. Mildon was navigating the shifting political landscape in Venezuela after Ms. Rodríguez had been put in power by the Americans. His spokesman said Mr. Mildon had always supported Ms. Rodríguez, who served as Mr. Maduro’s vice president until his arrest. 

But several people who met Mr. Mildon in Washington last year, before Mr. Maduro’s capture by U.S. forces, said Mr. Mildon had praised Mr. Saab, her ruling party rival, presenting him as Venezuela’s pre-eminent power broker and the key to a peaceful resolution of the conflict with the United States. 

As it turns out, Mr. Mildon had backed the wrong side

Secretary of State Marco Rubio sidelined Mr. Grenell and persuaded Mr. Trump to adopt a more aggressive stance toward Mr. Maduro. Mr. Rubio settled on Ms. Rodríguez as Mr. Maduro’s successor, and set in motion plans for a military operation that would topple the Venezuelan president and install her in power.

Mr. Maduro dismissed the growing threats from the White House as a bluff, right until U.S. military aircraft attacked Caracas in the early hours of Jan. 3.

Mr. Mildon tried to build ties to Ms. Rodríguez. When Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax, a pro-Trump news channel, secured a meeting with her in February, Mr. Mildon tagged along. The spokesman for Mr. Mildon said he has spoken with Ms. Rodríguez several times since. 

Mr. Mildon told Forbes Turkey that he produces 4.5 million tons of cement a year in Venezuela. Data seen by The Times shows that Venezuela’s entire annual cement output is about a third of that figure. 

He visited one of the cement plants in June, promising to bring new investment and raise output. He wore a red shirt of the type that was ubiquitous among ruling party apparatchiks, but had largely been abandoned since Mr. Maduro was captured. He gave two thumbs-up, Trump style.

Mr. Mildon also claimed in the Forbes Turkey interview that his shrimp business employed 20,000 people and would reach revenues of $500 million in two years. Data seen by The Times, however, shows that in the first eight months of the year the plants sold on average just 5 percent of the shrimp, in terms of volume, that they had been shipping before the government takeover.
After the The Times presented Mr. Mildon with the data, his spokesman said Mr. Mildon had been misquoted in the Forbes Turkey article.

A Reversal in Fortune

As Venezuela evolved, so did Mr. Mildon’s fortunes.

Mr. Maduro was gone. Mr. Mildon’s powerful political backers were fired or sidelined.

His relationship with Ms. Ceballos, the daughter of Mr. Maduro’s longtime military official, also ended. (Adm. Ceballos did not respond to a request for comment. Ms. Ceballos could not be reached.)

But Mr. Mildon’s marriage ceremony to Ms. Habba, which the wedding planners boasted had come together in under 60 days, was a high-profile social event, attracting dignitaries, oligarchs and senior politicians from around the world, who were in New York for the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. Nelly, the Grammy Award-winning rapper, performed.

And Mr. Mildon’s cement businesses are still operating, his spokesman says.

He is working to stave off Ms. Rodríguez’s revocation of his contract. It is a development that he apparently did not expect.

“When no one else had the guts to come, one man did and invested millions,” he said in the Forbes Turkey interview, referring to himself and his business in Venezuela. “They’re not the sort of people who would turn their backs, now that things are better, on a man who trusted them and came here in good faith.”
Reporting was contributed by Justin Makangara from Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, Julian E. Barnes and Glenn Thrush from Washington and Benjamin Weiser from New York. Sheelagh McNeill and Safak Timur contributed research. 

Anatoly Kurmanaev covers Venezuela for The Times.
Tyler Pager is a White House correspondent for The Times, covering President Trump and his administration.