As Burger King enters the next phase of its turnaround efforts, the fast-food chain is trying to lure families back to its restaurants with colored Whopper buns and kid-friendly movie partnerships.

Starting Tuesday, the Restaurant Brands International chain will sell new menu items inspired by the “live action” remake of “How to Train Your Dragon.” The collaboration is more than just a one-time partnership — it’s part of Burger King’s broader strategy to lift U.S. sales.

“Where we’re really starting to lean in now that we’ve made some progress in both operations and in our restaurants is on a family-first marketing strategy,” Burger King U.S. and Canada President Tom Curtis told CNBC.

Burger King’s U.S. business has been in turnaround mode for more than 2½ years. After falling behind burger rivals McDonald’s and Wendy’s, the company announced plans to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a comeback strategy to renovate its restaurants, improve its operations and spend on advertising. The chain even bought its largest U.S. franchisee with the goal of accelerating its restaurant remodels.

“We’re finding that there will be chapters to this as we go through time, and right now is this family strategy chapter, where we’ve done enough work and transformed our restaurant operations to the extent that we’re proud of,” Curtis said. “We’re inviting families back in, and we’re finding that we’re getting better retention when they do come back in.”

Curtis said focusing on families gives Burger King the opportunity to attract customers across age cohorts, from millennials to Generation Alpha, which is roughly defined as people born between 2010 and 2025. Plus, parents’ avid use of social media means that word spreads quickly, giving the approach a leg up compared with targeting a single demographic that isn’t as enthusiastic online.

The limited-time themed menu items include the Dragon Flame-Grilled Whopper, with a red and orange marbled bun; Fiery Dragon Mozzarella Fries, made with Calabrian chili pepper breading; Soaring Strawberry Lemonade; and the Viking’s Chocolate Sundae, with Hershey’s syrup and black and green cookie crumbles.

Movie collaborations aren’t anything new for fast food — or Burger King. It was one of the first fast-food chains to lean into movie tie-ins. In 1977, the chain sold “Star Wars” drinking glasses ahead of the film’s release.

McDonald’s wasn’t far behind, following with a Star Trek-themed Happy Meal two years later, kicking off decades of movie, TV and toy tie-ins aimed at kids. More recently, the Golden Arches’ collaboration with “A Minecraft Movie” across more than 100 markets sold out within two weeks in the U.S., about half the time earmarked for the promotion.

In Burger King’s more recent past, under Curtis’ leadership, the chain has had two major partnerships: one with “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” two years ago and another with the Addams Family franchise, timed for Halloween last year.

Both of those menus featured Whoppers with thematic, colored buns, dyed using natural colorants, like beet juice or ube.

“Not having artificial dyes and colors is something that’s been important to us for a while,” Curtis said.

Burger King use of natural dyes comes as artificial food dyes have come under fire from health-concerned parents. Following a push from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Food and Drug Administration recently announced plans to phase out the use of petroleum-based synthetic dyes in food and drinks.

The two previous collaborations also were Burger King’s top-selling Whopper innovations, based on the number sold, according to Curtis.

“What we found in the Addams Family promotion specifically was, as we dug into the property, traffic was fairly flat, but sales were up,” he said, attributing the sales growth to families, which have a higher average check than a solo diner or a couple.

The expected sales lift from the “How to Train Your Dragon” menu comes at a crucial time for Burger King.

In its most recent quarter, the company’s comeback stumbled. The chain’s U.S. same-store sales slid 1.1%, mirroring an industrywide slump as fears about the economy and bad weather kept diners at home.

But Curtis is confident that Burger King is on the right track, pointing to the chain’s relative outperformance compared with its two biggest competitors: McDonald’s and Wendy’s.

“I know that they’re scrambling, and sometimes, frankly, copying some of the things that we do, which, you know, plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery,” he said. “When we see them doing that, it gives us more conviction to stay on course.”

When the live-action version of “How to Train Your Dragon” hits theaters on June 13, it’s expected to be one of the summer’s big blockbusters. After all, the animated trilogy has grossed more than $1.6 billion worldwide.

Burger King has similar expectations for its menu tie-in.

The past success of the Spider-Verse and Addams Family menu items pushed Burger King to “dramatically” up its forecast for the “How to Train Your Dragon” menu, according to Curtis. And Burger King is also planning on changing its advertising strategy, which could drastically increase demand for the Dragon Flamed-Grilled Whoppers.

“In the past, we would just kind of associate ourselves with the movie property, but we wouldn’t necessarily advertise the association — you’d just see it and hear about it in social media,” Curtis said.

The promotion is supposed to run through early July, but in case Burger King burns through its supply in just three weeks, the chain is prepared to monitor what locations have run out of the menu items. That’s a lesson it learned during its Spider-Verse promotion, when it had to launch a tracker on its website to help customers find the coveted Whopper.

As it learns from every experience, Burger King is planning to dive deeper into franchise partnerships, betting that the extra effort will drive long-term loyalty for the brand.

“We’re doing a couple more of them than we have in the past,” Curtis said. “We’ve got one toward the end of the year that we’re very, very excited about … and we’re getting some lined up for next year as well. In every one of those, we’ll go all in.”

Disclosure: Comcast owns CNBC and Universal Studios, the producer and distributor of “How to Train Your Dragon.”

It took six months, countless hours on hold and intervention from state regulators before Sue Cover says she finally resolved an over $1,000 billing dispute with UnitedHealthcare in 2023.

Cover, 46, said she was overbilled for emergency room visits for her and her son, along with a standard ultrasound. While Cover said her family would eventually have been able to pay the sum, she said it would have been a financial strain on them.

Cover, a San Diego benefits advocate, said she had conversations with UnitedHealthcare that “felt like a circular dance.” Cover said she picked through dense policy language and fielded frequent calls from creditors. She said the experience felt designed to exhaust patients into submission.

“It sometimes took my entire day of just sitting on the phone, being on hold with the hospital or the insurance company,” Cover said.

Cover’s experience is familiar to many Americans. And it embodies rising public furor toward insurers and in particular UnitedHealthcare, the largest private health insurer in the U.S., which has become the poster child for problems with the U.S. insurance industry and the nation’s sprawling health-care system.

The company and other insurers have faced backlash from patients who say they were denied necessary care, providers who say they are buried in red tape and lawmakers who say they are alarmed by its vast influence.

UnitedHealthcare in a statement said it is working with Cover’s provider to “understand the facts of these claims.” The company said it is “unfortunate that CNBC rushed to publish this story without allowing us and the provider adequate time to review.” CNBC provided the company several days to review Cover’s situation before publication.

Andrew Witty, CEO of UnitedHealthcare’s company, UnitedHealth Group, stepped down earlier this month for what the company called “personal reasons.” Witty had led the company through the thick of public and investor blowback. The insurer also pulled its 2025 earnings guidance this month, partly due to rising medical costs, it said.

UnitedHealth Group is by far the biggest company in the insurance industry by market cap, worth nearly $275 billion. It controls an estimated 15% of the U.S. health insurance market, serving more than 29 million Americans, according to a 2024 report from the American Medical Association. Meanwhile, competitors Elevance Health and CVS Health control an estimated 12% of the market each.

It’s no surprise that a company with such a wide reach faces public blowback. But the personal and financial sensitivity of health care makes the venom directed at UnitedHealth unique, some experts told CNBC.

Shares of UnitedHealth Group are down about 40% this year following a string of setbacks for the company, despite a temporary reprieve sparked in part by share purchases by company insiders. In the last month alone, UnitedHealth Group has lost nearly $300 billion of its $600 billion market cap following Witty’s exit, the company’s rough first-quarter earnings and a reported criminal probe into possible Medicare fraud.

In a statement about the investigation, UnitedHealth Group said, “We stand by the integrity of our Medicare Advantage program.”

Over the years, UnitedHealthcare and other insurers have also faced numerous patient and shareholder lawsuits and several other government investigations.

UnitedHealth Group is also contending with the fallout from a February 2024 ransomware attack on Change Healthcare, a subsidiary that processes a significant portion of the country’s medical claims.

More recently, UnitedHealthcare became a symbol for outrage toward insurers following the fatal shooting of its CEO, Brian Thompson, in December. Thompson’s death reignited calls to reform what many advocates and lawmakers say is an opaque industry that puts profits above patients.

The problems go deeper than UnitedHealth Group: Insurers are just one piece of what some experts call a broken U.S. health-care system, where many stakeholders, including drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers, are trying to balance patient care with making money. Still, experts emphasized that insurers’ cost-cutting tactics — from denying claims to charging higher premiums — can delay or block crucial treatment, leave patients with unexpected bills, they say, or in some cases, even mean the difference between life and death.

In a statement, UnitedHealthcare said it is ″unfortunate that CNBC appears to be drawing broad conclusions based on a small number of anecdotes.”

Frustration with insurers is a symptom of a broader problem: a convoluted health-care system that costs the U.S. more than $4 trillion annually.

U.S. patients spend far more on health care than people anywhere else in the world, yet have the lowest life expectancy among large, wealthy countries, according to the Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group. Over the past five years, U.S. spending on insurance premiums, out-of-pocket co-payments, pharmaceuticals and hospital services has also increased, government data show.

While many developed countries have significant control over costs because they provide universal coverage, the U.S. relies on a patchwork of public and private insurance, often using profit-driven middlemen to manage care, said Howard Lapin, adjunct professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law.

But the biggest driver of U.S. health spending isn’t how much patients use care — it’s prices, said Richard Hirth, professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan.

There is “unbelievable inflation of the prices that are being charged primarily by hospitals, but also drug companies and other providers in the system,” said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

Lapin said factors such as overtreatment, fraud, health-care consolidation and administrative overhead raise costs for payers and providers, who then pass those on through higher prices. U.S. prescription drug prices are also two to three times higher than those in other developed countries, partly due to limited price regulation and pharmaceutical industry practices such as patent extensions.

While patients often blame insurers, the companies are only part of the problem. Some experts argue that eliminating their profits wouldn’t drastically lower U.S. health-care costs.

Still, UnitedHealthcare and other insurers have become easy targets for patient frustration — and not without reason, according to industry experts.

Their for-profit business model centers on managing claims to limit payouts, while complying with regulations and keeping customers content. That often means denying services deemed medically unnecessary, experts said. But at times, insurers reject care that patients need, leaving them without vital treatment or saddled with hefty bills, they added.

Insurers use tools such as deductibles, co-pays, and prior authorization — or requiring approval before certain treatments — to control costs. Industry experts say companies are increasingly relying on artificial intelligence to review claims, and that can sometimes lead to inaccurate denials.

“It’s all part of the same business model — to avoid paying as many claims as possible in a timely fashion,” said Dylan Roby, an affiliate at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

While other private U.S. insurers employ many of the same tactics, UnitedHealth Group appears to have faced the most public backlash due to its size and visibility.

UnitedHealth Group’s market value dwarfs the sub-$100 billion market caps of competitors such as CVS, Cigna and Elevance. UnitedHealth Group booked more than $400 billion in revenue in 2024 alone, up from roughly $100 billion in 2012.

It has expanded into many parts of the health-care system, sparking more criticism of other segments of its business — and the company’s ability to use one unit to benefit another.

UnitedHealth Group grew by buying smaller companies and building them into its growing health-care business. The company now serves nearly 150 million people and controls everything from insurance and medical services to sensitive health-care data.

UnitedHealth Group owns a powerful pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, called Optum Rx, which gives it even more sway over the market.

PBMs act as middlemen, negotiating drug rebates on behalf of insurers, managing lists of drugs covered by health plans and reimbursing pharmacies for prescriptions. But lawmakers and drugmakers accuse them of overcharging plans, underpaying pharmacies and failing to pass savings on to patients.

Owning a PBM gives UnitedHealth Group control over both supply and demand, Corlette said. Its insurance arm influences what care is covered, while Optum Rx determines what drugs are offered and at what price. UnitedHealth Group can maximize profits by steering patients to lower-cost or higher-margin treatments and keeping rebates, she said.

The company’s reach goes even further, Corlette added: Optum Health now employs or affiliates with about 90,000 doctors — nearly 10% of U.S. physicians — allowing UnitedHealth Group to direct patients to its own providers and essentially pay itself for care.

A STAT investigation last year found that UnitedHealth uses its physicians to squeeze profits from patients. But the company in response said its “providers and partners make independent clinical decisions, and we expect them to diagnose and document patient information completely and accurately in compliance with [federal] guidelines.”

Other insurers, such as CVS and Cigna, also own large PBMs and offer care services. But UnitedHealth Group has achieved greater scale and stronger financial returns.

“I think the company is certainly best in class when it comes to insurers, in terms of providing profits for shareholders,” said Roby. “But people on the consumer side probably say otherwise when it comes to their experience.”

No one knows exactly how often private insurers deny claims, since they aren’t generally required to report that data. But some analyses suggest that UnitedHealthcare has rejected care at higher rates than its peers for certain types of plans.

A January report by nonprofit group KFF found that UnitedHealthcare denied 33% of in-network claims across Affordable Care Act plans in 20 states in 2023, one of the highest rates among major insurers. CVS denied 22% of claims across 11 states, and Cigna denied 21% in eight states.

UnitedHealth did not respond to a request for comment on that report. But in December, the company also pushed back on public criticism around its denial rates, saying it approves and pays about 90% of claims upon submission. UnitedHealthcare’s website says the remaining 10% go through an additional review process. The company says its claims approval rate stands at 98% after that review.

In addition, UnitedHealth Group is facing lawsuits over denials. In November, families of two deceased Medicare Advantage patients sued the company and its subsidiary, alleging it used an AI model with a “90% error rate” to deny their claims. UnitedHealth Group has argued it should be dismissed from the case because the families didn’t complete Medicare’s appeals process.

A spokesperson for the company’s subsidiary, NaviHealth, also previously told news outlets that the lawsuit “has no merit” and that the AI tool is used to help providers understand what care a patient may need. It does not help make coverage decisions, which are ultimately based on the terms of a member’s plan and criteria from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, the reported Justice Department criminal probe outlined by the Wall Street Journal targets the company’s Medicare Advantage business practices. In its statement, the company said the Justice Department has not notified it about the reported probe, and called the newspaper’s reporting “deeply irresponsible.”

Inside the company, employees say customers and workers alike face hurdles.

One worker, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, said UnitedHealthcare’s provider website often includes doctors listed as in-network or accepting new patients when they’re not, leading to frequent complaints. Management often replies that it’s too difficult to keep provider statuses up to date, the person said.

UnitedHealthcare told CNBC it believes “maintaining accurate provider directories is a shared responsibility among health plans and providers,” and that it “proactively verifies provider data on a regular basis.” The vast majority of all inaccuracies are due to errors or lack of up-to-date information submitted by providers, the company added.

Emily Baack, a clinical administrative coordinator at UMR, a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare, criticized the length of time it can take a provider to reach a real support worker over the phone who can help assess claims or prior authorization requests. She said the company’s automated phone system can misroute people’s calls or leave them waiting for a support person for over an hour.

But Baack emphasized that similar issues occur across all insurance companies.

She said providers feel compelled to submit unnecessary prior authorization requests out of fear that claims won’t be paid on time. Baack said that leads to a massive backlog of paperwork on her end and delays care for patients.

UnitedHealthcare said prior authorization is “an important checkpoint” that helps ensure members are receiving coverage for safe and effective care.

The company noted it is “continually taking action to simplify and modernize the prior authorization process.” That includes reducing the number of services and procedures that require prior authorization and exempting qualified provider groups from needing to submit prior authorization requests for certain services.

While UnitedHealthcare is not the only insurer facing criticism from patients, Thompson’s killing in December reinforced the company’s unique position in the public eye. Thousands of people took to social media to express outrage toward the company, sharing examples of their own struggles.

The public’s hostile reaction to Thompson’s death did not surprise many industry insiders.

Alicia Graham, co-founder and chief operating officer of the startup Claimable, said Thompson’s murder was “a horrible crime.” She also acknowledged that anger has been bubbling up in various online health communities “for years.”

Claimable is one of several startups trying to address pain points within insurance. It’s not an easy corner of the market to enter, and many of these companies, including Claimable, have been using the AI boom to their advantage.

Claimable, founded in 2024, said it helps patients challenge denials by submitting customized, AI-generated appeal letters on their behalf. The company can submit appeals for conditions such as migraines and certain pediatric and autoimmune diseases, though Graham said it is expanding those offerings quickly.

Many patients aren’t aware that they have a right to appeal, and those who do can spend hours combing through records to draft one, Graham said. If patients are eligible to submit an appeal letter through Claimable, she said they can often do so in minutes. Each appeal costs users $39.95 plus shipping, according to the company’s website.

“A lot of patients are afraid, a lot of patients are frustrated, a lot of patients are confused about the process, so what we’ve tried to do is make it all as easy as possible,” Graham told CNBC.

Some experts have warned about the possibility of health-care “bot wars,” where all parties are using AI to try to gain an edge.

Mike Desjadon, CEO of the startup Anomaly, said he’s concerned about the potential for an AI arms race in the sector, but he remains optimistic. Anomaly, founded in 2020, uses AI to help providers determine what insurers are and aren’t paying for in advance of care, he said.

“I run a technology company and I want to win, and I want our customers to win, and that’s all very true, but at the same time, I’m a citizen and a patient and a husband and a father and a taxpayer, and I just want health care to be rational and be paid for appropriately,” Desjadon told CNBC.

Dr. Jeremy Friese, founder and CEO of the startup Humata Health, said patients tend to interact with insurers only once something goes wrong, which contributes to their frustrations. Requirements such as prior authorization can be a “huge black box” for patients, but they’re also cumbersome for doctors, he said.

Friese said his business was inspired by his work as an interventional radiologist. In 2017, he co-founded a prior-authorization company called Verata Health, which was acquired by the now-defunct health-care AI startup Olive. Friese bought back his technology and founded his latest venture, Humata, in 2023.

Humata uses AI to automate prior authorization for all specialties and payers, Friese said. The company primarily works with medium and large health systems, and it announced a $25 million funding round in June.

“There’s just a lot of pent-up anger and angst, frankly, on all aspects of the health-care ecosystem,” Friese told CNBC.

UnitedHealth Group also set a grim record last year that did little to help public perception. The company’s subsidiary Change Healthcare suffered a cyberattack that affected around 190 million Americans, the largest reported health-care data breach in U.S. history.

Change Healthcare offers payment and revenue cycle management tools, as well as other solutions, such as electronic prescription software. In 2022, it merged with UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit, which touches more than 100 million patients in the U.S.

In February 2024, a ransomware group called Blackcat breached part of Change Healthcare’s information technology network. UnitedHealth Group isolated and disconnected the affected systems “immediately upon detection” of the threat, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, but the ensuing disruption rocked the health-care sector.

Money stopped flowing while the company’s systems were offline, so a major revenue source for thousands of providers across the U.S. screeched to a halt. Some doctors pulled thousands of dollars out of their personal savings to keep their practices afloat.

“It was and remains the largest and most consequential cyberattack against health care in history,” John Riggi, the national advisor for cybersecurity and risk at the American Hospital Association, told CNBC.

Ransomware is a type of malicious software that blocks victims from accessing their computer files, systems and networks, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ransomware groups such as Blackcat, which are often based in countries such as Russia, China and North Korea, will deploy this software, steal sensitive data and then demand a payment for its return.

Ransomware attacks within the health-care sector have climbed in recent years, in part because patient data is valuable and relatively easy for cybercriminals to exploit, said Steve Cagle, CEO of the health-care cybersecurity and compliance firm Clearwater.

“It’s been a very lucrative and successful business for them,” Cagle told CNBC. “Unfortunately, we’ll continue to see that type of activity until something changes.”

UnitedHealth Group paid the hackers a $22 million ransom to try to protect patients’ data, then-CEO Witty said during a Senate hearing in May 2024.

In March 2024, UnitedHealth Group launched a temporary funding assistance program to help providers with short-term cash flow.

The program got off to a rocky start, several doctors told CNBC, and the initial deposits did not cover their mounting expenses.

UnitedHealth Group ultimately paid out more than $9 billion to providers in 2024, according to the company’s fourth-quarter earnings report in January.

Witty said in his congressional testimony that providers would only be required to repay the loans when “they, not me, but they confirm that their cash flow is normalized.”

Almost a year later, however, the company is aggressively going after borrowers, demanding they “immediately repay” their outstanding balances, according to documents viewed by CNBC and providers who received funding. Some groups have been asked to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in a matter of days, according to documents viewed by CNBC.

A spokesperson for Change Healthcare confirmed to CNBC in April that the company has started recouping the loans.

″We continue to work with providers on repayment and other options, and continue to reach out to those providers that have not been responsive to previous calls or email requests for more information,” the spokesperson said.

The pressure for repayment drew more ire toward UnitedHealth Group on social media, and some providers told CNBC that dealing with the company was a “very frustrating experience.”

The vast majority of Change Healthcare’s services have been restored over the last year, but three products are still listed as “partial service available,” according to UnitedHealth’s cyberattack response website.

Witty’s departure and the company’s warning about elevated medical costs, combined with the fallout from Thompson’s murder and the Change Healthcare cyberattack, could mean UnitedHealth faces an uphill battle.

UnitedHealth Group appears to be trying to regain the public’s trust. For example, Optum Rx in March announced plans to eliminate prior authorizations on dozens of drugs, easing a pain point for physicians and patients.

But policy changes at UnitedHealth Group and other insurers may not drastically improve care for patients, health insurance industry experts previously told CNBC.

They said there will need to be structural changes to the entire insurance industry, which will require legislation that may not be high on the priority list for the closely divided Congress.

The spotlight on UnitedHealth Group may only grow brighter in the coming months. The trial date for Luigi Mangione, the man facing federal stalking and murder charges in connection with Thompson’s shooting, is expected to be set in December. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

We now know who won the contest to attend an intimate dinner with President Donald Trump by buying his cryptocurrency — and he’s a familiar face to Securities and Exchange Commission regulators and law enforcement officials.

Justin Sun, a Chinese-born crypto entrepreneur, confirmed in an X post Tuesday that he was behind the account, labeled ‘SUN,’ that purchased the most $TRUMP meme coin to sit at the president’s table at a crypto-focused gala scheduled for Thursday.

‘Honored to support @POTUS and grateful for the invitation from @GetTrumpMemes to attend President Trump’s Gala Dinner as his TOP fan!’ Sun wrote. ‘As the top holder of $TRUMP, I’m excited to connect with everyone, talk crypto, and discuss the future of our industry.’

He capped the post with an American flag emoji.

Critics have blasted the dinner contest as potentially unconstitutional and a blatant opportunity for corruption. Trump has not publicly commented on the accusations, and the Office of Government Ethics has declined to comment. A White House official did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

The Trump administration is not directly involved in administering $TRUMP coin. As for the dinner, a White House official said in a statement that the president ‘is working to secure GOOD deals for the American people, not for himself.’

‘President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said.

While Trump has not been as aggressive in directly promoting cryptocurrencies as some campaign backers in the industry had hoped, his administration has abandoned or paused many pending cases that had been brought against crypto entrepreneurs and businesses.

That includes Sun, who was charged in 2023 with market manipulation and offering unregistered securities. Regulators sought various injunctions against him that would have largely prevented him from participating in crypto in the U.S. The Verge, a tech industry website, had also reported Sun was the target of an FBI investigation.

But in February, the SEC, now controlled by Trump appointees, agreed to a 60-day pause of the suit in order to seek a resolution.

Two months earlier, Sun purchased $30 million in crypto tokens from World Liberty Financial (WLF), the crypto venture backed by Trump and his family, the website Popular Information reported.

Eventually, Sun became the largest publicly known investor in World Liberty after he brought his funding total to $75 million.

According to Bloomberg News, per the terms of World Liberty’s financial structure, 75% of the proceeds of token sales like Sun’s get sent to the Trump family as a fee — meaning they may have directly earned as much as $56 million.

On Jan. 22 — two days after Trump was inaugurated — Sun posted on X, “if I have made any money in cryptocurrency, all credit goes to President Trump.”

In April, The Wall Street Journal reported that Joe Biden’s Justice Department had been investigating Sun, noting that researchers had estimated that more than half of all illicit crypto activity took place on Sun’s Tron blockchain platform. The Journal said it wasn’t clear whether the investigation was ongoing. It said Sun’s representatives declined to comment about what they called “baseless allegations about legal matters” while denying Tron enables criminal activity.

Sun may now be a multibillionaire, with a net worth estimated at $8.5 billion, according to Forbes. He reportedly was forced to spend $2 billion to shore up one of his crypto firms that was facing collapse in 2022.

He did not immediately respond to a request for comment about what he hoped to get out of the dinner with the president.

Sun has also earned headlines for purchasing ‘Comedian,’ an art installation composed of a banana duct-taped to a wall, for $6.2 million, and for buying lunch with Warren Buffett for $4.57 million.

Raising prices on consumers to cover the costs of President Donald Trump’s tariffs will be Target’s ‘very last resort,’ CEO Brian Cornell said Wednesday.

The remarks came as Target reported weaker-than-expected sales in its first quarter and cut its full-year forecast. The retailer, whose business hasn’t fared as well against rivals better known for bargain prices, has “many levers to use in mitigating the impact of tariffs,” Cornell said.

Major retailers appear to be treading cautiously around the question of price hikes after Trump slammed Walmart last weekend for warning that shoppers could pay more due to tariffs. In the days since, Target, Lowe’s and Home Depot have each made carefully worded remarks about the potential for higher prices or minimized discussion of tariffs altogether.

Walmart said last week that it customers would likely start seeing some prices climb as soon as this month because tariffs have created a more “challenging environment to operate in.” While presidents typically avoid appearing to dictate individual companies’ strategies, Trump castigated Walmart on his social media platform, demanding that it “EAT THE TARIFFS” and adding, “I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”

“We’ll keep prices as low as we can for as long as we can given the reality of small retail margins,” Walmart told NBC News Saturday in response to Trump’s post. Days later, Home Depot all but ruled out near-term price hikes, citing its scale and supply-chain arrangements. Lowe’s barely mentioned tariffs when it reported earnings Wednesday but said just 20% of what its shoppers buy now comes from China, after years of diversifying its sourcing.

For Target, Cornell emphasized that tariffs were just one factor in a series of “massive potential costs” the company is grappling with. He pointed to consumer uncertainty over the direction of the economy and a high-profile backlash over Target’s watering down of its diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The retailer had expanded those initiatives after police murdered George Floyd in its hometown, Minneapolis, five years ago this weekend.

Target has rolled out discounts over the past year to lure inflation-weary shoppers and touted plans to expand its third-party marketplace to offer a broader range of items. To deal with new trade policy challenges, it’s negotiating with vendors, reassessing its product lineup and adjusting its foreign supply chain, Chief Commercial Officer Rick Gomez told investors Wednesday.

‘Half of what we sell comes from the U.S.,’ he said, adding that Target is expanding production in the United States and in other countries outside of China, whose exports currently face a 30% import tax.

Target’s stock fell more than 5% Wednesday during a broader market sell-off.

Some major companies that sell products at leading retailers have raised prices or said they’re considering doing so, including toolmaker Stanley Black & Decker, consumer products giant Procter & Gamble, sportswear brand Adidas and toy maker Mattel.

Mattel, the maker of Barbie dolls, has also come under fire from Trump, who threatened to hit it with 100% tariffs this month, after it signaled price hikes were on the table.

Big companies generally have more latitude to handle cost increases and other economic headwinds than their smaller counterparts. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and independent business owners have warned that tariffs threaten to snuff out many small operators, chipping away at the competition for already large corporate rivals.

The National Retail Federation, which represents some of the biggest retailers in the country, has emphasized that risk in lobbying against new levies. “Small and medium-sized businesses will be disproportionately affected by the tariffs, with many saying they will have to raise prices or shut down,” it says on its website.

So far, “consumers are still spending despite widespread pessimism fueled by rising tariffs,” NRF Chief Economist Jack Kleinhenz said in a statement last week after retail sales eked out a modest 0.1% rise in April.

But even the largest multinational companies aren’t insulated from tariff-driven uncertainty, the NFR and industry analysts say. Like Target, several large firms have revised or scrapped their financial outlooks in recent weeks, unsure how the White House’s trade agenda will affect them. Nike plans to increase prices on several items between now and June 1, a person familiar with the matter told NBC News on Wednesday.

Not every retailer is voicing tariff jitters. The parent company of T.J. Maxx and Marshalls beat sales estimates Wednesday and maintained its full-year forecast. The discounter, which buys unsold merchandise from other brands that have already paid tariffs on much of it, said it expects to be able to handle the pressure from higher import taxes.

Sportswear brand Canada Goose, which makes popular winter jackets, also exceeded Wall Street expectations. But it joined the slew of companies pulling their forecasts for the rest of the year, citing an “unpredictable global trade environment.”