• Raising my daughters as teenagers has been the hardest time of my life as a parent.
• They were sneaking out, skipping school, and eventually ended up in jail.
• When I got the call from jail, I wanted to rescue them but decided not to. It was the right move.

Having my two daughters was the best decision I ever made.

When they were kids, all the moments we had were special. However, kids don't remain kids forever, and their teenage years have been the hardest.

My girls hated school and struggled to keep their grades consistent. When they were 13 and 15, I got a call from their class teacher, who hadn't seen them in school for two weeks straight.

Still, I didn't enforce any hard rules or punishments because I felt that talking to them would have more of an impact than grounding them or revoking privileges. I was wrong.

We tried having open conversations with our kids about their poor behavior

My daughters weren't motivated to get an education because they never knew hardship growing up.

On the other hand, I grew up believing that a good education was the only way to a good job and a better life for myself and my family.

As any parent might, I tried to make them see why education matters and why going to school was the way to a brighter future, but they didn't see it my way.

"Dad, stay out of our business!" was their constant one-liner.

To add insult to injury, they would sneak out in the middle of the night and return early in the morning, thinking we didn't notice. It broke my heart many times.

My wife always wanted to take the harder approach, but I would talk her out of it for fear of pushing them even further away. In those situations, my wife and I did our best to sit down with our daughters to have open conversations.

After they were suspended from school, I got a call from jail

A month passed after that first call from their teacher. The second call came from the school principal, who said that both my daughters had been suspended for the rest of the term for poor attendance and causing trouble in school.

I considered going down and attempting to offer an explanation to the school but decided not to. I knew a suspension record on my daughters' school reports would affect their chances of college acceptance, but they had to learn.

They took the news as I expected, with a carefree attitude. They even said they were done with school.

A few weeks later, they got into trouble for drug possession. Granted, the drugs were found in their friend's car, but that did not save them from the law.

When I got that call from jail, I immediately wanted to go to their rescue and post their bail, but my wife and I decided it was best to let them take responsibility for their actions.

After spending some time in jail, my two daughters were sent to a court-appointed drug program for six months. We hoped the time apart would help all of us reflect, which it thankfully did.

That horrific experience caused my daughters to reconsider their actions. Change didn't happen overnight, though. It was a journey.

I'm finally enjoying parenting again

First, we had to forgive each other for the disappointment, the hurtful actions, and the things that were said in anger.

Over time, my daughters also had to make amends with their school and stay on track with their education.

Getting arrested was enough to inspire them to change their ways.

Now they're in college, and my daughters look back and see their experiences as a stepping stone to a better future.

Slowly but surely, they are turning into responsible adults and I'm enjoying parenting again after that dark phase.

The overnight attack injured three and raises concerns about Russia's ability to target the Ukrainian capital.

"To me, this friendship is more than just a bond, it's a legacy," Nancie Tieri told Newsweek.

A new blast of frigid Arctic air is expected to sweep much of the country this weekend and next week.

• Psychologist Sue Verreault lost her Altadena home in the Eaton Fire in Los Angeles County.
• Several massive wildfires began raging across Los Angeles last week, destroying thousands of homes.
• Despite her loss, Verreault says she's continuing to work because her clients need her.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Sue Verreault, a 55-year-old psychologist who lost her dream home in Altadena, California, in the Eaton Fire, which began on January 7.

Several massive wildfires, including the Eaton Fire and the Palisades Fire, have devastated parts of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, destroying over 12,000 structures, likely causing at least 27 reported deaths, and leaving up to $275 billion in damage.

The following has been edited for length and clarity:

I found out about the fire on social media

I first became aware of the fires on Tuesday night when I got on social media and noticed that there was a fire coming down from the mountain ridge toward the foothills of Altadena where I live.

I have a family living in my back house, and we could see that the fire was behind our house, and there were other houses that were starting to catch on fire.

We knew that with the embers flying around, that it was any moment that we would be in danger. There was a lot of smoke. It was really bad, and with the winds being about a hundred miles an hour, it was a high risk.

And my three dogs were just so scared.

The only thing I could fit in my car was just my dogs, and what I could pack in my passenger seat.

There was part of me that thought, they won't let all these houses burn, it's going to be OK. I just need to get to safety right now, and we'll come back when it's safe.

It wasn't until after the fact, at 4:30 in the morning, that I got a "Leave now!" evacuation order. But it was too late.

After spending the night at a coworker's house, I tried to go to my house in the morning. Just while driving on the freeway, you couldn't see anything.

When I turned onto my street, I saw fire. I could only get about a block and a half away from my house. And then the smoke was touching the ground.

It was like a solid brick wall from the sky to the ground of just black soot and smoke.

I could see that there was no one there except for one firetruck. It was like a wasteland. I couldn't believe it.

I saw this pickup truck on fire on the side of the road, and I knew, I had the feeling then, that my house was gone and I couldn't go any further.

'This was our oasis' — and then there was cancer

My partner, Jamie, and I bought the house in 2008 for $760,000 and it was now worth about $1.6 million. When it was built in 1909, it was one of the main houses there in Altadena.

That home was our oasis.

We had a beautiful backyard, plants, a hot tub. We were doing gardening and renovations. We took in rescue dogs that needed help along the way because we had a half-acre. It was our sanctuary.

And then when Jamie got diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2010, she got sick pretty quickly, and the renovations stopped.

She was my everything, and then when she died, that house was my connection to her and my way of honoring her by continuing the renovations.

I left a lot of things behind, like my grandmother's perfume that smelled like her, and especially things of Jamie's that I cherish.

I had her clothes. I had her ashes in a necklace and partially spread in our backyard. That's gone. But she's in my heart. She'll always be there.

Last Saturday, my friends took me to see what was left of my house, and if there was anything we could salvage.

When I looked at my house, and I climbed my concrete stairs, and I saw the devastation — everything gone — and I saw my fireplace standing, I collapsed to the crowd.

I just felt desperation. I felt this deep, deep, deep, deep loss. And the first thing I thought of was Jamie.

I couldn't breathe. I was having a panic attack, and I was throwing up.

I put my savings into that house. That was my retirement. I put everything into that house. And because of all the upgrades I did, my mortgage payments are over $4,000 a month, and now I'm going to have to pay for rent.

That's really torturing me because I don't think I can afford to rebuild. I don't know what I should do because I may have to sell the land to not have to file bankruptcy.

I still feel like I need to go to work and help people

I'm 55 — I don't have much more time before retirement, and I'm starting over in a negative, so that's hard to even think about right now, especially when I've worked so hard just helping other people.

I work 14-hour days as a supervising psychologist for the LA County Department of Public Health, and then as a private practitioner in the evenings.

I went back to work on Monday. It's a good distraction and there's so many people that are in so much need right now, and in more dire need than I am.

I've been with some of these clients for a couple years, and this is also their pain because they live in these areas, or they're displaced.

So I just don't feel like I can stop working right now.

I want people to know that this will pass, and it'll make you stronger. It's a mindset. Only you can carry yourself through by asking for help — and accepting the help.

That was the hardest thing for me — people I didn't even know were giving me money to help me, and to accept that help was just really hard.

But it's the compassion of strangers that's giving me hope.

• I spent 15 hours in a sleeper car on an Amtrak Superliner train going from Denver to Salt Lake City.
• For $400, I stayed in a private cabin, which had two seats during the day and two bunks at night.
• The 23-square-foot space was cozy and full of space-saving hacks that made it feel larger.

Taking a sleeper train from Denver to Salt Lake City was more expensive than flying or driving — and it took a lot longer. But for a locomotive enthusiast like me, it was worth it.

In January, I took a 15-hour ride through the American Southwest on Amtrak's California Zephyr, an overnight train. I paid $400 to stay in a private, enclosed 23-square-foot space with two chairs and two bunks — also known as a roomette.

I found that 23 square feet is plenty of space for me to feel comfortable on a long journey. And with an efficient arrangement and a design that seemed to prioritize relaxation, I was far cozier than I am on flights and road trips.

The Chicago Cubs could be the perfect candidate to swing a massive offseason trade for San Diego Padres ace Dylan Cease.

Reverend David Nicolson said the busyness of funeral directors and crematoriums means there are times he has "no choice" but to bring his kids along.

A workplace joke spirals into an unexpected situation with real-life consequences.

• Housing inventory could improve as boomers age and pass on their homes, Zillow says.
• Rust Belt markets are poised to benefit the most from this trend.
• Here are the top 5 markets that are ripe for a so-called silver tsunami.

In what's been dubbed a silver tsunami, there's an $84 trillion generational wealth transfer that's slated to happen in the next two decades as boomers age and pass on their assets.

That could seriously shake up a housing market where home ownership is heavily skewed toward older Americans. Boomers, who comprise 20% of the overall US population, owned 36% of all homes in 2024, according to Freddie Mac. They're also sitting on over $17 trillion, or roughly half, of the total home equity in the US.

The silver tsunami might not be a silver bullet for the housing crisis at a national level, according to Orphe Divougny, a senior economist at Zillow.

But certain markets throughout the country have a particularly high concentration of empty-nest homes, which are expected to come on to the market as their boomer owners either downsize or pass away, according to Zillow. If you're looking to buy a home but have been discouraged by the lack of supply on the market, these areas could provide an easier entry point.

Boomer-heavy metro areas don't have much overlap with the expensive markets popular with Gen Z and millennials such as San Jose, Austin, and Denver, according to Zillow. That means inventory in those hot spots won't see much of a boost from empty-nester houses coming onto the market. Rather, many of the markets that have a high concentration of empty-nest households are located in the Rust Belt.

But Gen Z and millennials are proving that they're increasingly willing to relocate out of expensive metro areas and seek affordability, thanks to the flexibility of remote and hybrid work. In fact, there's been a recent trend of younger Americans moving out of cities and into suburban or exurban communities. Some are going even further into rural areas.

For homeowners willing to look outside the popular housing markets, there are deals to be found where the boomers are located.

"When these homes hit the market as owners downsize or otherwise move on, that extra supply should benefit buyers," Divougny said.

Listed below are the top five housing markets that'll benefit from the silver tsunami and the percentage of empty-nest households in each, according to Zillow. For context, the average empty-nester share of households in 2022 nationwide was 16%.

5 housing markets ripe for a silver tsunami

• My twins had similar achievements in high school and applied to the same colleges.
• They received different merit scholarships at every school — sometimes a $13,000 difference.
• I will never understand how that happened because the merit scholarships are awarded in secrecy.

Understandably, merit scholarships are a hot topic in social media parent college groups. My twins applied to colleges simultaneously, so I was determined to learn as much as I could. Spoiler alert: It's complicated.

One thing I learned? Not all scholarships are the same. There are two main types: need-based and merit-based. Sounds simple, right? It's not. While both types come from the college after a student applies, they're awarded for different reasons.

Need-based scholarships are determined by the student's (or, more accurately, their parents') financial situation. Meanwhile, merit scholarships reward students for their accomplishments — whether that's grades, leadership, or athletic abilities.

Still confused? Don't worry, you're not alone. For now, let's stick to merit scholarships since my teenage twins didn't qualify for need-based aid.

How do you qualify for merit scholarships from the college you apply to?

This question often comes up in social media groups, and honestly, I don't think anyone knows the definitive answer. There's a lot of speculation, but unless someone from the college admissions office directly explains why your kid received a merit scholarship, it's really just guessing.

From what I understand, merit scholarships are based on how much a college wants your child to attend. If your child has qualities that the college values, they're more likely to offer a scholarship to encourage attendance. Some parents compare merit scholarships to Kohl's Cash or coupons — essentially, incentives to choose that school.

Somehow, they received different merit scholarships

My boy/girl twins seemed to have qualities colleges were seeking. Both were "high-achieving students," meaning they took advanced placement (AP) and honors classes. They were in the National Honors Society, with high GPAs that differed by only 0.20 points. They were also leaders; both were club presidents and captains of their respective tennis teams (boys' and girls' teams were separate).

I'm not sharing this to brag (though I'm incredibly proud!) but to give you an idea of the kinds of achievements that colleges might look for when awarding merit scholarships. Many colleges also like high SAT or ACT scores, but neither of them submitted scores.

My twins applied to seven of the same colleges, and each offered them different amounts of merit scholarships. Naturally, you'd think the twin with the 0.20 higher GPA would receive more scholarship money, right? That would make sense, but that's not what happened.

When I shared this observation with a friend, they suggested that the school might have been trying to increase enrollment for a specific gender since my twins are of different genders. It also could have been influenced by the majors they were interested in or the clubs they belonged to. Who knows? Not me!

Their merit scholarships were very different at some schools

For most schools, the difference was between $1,000 and $2,000, which is a lot of money, but not when you consider that some private college tuitions with room and board are over $90,000 per year. Suddenly, $1,000 seems like a small dent or pennies in comparison.

The biggest discrepancy in merit scholarships they received was at a small liberal arts college. One twin was awarded $13,000 a year more than the other, which is $52,000 over four years of college.

When I looked on the college's website, I couldn't find the name of the scholarship listed in their acceptance letter. The only information I found states that they offer merit-based scholarships based on achievement, which is pretty vague.

I still have no idea why the scholarship amounts were so vastly different.

I'm trying to move forward without answers

The results of this very unofficial experiment show that your child can qualify for a large merit scholarship if they have some sought-after quality. GPA is probably a key factor, but clearly, there are other mysterious variables at play because, statistically speaking, a 0.20 difference in GPA isn't significant.

So, what's the secret to cracking the mysterious merit scholarship code? I have no idea.

But if colleges are going to hand out merit scholarships like Kohl's Cash, the least they could do is toss in a 30% off coupon — or better yet, a BOGO deal for a mom of twins.

• A 33-hour journey to Tanzania was the longest and farthest I've traveled.
• While the long travel day was worth it, I did make some mistakes that made the trip harder.
• I forgot to pack my foot hammock and a change of clothes for the journey.

After embarking on some of the longest flights in the world, sitting in a plane cabin for hours on end is beginning to feel normal.

I've spent 13 hours traveling between Los Angeles and Auckland, New Zealand. I've also made my way to Tokyo via a 12-hour flight.

However, getting to Tanzania from Denver was an entirely new feat. It took a whopping four flights and 33 hours.

I arrived at the airport two hours early and kicked off the trip on a three-and-a-half-hour flight to Washington, DC. After a five-and-a-half-hour layover, I embarked on a 13-hour flight to Ethiopia. Next was another two-and-a-half-hour layover followed by a three-hour flight to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

For the last stretch, I had one more two-and-a-half-hour layover and an hourlong flight to Tanzania's island of Zanzibar.

Altogether, I spent more than 33 hours on planes and in airports. Unsurprisingly, the journey was filled with mistakes.

Union County had the greatest increase in population, growing by 10.4 percent from 63,085 to 69,637 between 2020 and 2023.

• President-elect Trump has warned he may try to withdraw the US from NATO.
• Any attempt would counter Congress and venture into uncharted legal waters.
• A legislative expert saw signs that could favor Congress in this largely untested area.

In 2018, President Donald Trump privately warned that he might withdraw the US from NATO. He complained that other alliance members weren't contributing their fair share of defense spending, which left American taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Congress thought otherwise. It added a special provision in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which sets funding for the US military. Section 1250A specifies that the president cannot unilaterally withdraw America from NATO without an act of Congress, or unless two-thirds of the Senate concur.

Should Trump follow through during his second term, which starts Monday, the withdrawal would fall into a legal gray area likely to be settled in court and that may favor Congress. The problem is that while the Constitution specifies that the president has the power to negotiate treaties, it doesn't say whether he has the power to break them.

"Although Congress has to some extent regulated the President's withdrawal from a treaty in the past, Section 1250A is the first statute in which Congress has prohibited unilateral presidential withdrawal from a treaty," according to a report by Karen Sokol, a legislative attorney for the Congressional Research Service, which analyzes issues for Congress.

The Founding Fathers were rightly proud that they created a government of checks and balances, where neither the executive, legislative or judicial branches could monopolize power. But they probably would be less than thrilled with the dispute over NATO, which America was instrumental in forming 75 years ago, when a devastated Europe appeared easy prey for Soviet conquest.

Normally, the executive branch handles most foreign policy and national security matters such as negotiating treaties, though Congress exercises considerable clout through defense budgets, ratifying treaties, and approving arms sales. Powers between the executive and legislative branches are delineated clearly enough that for the most part, the system works.

When the executive and legislature can't agree, the courts are supposed to step in. Yet of all the myriad issues that end up in American courts, foreign policy is the area that judges are most reluctant to touch. In the case of withdrawing from NATO, the courts will search for legal precedents in an area that lacks them.

The White House has long maintained that it can withdraw from treaties absent Congressional opposition, such as when the Carter Administration withdrew from a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, which Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of Congress then appealed to the courts. "Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the dispute," Sokol noted. "With a plurality of the Justices concurring in the judgment to dismiss the complaint, concluding that the case presented a political question that was properly addressed by the political branches rather than the judiciary — a determination that is not uncommon in cases involving separation- of-powers disputes in areas of foreign policy."

In 2020, at the end of Trump's first term, the Department of Justice published an opinion that asserted treaty withdrawal is an exclusive presidential power that Congress cannot restrict. And the Supreme Court has ruled that the executive branch has the authority to recognize foreign governments, even though that power is not specified in the Constitution.

Yet past cases suggest that the courts may reject this argument. Sokol points to the 1952 Youngstown Steel case, when the Supreme Court ruled against President Harry S. Truman's attempt to seize steel mills during the Korean War, on the ground that this violated the intent of Congress.

"Under the Youngstown framework, courts assess presidential claims of authority based on what Congress has—or has not—said about the matter," Sokol wrote. By that standard, Congress has expressed its intent that the US remain in NATO by passing Section 1250A.

Sokol also believes that the courts may reject the Trump administration's assertion that the executive branch alone can decide to withdraw from treaties. "A court may find a President's claim of exclusive constitutional power to withdraw from a treaty to be unpersuasive given that the Constitution is silent about treaty withdrawal powers and that Article II makes treaty entry a power shared between the President and the Senate."

Either way, the question of whether Trump has the power to withdraw from NATO means venturing into largely uncharted legal waters. "Ultimately, it is uncertain how a court would rule on the constitutional distribution of treaty withdrawal power based on its analysis of the Constitution's text and structure, relevant Supreme Court precedent, and historical interbranch practice," Sokol concluded.

Trump may not need to formally withdraw from NATO to damage it. For example, a wargame run by British experts last year found that Trump could sabotage the alliance simply by having America do less. This could include minimizing US participation in NATO exercises or restricting American officers serving as NATO commanders. The effects of a US pullback would be global and hard to predict.

Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.

• On social media, my sons seemed like near-perfect kids. Reality looked a little different.
• I now see my sons' experiences weren't failures, just benchmarks of growth in their own stories.
• Despite our past struggles, my sons have grown into successful, responsible men that I'm proud of.

On Instagram, it might have appeared that my children's father and I did everything right when it came to parenting. My sons — who are now 25 and 27 — each earned their Eagle Scout, graduated high school, went to college, and based on the updates and pictures I posted, they probably seemed like perfect kids. The thing is, perfect doesn't exist and in the world of curated social media posts, one family's success story is often filled with quiet mistakes, secret crises, and untold moments of so-called failure. That was our story.

Everything wasn't as it seemed

I thought I was the cool — but tough — mom, the one whose kids could talk to her about anything, but one who also had firm boundaries and expectations. School was important, as was keeping your word, being helpful, kind, and forward-thinking. It was okay to laugh, have fun, and spend time with friends. But it was just as important to be smart. I spent a majority of my sons' childhoods talking to them in depth about things like safe sex, the dangers of drugs and alcohol, and avoiding peer pressure.

While I posted glowing reports about my oldest son's grades, his hobby building computers, his travels abroad, and his witty sense of humor, only my closest friends and family knew about the time I kicked him out of the house two weeks before his graduation after our millionth argument about doing chores and being respectful turned south. Only my then-husband knew the toll that moment took on our relationship and how hard it was to repair, even though he moved back in a week later.

When, at the age of 20, that same son told me he and his girlfriend were actively trying to get pregnant and that he felt "ready" for a child — even though he was unemployed — I didn't turn to Instagram to share my concerns. But when they announced her pregnancy a few short months later, I happily shared the news of our newest family member.

My youngest son had his own struggles

Even my youngest son, who looked like a golden boy in my social media posts, had his own fair share of moments that made me doubt my ability to parent.

He was our honor and AP student, ran cross country, and was on the football team. He had a part time job, and his entire academic and career path seemed planned from the time he was 13.

When he had his first sexual experience as a teen, he talked to me about it openly, but also revealed he didn't wear a condom.

Apparently, even though I'd spent the entirety of his pubescent years teaching him and his brother about STDs, teen pregnancy (something I had personal experience with as I'd had my sons at 17 and 19), and the importance of consent, partner selection, and not breaking the law, he decided to not only skip the condom, but had sex in public at a beach on base where we were stationed, not far from our house.

Thankfully, he didn't get caught, his partner did not become pregnant, and the STD panel he later took was negative. Of course, I didn't share any of this on Instagram.

Two years later, he started smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, and skipping classes. For six months, his father and I were on edge, trying to force our son into sobriety while desperately trying to keep him safe. In the end, it wasn't the begging, pleading, grounding, threatening, or yelling that saved our son, it was a bad case of psychosis he experienced while high that terrified him so badly, he quit using altogether.

The only people who knew were our closest friends. A year later when he graduated high school, I proudly posted his picture with a list of his accomplishments, never uttering a word about the months of chaos we'd endured.

Today, they are different people

Now that same son is engaged to a wonderful young lady, in a masters program for biochemistry and has his eye on pursuing an MD-PhD. Meanwhile, my oldest is an amazing single father to two beautiful little girls, working on his undergraduate degree, and still building (and selling) computers in his free time. Both of them are drug-free, only drink on occasion, pay their taxes, and have never been in trouble with the law. They're also genuinely funny, smart, and deeply kind people. In my eyes, they are both success stories.

We all have unique stories

Did I do everything right as a mom? Of course not. Although I loved them, kept them fed, sheltered, and (to the best of my ability) informed, I made mistakes, too. Looking back, I realize I wasn't as cool as I thought, and often failed to really listen to my sons when they needed me. I yelled when I was upset, fought with their dad often, and missed the mark when it came to seeing them as people with their own unique wants and needs. Maybe things would have been different had their dad and I divorced sooner, had I done the healing work I needed to do to recover from my own chaotic and abusive childhood, and had I been a more patient and understanding mom. Or maybe, things would have remained the same.

Watching my sons grow into men taught me to consider another possibility: What if everything went exactly how it was supposed to and my sons' experiences weren't failures at all, just benchmarks of growth in their own individual stories?

Try as we might, our kids are going to grow up and do things we don't want them to do. Even things we've specifically told them not to do. Sometimes those choices will be a reflection of our own failures as parents, but often, have nothing to do with us at all. As easy as it is to blame ourselves when things go wrong, it's also important to remember that every perceived failure is an opportunity to learn, change, and grow. There is no such thing as perfect parenting (regardless of what you see on social media) and every person — even our kids — has the right to choose their own adventure. Sometimes that leads to failure, but with enough love and patience, things often turn out just fine.

In the end, I didn't get parenting right one hundred percent of the time, but that didn't make me a bad mom, it just means I am human, and so are my kids, even if I only post the highlight reels on Instagram.

• Some Airbnb hosts decided not to welcome guests during Donald Trump's inauguration weekend.
• They worried about safety or supporting a political agenda. Others, though, had no issues hosting.
• Demand for DC-area short-term rentals in 2025 is on par with Trump's 2017 inauguration, AirDNA said.

Washington DC Airbnb host Stacy Kane blocked her calendar for president-elect Donald Trump's second inauguration.

Kane and two friends contacted community members and city councilors urging other hosts to join in, saying in an email that it would "show Trump supporters who are coming into the DMV that we do not welcome hate, misogyny, or intentions to take over DC," according to the Washington Post.

A handful of other hosts have removed their short-term rentals from the market. One Airbnb owner — who lives in the same property as the apartment she rents out about three miles from the Capitol — told Business Insider that she was concerned for her own safety given the language and actions of Trump supporters on January 6.

Other people who have said they run Airbnbs have posted on Facebook and Reddit forums for hosts that they not only kept their homes open to book — but added premiums to their rates.

"I'm charging $1,200 a night with a four-night minimum," one Redditor posted in November.

It appears that the conflicting opinions over how to treat inauguration weekend have had little effect. Demand from guests looking to stay in short-term rentals in the DC area this year is similar to Trump's first inauguration in 2017, according to Bram Gallagher, the director of economics and forecasting at AirDNA.

"In the DC metro area, the number of available listings has remained stable, and search trends and average nightly rates are typical for periods of increased demand," an Airbnb spokesperson said in a statement.

The spokesperson also said that the company "connects guests and hosts of all political perspectives" and is "committed to ensuring that this is their experience on the platform. Our policies and Terms of Service make this clear, and if we learn of instances where these are violated, we take action."

Are you a Washington DC Airbnb host renting — or not renting — your home this weekend? Email Hana Alberts at [email protected] to share your thoughts for a future story.

DC's rule that Airbnb hosts rent out their primary residence made one feel at risk

The Airbnb host worried about her safety, who asked to remain anonymous due to the same concerns, said DC's rule that short-term rentals for stays under 30 days must also be the owner's primary residence makes her feel more vulnerable.

"If something happens, these people can forever just target me," she told Business Insider. "It opens you up to way more than what it's worth for a few nights of rental income. I just could never see myself putting myself out there for that."

Because of the law, many Washington DC hosts live in the homes they rent out and have strong connections to their neighborhoods.

"From my perspective, it's not about the money," she added. "I love hosting. I love meeting people and helping people enjoy my city, but I couldn't possibly be somewhere where people are using hate speech and targeting people and being violent. Those aren't the kind of folks that I want to host, and I would just rather be safe than take that risk."

Bookings for inauguration weekend are close to 2017 figures

Every four years on January 20, people from all over the country regularly stream into Washington and brave inclement weather to see the president get sworn in outside the Capitol. Trump announced Friday that his 2025 inauguration would be held inside the Capitol Rotunda instead due to expected freezing temperatures.

Gallagher, of AirDNA, broke down how short-term-rental demand in 2025 is on par with 2017's.

AirDNA data shows that the peak day for short-term rental demand for the 2017 inauguration — as measured by the total number of nights booked — was 6,796 as of January 13, 2017. As of the same date in 2025, the total number of nights booked was 8,100.

Gallagher noted that AirDNA did not start tracking Vrbo data until later in 2017; the 2025 figures reflect Airbnbs and Vrbos booked.

In the Capitol Hill neighborhood, where the Capitol is located, demand was 1,191 nights booked in 2017 and 1,189 in 2025 — almost the same.

"I was surprised by how close these demand figures are — it was a pretty big event in 2017," Gallagher said.

So far, the data also suggests that major price hikes haven't occurred. The highest average daily rate in 2017 during the inauguration was about $363 a night. In 2025, it's about $304.

"I think people just became very, very cost-conscious in 2023, and that's still sort of going on," Gallagher said. "We saw prices decline all through 2023 on average nationwide. It might just be kind of a hangover from that."

He added that some hosts care more about getting bookings than about securing the most profitable rate.

"It may be also too that the short-term-rental operators just prefer to fill up rather than have the highest possible price," he said. "I can imagine if you're a management company or if you're a small manager, you go to your owner and say, 'Well, I've got this DC apartment in Capitol Hill, but we couldn't rent it out on inauguration,' they'll be pretty mad."

• A founder shared her "Shark Tank" experience and why she didn't close her deal with Mark Cuban.
• Blaine Anderson posted on X that she had to submit "TONS of paperwork" and pass several interviews.
• The Dating by Blaine chief said she realized later an outside investor would make her life harder.

A founder who pitched her dating startup on "Shark Tank" and struck a deal with Mark Cuban shared what it was like to appear on the show — and why she ultimately didn't take the tech billionaire's investment.

Blaine Anderson, the CEO of Dating by Blaine, walked through her "Shark Tank" experience in a thread on X after the episode featuring her was shown again this week.

Her company sells online courses aimed at men about various aspects of dating, plus one-on-one teaching sessions with the boss herself.

Anderson, who has more than 700,000 Instagram followers, wrote that one of the show's producers contacted her in early 2023 after reading about Dating by Blaine in a newspaper article. She agreed to chat with "tempered excitement" because she was selling digital products and services and required little working capital.

The matchmaker recalled submitting "TONS of paperwork" including bank statements, and going through several rounds of interviews, before she was invited to Los Angeles to film in May 2023.

During the episode, Anderson revealed she founded the company in mid-2020 after losing her job during the pandemic, and had already generated more than $2.2 million in sales. She also made about $500,000 of profit on some $1 million of sales in 2022, she said.

Anderson asked the Sharks for $100,000 in exchange for 2% of her company, valuing it at $5 million. The Sharks were visibly intrigued by her pitch, but grew less impressed when she couldn't break down her revenues from different products or say how many classes she'd sold.

Guest Shark Michael Rubin quickly dropped out. Kevin O'Leary showed interest, but Anderson had her eye firmly on Cuban. Barbara Corcoran helped her reach a deal that would give him 10% of the business for $100,000, valuing it at $1 million, and the pair agreed to those terms.

Anderson wrote on X that after filming, she was directed to a private room where a psychologist checked on her, which she described as a "nice touch" from the studio. She added that everyone working on the show was "thoughtful and kind," and understood how much was at stake for the entrepreneurs involved.

The dating guru said her pitch was "ROASTED on Reddit," but she defended her right to ask for whatever valuation she wanted. Anderson added that she's not great with numbers as she's a "dating coach and matchmaker, not an accountant," and that she probably benefits from "pretty privilege" as some critics had said.

Anderson said she didn't end up closing the deal with Cuban despite spending "tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees, plus months of my focus, hoping to make things work." That was because she eventually realized that having an outside investor would make her life harder.

She also showered praise on Cuban. "Mark is down to earth, easy to work with, shockingly accessible, super smart, and funny. He cares about his entrepreneurs, and I'd be glad to work with him someday."

Cuban and ABC didn't immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. Anderson declined to comment.

Newsom is facing sharp criticism over the wildfires that have devastated Los Angeles. Newsweek writers decide if he should face a recall.

Multiple celebrities have criticized Musk for his political involvement as well as the changes he's made to X since purchasing it.

A Chinese action camera used by NASA, the U.S. Air Force and many Americans is collecting data and communicating with servers in China and Russia, a study said.