Families nationally spent an average of $13,128 on childcare in 2024, according to data from Child Care Aware of America, an advocacy group. In major metro areas, costs reached $25,000 or more.

Survey data from Care.com, which coordinates between families and caregivers, estimates that, on average, American families spend 24% of their household income on childcare — far above the 7% that experts consider affordable. 

As Straight Arrow recently reported, America’s deepening childcare crisis has left many parents with impossible choices: leave the workforce, stretch household budgets to the breaking point or rely on informal care options that may fall short of what young children need. 

Now, a comprehensive new analysis from The Budget Lab at Yale University estimates what might happen if the federal government dramatically expanded assistance for early childcare. The results show both promising outcomes and surprising trade-offs that could reshape the national childcare debate.

How could the federal government tackle the childcare crisis?

The Budget Lab looked at five federal policy proposals aimed at helping families with children from infancy to age 4. 

The most generous and expensive are a universal subsidy and an income-limited subsidy. These policies would offer free childcare to low-income families, cap out-of-pocket childcare expenses for middle-income families and potentially cap costs for high-income families, depending on whether the subsidy is universal or income-limited. 

The Budget Lab also considered less costly approaches: an expansion of the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, a subsidy for childcare providers and a $1,000 per child allowance regardless of income, employment or childcare enrollment.  

How subsidized childcare could help low- and middle-income families

Currently, parents provide 42% of childcare for young children. If childcare were free for low-income families and subsidized for middle-income families, the Budget Lab estimated that parent-only childcare would drop to 33% and center-based care would increase by almost 50%.

In addition, children from low-income families would earn more in adulthood. The Budget Lab estimated that by age 27, they would earn, on average, $230 more annually, in 2025 dollars.

“Decisions that we make today about investments in children pay off over decades to come,” Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, a professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University, said during a webinar this week to discuss the findings. 

Subsidized childcare raises maternal employment, but less dramatically than some experts expected

If the federal government provided universal or income-limited childcare subsidies, maternal employment would increase by roughly 6 percentage points: from a current rate of 72.8% to about 78.5%.

This outcome surprised some experts who expected a larger jump in employment. “I personally thought we would see more of the maternal employment increase coming at the very bottom [of the income distribution],” Schanzenbach said.

During the webinar, Elena Patel, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said childcare isn’t the only factor mothers consider when deciding whether and when to return to work. 

“There’s certainly a population of mothers for whom the childcare decision is the margin by which they're working or not,” Patel said, “but for the vast majority of women, that's not true.”

Patel said there is no “silver bullet” to close the gender pay gap, and the goal of childcare policies should not be the full employment of women.

“I wouldn't want people to pass a policy like this and then be disappointed that suddenly mothers aren't working at the same rate as fathers,” she said, “when I just don't think these policies were ever designed to do that.” 

How subsidies could expand childcare access and raise care worker pay

Today’s childcare crisis is fueled, in part, by a lack of access to high-quality care.

Nearly half of American children under 6 live in a so-called “childcare desert,” meaning there are not enough licensed providers to meet the community’s needs, according to a report by the Center for American Progress.  

Some of this shortage can be attributed to low pay. Nearly half of early childhood educators live in or near poverty, earning a median of $13.07 per hour, according to research by UC Berkeley’s Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. 

“This is a very labor-intensive sector that is not amenable to automation or labor-saving technology,” said John Ricco, a co-author of the Budget Lab’s analysis. He noted that high-quality care requires trusted workers and low staff-to-child ratios.

The Budget Lab estimates that if universal or income-limited childcare subsidies were implemented, providers would need to hire more than half a million full-time-equivalent childcare workers, an almost 80% increase in the sector’s current workforce. 

An expansion that large could push up the average hourly wage by $3 to $8, depending on the workers’ education levels. 

If care workers were paid more, that would reduce turnover and raise the quality of childcare, which in turn benefits children and families, the analysis found. 

What would these childcare policies cost?

None of these policies pay for themselves. The costs to taxpayers of the proposed subsidies or tax credits are higher than the additional federal revenue generated by increased parental employment, the Budget Lab said. 

However, the fiscal estimates do not account for potential indirect savings, such as decreases in public assistance, labor productivity gains or effects on state or local spending or revenue. 

Providing universal early childcare subsidies would cost taxpayers an estimated $784 billion, with a $14 billion gain in federal tax revenue. The least expensive option, according to the Budget Lab, would be the provider tax credit, with a net cost of $90 billion. 

Could these policies ever get implemented? 

That is the question hanging over this entire debate.

“I think it would be no surprise to say that there's been less interest [in these policy proposals] at the federal policymaking level in the last couple of years, especially when compared to the previous four years under the Biden administration,” Ricco said. 

While “nothing's going to pass this year,” he said, “if and when this does become a major national policy topic again, we'll be ready to provide a fact-based analysis” with a modeling capacity that fills the gap in the current analytical toolkit. 

Schanzenbach put it bluntly: “This is such an important affordability question. Parents are speaking loud and clear, so even if this particular Congress isn't going to start introducing legislation right now, serious responses to the affordability crisis in childcare are going to need to come up.”

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

Maybe, maybe not. Even as companies of all sizes, from national retailer Lowe’s to local contractors, are pitching subscriptions, some contractors who waded in early have tempered their enthusiasm, finding that consumers are wary of hidden costs and conflicts.

Can a monthly subscription actually fix your house?

“I love the concept, but the bulk of my customers, who own houses worth $350,000 to $750,000, want the services on their own terms and on their own time,” John Gelfusa told Straight Arrow. He is president of HomeWorks CGO Inc., a Michigan remodeling firm.

Five years ago, Gelfusa piloted a home maintenance subscription for time-pressed professionals, figuring they had better things to do on Saturday mornings than replace furnace filters. Meanwhile, he thought, when his technicians showed up to fulfill subscription maintenance for middle-income clients, their presence might open the door to more substantial projects.

It hasn’t worked out as expected. A few homeowners signed up and stuck with amenity-laden subscriptions, but most mid-tier homeowners “‘said ‘thanks, we’ll call when we need you,’“ said Gelfusa.

Still, the logic of a home maintenance subscription is so compelling that companies keep jiggling the lock, trying to figure out the magic combination.

Lowe’s just introduced a subscription it is positioning as a way to avoid ladders. For $99 annually, Lowe’s will send a technician twice a year to address seven tasks, such as replacing light bulbs in ceiling fixtures. Lowe’s declined to comment on specifics.

Will automation and drones change how you maintain a home?

Meanwhile, tech startup Casa claims to merge the surveillance, scheduling and sourcing of home maintenance and management into a dashboard powered by AI.

The subscription model is irresistible because it looks like it ought to be in sync with the seasonal rhythms of home maintenance, said Jackie Swanson, a managing partner with Gartner Consulting, a strategy and technology consulting firm.

Each season is ushered in by predictable chores, from clearing gutters of autumn leaves to confirming the air conditioner is ready to cool the house in summer. Anything that recurs invites a subscription model, she said.

Long-term demographic trends buoy ambitions for home subscriptions: the help that aging Americans need to continue living in their homes; the fact that 40% of houses are more than 50 years old; and, especially, the overlap between those two.

Swanson predicts the home maintenance subscription market could reach $9.1 billion by 2033. Local firms that build subscription revenue now will be well positioned when the industry inevitably consolidates, Swanson said.

“The winners will be platforms that combine smart home integration, AI-driven diagnostics and trusted local labor networks,” she said.

Drones for homes: That’s the formula that Aleks Krylov has discovered. He launched Stern Gutters in New Jersey and subsequently learned the category was even more glamour-deficient than he’d assumed.

Homeowners usually ignore gutters, Krylov told Straight Arrow.

“But the negative ramification of failed gutters is expensive,” he said, citing basement flooding, yard erosion and falling shingles.

As part of regularly scheduled gutter clean-outs, his workers — and, when needed, drones — document the condition of a customer’s roof with photos and videos. Building a record of roof status is especially appealing to homeowners who intend to stay in their houses long-term and who want to stay a step ahead of problems that might erupt overhead. Krylov has found consumers are most interested in a monitoring subscription that catches emerging issues they can’t see or fix on their own.

How do you avoid the risks of home service contracts?

But consumers are wary of subscriptions that end up causing more problems than they solve.

As CEO of Butter Payments, which works with subscription services on customer retention, Charles Rosenblatt has become conversant with some of the problems consumers run into.

Because a home maintenance subscription needs to prove its worth over the full span of seasons, many require an annual contract, Rosenblatt said. That means it’s important that consumers understand the cancellation terms, lest they find they can’t drop the rest of the year if they aren’t happy with the first few months of service.

If part of a homeowner’s intent is to build a maintenance record that validates their stewardship of the house, they must retain the actual reports, photos and video, and not count on obtaining them when needed from the service. Finally, homeowners need to be sure the cost of the subscription doesn’t undermine their ability to save for the inevitable big bills, like replacing a roof or taking down a tree, Rosenblatt said.

Gelfusa thinks he has found the sweet spot: getting to know clients’ houses well enough that he can suggest appropriate maintenance checks on a rolling basis. What homeowners really want, he said, is not to be locked into a subscription but to feel that a pro is looking out for their houses in ways they can’t.

And the personal touch works both ways. “Clients have already met our employees,” he said. “It is a comfort to have someone coming into the house that they already know.”

Sixteen metro areas posted double-digit price gains, the report said. Overall, the median single-family existing-home price rose to $404,300 last quarter, up by just 0.5% from the same period last year.

“We now have a slower market than in previous years due to uncertainty and continuing affordability pressures,” said Susan Wachter, a finance professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Home prices are not keeping up with inflation, Wachter told Straight Arrow.

Mortgage rates remain high 

High interest rates and elevated homeownership costs continue to strain the housing market, economists said.  

This week, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was 6.56%, below the high of nearly 7% a year ago, but still higher than earlier this year. 

The monthly mortgage payment on a typical existing single-family home, with a 20% down payment, averaged $1,979 in the first quarter — down $140 from a year ago, Tuesday’s report found.

Home prices vary widely by region

Home pricing trends varied widely by region, the report revealed.

The Northeast saw some of the highest price hikes, with overall home prices in the region rising about 5% annually in just three months. Homes in Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York, and Trenton, New Jersey, were up more than 9% year over year. The report noted that housing shortages in the region pushed prices higher.

Home prices also rose in the Midwest, recording nearly 4% in annual price hikes. Prices in Akron, Ohio, climbed by 12%, the highest annual increase in the nation.

Meanwhile, home prices declined in 27% of metro areas nationwide, including many in the South. Wachter attributed these price cuts in large part to overbuilding in that region. Prices also declined in parts of the American West.

“We're not one market, we're many markets,” Wachter said. “This is very much a regional story.”

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

“That creates about a 5% yield bump every year,” said Uphoff, whose farm sits near Decatur.

Uphoff developed these techniques with help from researchers, agricultural businesses and other farmers. Such innovations are the reason, experts told Straight Arrow, that the United States grew a record amount of corn last year, even as farmers navigated severe weather and financial headwinds.

In the past several years, American farmers have faced prolonged drought, extreme rain, skyrocketing costs, plummeting revenue and an uneven economy.

And through it all, production keeps growing.

How do farmers hit record yields as weather turns extreme?

USDA figures show that annual yields — the total amount of a specific crop grown in a given year — grew in 2025 compared with 2024, continuing a decade-long trend. Agriculture researchers and experts attribute the rise to innovations made possible by exhaustive study and shrewd adaptation.

“There are corn varieties that will pollinate at temperatures well into the 90s,” said Doug Gucker, a commercial agriculture educator for the University of Illinois Extension. “Forty years ago, that would have been a crop failure.”

And, he added, “we’ve seen the yield increase from planting soybeans in mid-April as compared to early to mid-May.”

But not all farmers benefit from these advances.

Wealthier growers are better able to leverage those innovations. And greater yields do little for farmers who can’t fetch high enough prices to cover production costs.

While higher yields mean Americans don’t generally need to worry about food shortages, experts told Straight Arrow that could change if a warming planet outruns farmers’ ability to adapt.

According to the National Weather Service, 2025 had the highest average annual temperature on record at 57.8 degrees, barely edging out the previous year’s record. For comparison, the average annual temperature between 1991 and 2020 was 54.7 degrees. Both years followed a warming trend that increases the likelihood of prolonged drought and extreme rain, experts told Straight Arrow.

“With precipitation trends, we’re seeing wetter springs,” said Ohio’s state climatologist Aaron Wilson. In the spring “it can be too wet to get into the fields, and wet fields with heavy equipment leads to soil compaction that can impact how the crop emerges from the ground.” 

Drought often arrives in the summer when crops need moisture, Wilson said.

What new science helps crops survive as the planet warms?

“Rainfall tends to come in more intense bursts and the dry spells tend to last longer,” said Ariel Ortiz-Bobea, a Cornell economist who studies how climate change affects agriculture.

And to further compound the challenges vexing farmers, costs of the products they depend on, such as fertilizer, farming equipment and diesel fuel are constantly on the rise.

The price per acre for farm machinery — a key metric the USDA uses to assess farmers’ costs — spiked from roughly $135 per acre in 2021 to $160 per acre at the start of 2022 and peaked at just over $170 per acre last year, according to the department’s figures.

In spite of these challenges, crop yields also follow a consistent upward trajectory.

Corn yields hit an all-time record last year at 17 billion bushels — compared with 14.9 billion bushels in 2024, and 13.6 billion bushels 10 years prior — and other crops such as wheat and sorghum, a small grain that is a key ingredient in flatbreads and tortillas, saw their highest yields in years. 

Farmers produced 437 million bushels of sorghum last year, the highest figure since 2021, and a 27% increase from the previous year. While the 4.3 billion bushels of soybeans produced by American farmers in 2025 was a 3% decrease from 2024, soybean yields followed a gradual incline in recent years. In 2019, before COVID-era price shocks, the U.S. produced 3.6 billion bushels of soybeans.

The 1,600 acres of corn, soybeans and small grains grown on a plot of land overseen by the University of Illinois just outside of Champaign conform almost seamlessly to a landscape blanketed by crop fields, dotted with the occasional farmhouse. 

The research conducted there sets it apart.

It's one of several plots where researchers at the land grant university look for better ways to grow crops, and one of hundreds at land grant universities across the nation forming a vast research apparatus.

Those experimental fields are one of the reasons farmers like Uphoff have adapted their planting and growing techniques.

“Farmers like science and technology,” he said. “That’s making higher yields possible.”

Why do record harvests fail to protect farm profits?

Soybean yields have been trending upward since the 1970s, said Taylor Dill, research director for the Ohio Soybean Council.

“We can have a high-yield variety [of soybeans] mixed with disease resistance that can capture that yield even if you have environmental conditions conducive to disease,” she said.

“We can't outrun climate change, but farmers can stress proof their crops,” said Laura Lindsey, a soybean and small grain agronomist at the Ohio State University.

Research shows that farms “are more likely to be profitable with timely planting,” she added.

The upward trend in crop yields does not mean climate change had no impact on production, said Ortiz-Bobea. He noted that a 2021 Cornell study concluded that agricultural productivity was 21% lower than it would have been over the past 60 years in the absence of climate change.

And innovations can only go so far. 

Whether farmers make money on higher yields depends entirely on the commodity markets that set what farmers are paid for their crops. 

"We're paying tremendous input prices, and grain markets are moving sideways,” said Jay Sullivan, who grows corn in North Carolina’s coastal plains.

The price of corn, for example, peaked at just over $7 per bushel in 2023, but fell under $4 per bushel late last year.

“Prices are below the cost of production right now,” said Kevin Matthews, who grows corn, soybeans, wheat and barley on 5,000 acres near Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “Farmers can only be so efficient.”

Williams said he is skeptical of USDA yield data, citing budget cuts at the agency along with widespread drought threatening crop production throughout the country.

Geography also plays a role. In some parts of the United States, no amount of research or planning can keep seeds in the ground during intense rain storms or provide precious water during a drought.

Last year “we had to do three replantings of soybeans because of the amount of rain we got,” said Stephanie Cornell, who also grows corn and small grains on a farm in Prince William County, Virginia. “But once we got it in the soil we didn't get any rain.”

The year was “horrific” for crop yields in her section of the commonwealth, she said.

“Isolated areas in Ohio have had pretty big problems because of the weather,” said Lindsey.

Some farmers, for example, had nothing left to harvest after the remnants of Hurricane Helene rampaged through parts of the state, she added.

Drainage practices can counter intense rains, but “controlled drainage structures haven’t been widely adopted because of the cost,” said Wilson, who is also the climate field specialist for the Ohio State University Agricultural Extension.

Whether yields will continue to trod along their gradual incline remains an open question as towering obstacles such as climate change and high input costs stand in American farmers’ paths.

Scientists continue to warn that rising carbons emissions are warming the planet, forcing producers to constantly modify their growing techniques. Adding to their problems, diesel fuel and fertilizer — some of which is produced in the Middle East — ballooned in price after the United States and Israel invaded Iran. It’s not clear when those costs will drop.

“It could be a pretty dismal financial picture going into 2027 if current high prices continue,” Gucker said.

Plus, Spirit Airlines shuts down, stranding passengers and eliminating thousands of jobs. Now the political blame game is underway.

And two U.S. service members vanish during a training exercise in Morocco. The search is underway Monday morning.

These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Friday, May 4, 2026.

Iran warns it will attack US forces in Strait of Hormuz following Trump’s escort threat

Iran has accused the U.S. of breaking the ceasefire after President Donald Trump announced plans to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Under what the president calls “Project Freedom,” U.S. officials said they’ve established an “enhanced security area” near the Strait and are directing ships to coordinate with Omani authorities as traffic increases.

The Strait of Hormuz runs between Iran and Oman. Iranian officials called the escort plan a direct violation of the ceasefire.

One senior military leader warned, “Any foreign military force ... will be attacked.”

It’s still unclear whether any commercial ships have accepted the American offer.

Meanwhile, Trump said he’s reviewing Iran’s latest peace proposal but signaled he’s unlikely to accept it. In a social media post, he said he “can’t imagine” the deal would be acceptable, adding Iran has “not yet paid a big enough price.”

Separately, the U.S. will return an Iranian ship and its crew after the ship was stopped during last month’s naval standoff. Pakistani officials said the 22 crew members were transferred overnight and that the ship will be returned after repairs.

Spirit Airlines closes, citing surging fuel prices tied to Iran war

As the war with Iran pushes oil prices higher, Spirit Airlines has shut down after 34 years in business. The airline grounded all flights Saturday, leaving thousands of passengers stranded with little warning and no customer support.

About 17,000 employees were also left without jobs.

Spirit said surging fuel costs linked to the war in Iran have made its low-cost model unsustainable.

The Trump administration has pushed back, blaming the Biden administration for blocking a 2023 proposed merger with JetBlue.

"Spirit was in dire straits long before the war with Iran,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. ”Multiple times, they filed for bankruptcy. Their model wasn't working. They couldn't get to fiscal health."

"If the markets are saying there needs to be a merger because there's health issues with one of the airlines or more than one airline, we have to take a look at it and make sure we make the right choices. And in this situation, history has judged the denial of the merger between JetBlue and Spirit through the Biden administration with, I think, a view that it was a massive mistake."

Duffy said Spirit’s collapse does not signal broader trouble for budget airlines, and he does not support a government bailout. The comment follows several low-cost carriers' recent requests for $2.5 billion in federal relief.

Duffy dismissed that request, saying some airlines were looking to cash in “not necessarily based on need, but based on opportunity.”

Passengers who bought tickets before the Spirit shutdown will be issued full refunds.

Joint search underway after two US soldiers go missing in Morocco

Two U.S. service members have vanished during military exercises in Morocco, and a massive search is now underway. U.S. Africa Command said the soldiers went missing near the Cap Draa training area on the Atlantic coast.

A U.S. defense official told The Associated Press the two were on a recreational hike after training had ended for the day and were last seen near ocean cliffs. Officials believe they may have fallen into the water.

No foul play is suspected, according to CBS News.

Search teams from the U.S., Morocco and other partner nations are now combing the area, using helicopters, ships and ground crews.

The exercise, known as African Lion, is the largest annual U.S.-led military drill on the continent, involving more than 7,000 personnel from at least 30 countries. That training has since been paused as military leaders shift resources to the search.

Officials said the investigation remains ongoing.

Rare virus kills three on cruise ship, contact tracing underway

Three people have died following a suspected outbreak of a rare virus on a cruise ship in the Atlantic. Health officials told the Associated Press it’s likely hantavirus — a disease usually linked to rodents, not cruise ships.

The incidents occurred aboard the MV Hondius, which was carrying about 150 passengers on a 7-week voyage from South America to Europe. An elderly couple was among the three people killed, and a fourth patient remains in intensive care.

At least a few others have started to show symptoms, and the World Health Organization has launched an investigation into the potential outbreak.

Hantavirus typically spreads through contact with rodent droppings or urine. While it’s rare, it can turn deadly, causing a severe lung infection.

What’s unusual here: experts said this is not something typically seen on cruise ships, and they’re still trying to determine exactly how it spread. Contact tracing is underway.

Giuliani hospitalized in critical yet stable condition

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 81, remains in the hospital Monday in “critical but stable condition,” according to his spokesperson.

“Giuliani is a fighter who has faced every challenge in his life with unwavering strength, and he’s fighting with that same level of strength as we speak,” Ted Goodman said on X Saturday.

Goodman did not disclose what led to Giuliani’s admission, but called him a “fighter” and asked for prayers.

As mayor, Giuliani led the city after 9/11, earning him the nickname “America’s mayor.” He later ran for president in 2008 and was Trump’s adviser in the 2016 presidential election before joining his legal team in 2018.

As Trump’s attorney, Giuliani represented him in lawsuits contesting the election results based on debunked claims about election fraud and interference. He was hit with state criminal charges in Arizona over allegations he tried to overturn the 2020 election.

Another case against Giuliani was dropped in Georgia, and he settled with two former election workers who sued for defamation for $148 million. The workers said they had racist and violent threats lobbed at them after the election, when Giuliani claimed they engaged in fraud.

Giuliani was disbarred in Washington, D.C., and New York as a result of these actions.

On Truth Social, the president called him a “true warrior” and “the best mayor” in the city’s history.

A spokesperson for former mayor Eric Adams also praised Giuliani’s leadership, pointing to his years as a federal prosecutor.

On Friday, while hosting his online show, "America's Mayor Live," Giuliani showed symptoms of illness, including a deep cough and a raspy voice. He even acknowledged it during his monologue, saying, "My voice is a little under the weather, so I won’t be able to speak as loudly as I usually do, but I’ll get closer to the microphone."

It's unknown whether these symptoms are related to his hospitalization. There’s still no timeline for his recovery.

Hundreds of beagles rescued from Wisconsin research breeding facility

Over 1,500 beagles have been relocated from a Wisconsin breeding and research center to what rescue organizations hope will be permanent homes.

Big Dog Ranch Rescue began removing hundreds of dogs from Ridglan Farms on Friday, with many more still to be relocated. The facility’s operator agreed to surrender its breeding license after prosecutors dropped felony animal mistreatment charges.

State investigators said the company performed eye procedures on the dogs and failed to meet basic veterinary standards.

The situation escalated last month when animal rights activists showed up in blue mounds and tried to free the dogs themselves. Deputies responded, and clashes followed, with tear gas and rubber bullets used to disperse the crowd.

Now, a deal between Big Dog Ranch and the Center for a Humane Economy is moving the dogs out. About 1,000 will be put up for adoption, with the rest transferred to partner rescue groups.

More from Straight Arrow:

What happens when readers trade shared headlines for private feeds

The paper hits the driveway before you’re fully awake. A dull thud, then the scrape of it sliding across concrete. By the time you reached it, the front page had already been decided. The stories were chosen and whatever happened in the world overnight was arranged for you to unfold at the kitchen table that morning.

As this ritual moved online, the paper became a homepage that’s refreshed constantly, but still holds the same structure. While you rarely read everything, you knew where to start. There was always a sense of what mattered, at least according to someone. 

That starting point is harder to find now, and many readers don’t realize what’s been lost in the process.

Most mornings, the news now arrives in fragments — an email here, another a few minutes later, subject lines that pull your attention and others you ignore. For many Americans, there is no single kitchen-table destination anymore, no shared entry point quietly telling you what leads. In its place is something more personal. More scattered.

Your inbox.

Each morning, millions of readers open emails sent from individuals, rather than institutions — writers and analysts delivering the news directly to your inbox. These newsletters can feel more intimate than the traditional homepage ever did. For many readers, they have even become part of the daily rhythm. But as they take on a larger role, they are also

Read the full story now>

In a notice posted on its restructuring website, the airline said the shutdown took effect May 2.

“All flights have been cancelled, and customer service is no longer available,” the company said, adding it was “proud of the impact” of its ultra-low-cost model over 34 years.

As Straight Arrow previously reported, the closure follows the collapse of last-ditch efforts to secure a $500 million federal bailout. The airline halted operations around 3 a.m. ET after running out of cash.

The shutdown marks the first failure of a major U.S. airline since Pan American World Airways ceased operations in 1991. Spirit’s closure could affect nearly 13,000 employees, according to industry estimates.

Airlines move to absorb stranded travelers

Major carriers moved quickly to accommodate displaced passengers, though options remain limited and conditions vary.

American Airlines said it is offering “rescue fares” in its main cabin on select routes for affected Spirit customers. Other airlines, including Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, JetBlue Airways and Southwest Airlines, said they would cap ticket prices for travelers rebooking canceled flights.

To access those fares, customers are generally required to show proof of a Spirit booking, such as a confirmation number and payment record.

Additional measures include reduced fares on high-traffic routes and temporary price freezes by Allegiant Air on overlapping routes. Frontier Airlines said it would offer up to 50% off base fares across its network through May 10.

Support for employees

The Department of Transportation also announced steps to assist Spirit employees, including travel privileges to help crews return home and expedited hiring pathways. Some carriers said they would offer preferential interviews and create dedicated job portals for displaced workers.

Refunds and passenger next steps

Spirit said it will automatically process refunds for tickets purchased with credit or debit cards, though the timeline remains unclear.

Travelers may also pursue chargebacks through credit card issuers under federal consumer protection laws, review travel insurance policies for coverage tied to airline insolvency, or file claims in bankruptcy proceedings. Experts caution that such claims can take time and may result in only partial reimbursement.

Industry pressures mount

Spirit’s collapse highlights broader challenges facing budget airlines, including rising fuel costs and higher operating expenses. Analysts say low-cost carriers have struggled to compete with larger airlines that offer broader networks and premium services.

Clint Henderson, a travel industry analyst with The Points Guy, said the shutdown could signal the start of a wider shakeout.

“Spirit may be the first domino to fall, but probably not the last,” he told Straight Arrow.

Zandi is the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, a financial intelligence and economic research firm, and one of the country’s most closely followed forecasters. He frequently testifies before Congress, briefs policymakers and advises corporate boards.

Now, with the Iran war sending oil prices above $126 a barrel this week and new inflation data showing prices rising at their fastest annual pace in nearly three years, Zandi is sounding the alarm that we could be headed toward a recession. 

In a wide-ranging interview this week with Straight Arrow, Zandi laid out in stark terms what Americans might expect in the months ahead: how high the prices of gas and household essentials could climb; how interest rates could hobble families and businesses; how the war might shape the November midterms; and what happens if the best and worst Iran war scenarios play out.

Most concerning, however, is Zandi’s forecast of a possible recession if the war doesn’t wind down in the next few weeks.

That, he said, “would be the dagger in the heart of affordability.” 

Our conversation with Zandi has been edited for length and clarity. 

Lauren Pearle: Let's start with oil, which this week topped $126 a barrel, the highest during the Iran war.
 How high could prices climb at the pump, and what would it mean for the average American? 

Mark Zandi: We could be closing in at $5 a gallon at the pump. Since the war started, Americans have shelled out about $25 billion more for gas than they would have spent if prices had remained steady.

New inflation data came out this week: Prices rose 3.5% in a year, the biggest annual increase in almost three years. Walk us through how the Iran war is driving up prices for a range of household essentials, not just gas, and do you predict more price hikes to come? 


There’s been a run-up on oil prices and other energy and commodity prices — everything from natural gas to helium, which goes into the manufacturing of chips, to chemicals that go into producing fertilizers. That’s driving up prices for the consumer, as you say, for gas, but also for groceries and anything that is put on a truck. That includes all the Amazon and UPS packages. Airfares are going up. And then it's going to start affecting the price of all manufactured goods, because they're very energy-intensive. 

I would say under any scenario, even if the war ended tomorrow, inflation is going to continue to move higher. 

What is an unexpected or underreported affordability concern you have right now?

The affordability issue is also about interest rates, which are up. The Fed was on track to cut them this year, and now that’s on hold, and we may not see any rate cuts this year.

Fixed mortgage rates have gone from below six to now closer to six and a half. So if you're looking to buy a home, housing is much less affordable. If you’re thinking about refinancing, that’s much less attractive, which affects your ability to repay higher-cost debt or finance other spending. If you have a credit card loan or home equity line, you’ll pay more. Small business loans cost more. 

And then the other thing that hasn't happened yet, but it could: Investors and businesses expect inflation to rise so they raise prices. That becomes fodder for the Fed to raise interest rates, which could push the economy into a recession. That would be the dagger in the heart of affordability.

What is the likelihood we'll go into a recession? 

I think odds are we'll get through without a recession. But that requires President [Donald] Trump and the Iranians to come to some terms in the next two to four weeks. If they don’t, odds are quite high that oil prices will jump. And if prices stay around $125 a barrel for two to three months, that would be enough to push us into a recession. 

You predicted the Iran war could wind down in the next few weeks, possibly by Memorial Day. 
If that happens, would Americans see prices come down at the pump and for everyday goods? And if so, when?

I think gas prices will come back in, but not as fast as they went up. There’s an old adage that “prices go up like a rocket and come down like a feather.” But they’re not going back to where they were. We’re not going back to $3 a gallon for the foreseeable future. 

There will be a risk premium built into oil prices, because now there's always the possibility, and even a likelihood, the Iranian regime will close down the Strait [of Hormuz] again. Also, there's been a lot of damage to the energy infrastructure, and there are other issues like mines in the strait. So it could take years to get oil prices back in.

Prices for other goods may be even less likely to come down. Businesses will be reluctant to cut prices for groceries, airfares and delivered products. They might keep prices flat, but it would be unusual to drop prices unless there’s a recession. 

So for the consumer, for a typical American family, they're going to be paying more, even if this war comes to the best possible resolution in the quickest time. 

You've estimated that a typical American household has to spend about $1,400 more a year for the same goods and services than it would have before the war. What does that mean for families already living on the edge? 


High-income households can digest that; they have savings and assets. Life will go on. But for lower- and some middle-income households, this is a real hardship. Some people have to make tough choices. If they have to put more of their hard-earned money into their gas tank, they'll have less to spend on everything else.

Politicians often ask voters: Are you better off today than you were at the last election? 
How do you think most Americans would answer that now, and how do you think they'll answer it going into the November midterms? 

Well, I don't need to guess what they're saying. They're saying they're having a hard time. The University of Michigan consumer sentiment surveys are at an all-time record low, which makes the case that people are feeling pretty uncomfortable with what's going on.
 And I don't see that getting any better anytime soon, given the prospect of higher oil prices. So that’s not really a forecast, it’s exactly what they’re telling us. 

Do you have any predictions for the November midterms and beyond? 

History would strongly suggest that even if things were going reasonably well, the party in power will lose full control of the government. Then you throw into the mix what's going on with affordability, and the fact that it’s top of mind for most Americans, and the war exacerbates that plain as day. If history is any guide at all, then the government will be split between Democrats and the Republicans. 

How would you rate this administration on its handling of affordability? 


Well, uh, I don't want to get in trouble. Let's put it this way: I'm not a fan of policies that have been put in place, particularly with respect to what it means for affordability for the typical American household. Tariffs, attacks on Americans, particularly middle- and lower-income Americans and now the war — they have been a big hit to affordability. So I'm just not a fan. 

Let’s switch gears. What keeps you up at night about the Iran war just from an economics perspective? What's the worst-case scenario that’s still realistic? 

I think it's simply that the current status quo continues on for months, not weeks, because if it does, I think there will be a significant jump in oil prices and a significant selloff in the financial markets. And that would put tremendous pressure on the broader economy. 

I also think there's a feeling right now among investors that the president is focused on the stock market, and if it looks like the market is getting shaky, Trump will reverse policy and declare victory and move on. But if we have a stalemate, at some point investors are gonna say, “Oh, I’m wrong about that assumption,” and we’re going to see a selloff in the equity market. 

That would hit high-income households, because it goes right to the heart of their wealth. They are key to consumer spending — they drive the train. So that would be fodder for an economic downturn.

Now the opposite question: What would be the best-case scenario from an economics perspective that’s realistic given where we are today?

Well, I would put it as my most likely scenario: that this ends by Memorial Day. Ends in the sense that the Strait of Hormuz is reopened to traffic, oil tankers move through, production picks up and all prices start to come in. 


I suppose the best-case scenario is also that the president is able to accomplish some of his objectives, like addressing the Iranian nuclear situation, or perhaps, some change in the regime. But that’s more from a geopolitical than an economics perspective. 


If you were talking to a typical American family around the dinner table, what would you tell them to expect over the next 30 to 90 days? 

I’d say buckle up. I’d read Straight Arrow, but I don’t think I’d be watching TV too much. For most Americans, it's important not to get too wrapped up in the day-to-day, ups and downs and all arounds, certainly not in terms of their savings: how they save, how much they save, how they manage their debt. 

At the end of the day, if you take a very long-term perspective — the next 10, 20, 30 years — I wouldn't bet against the American economy. Given everything that's been thrown at it, it's still kicking, and that's a strong testimonial to its underlying resilience and strength. 

"Nuclear verdicts,” legal and insurance shorthand for jury awards exceeding $10 million, have become more frequent and ever larger. What was once remarkable is now everyday news. That relentless climb is fundamentally reshaping the economics of trucking and, by extension, the cost of goods for ordinary Americans.

A forensic analysis of federal and trucking industry litigation data sources published by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) in late 2025 found that truck-tractor tort case filings grew at an average annual rate of 3.7% between 2014 and 2023. The upswing in verdict size is even more striking: The median nuclear verdict reached $36 million in 2022 — roughly 50% higher than the median in 2013 — and the share of verdicts exceeding $50 million jumped by 6.4% over that span.

An ATRI 2020 foundational report found that verdicts over $1 million jumped from 79 cases in the first half of a 14-year study window to 265 in the second half — a 235% increase — with awards over $10 million nearly doubling in the same period.

Over the eight years from 2010 to 2018, the average verdict in cases exceeding $1 million shot up from $2.3 million to $22.3 million. That 967% increase far outstrips inflation, which averaged 1.7% per year during that same time period.

What’s fueling the rise of ‘thermonuclear’ verdicts?

As jury awards skyrocket, terminology strains to keep up. Hence, now the worst cases are “thermonuclear verdicts,” defined as awards exceeding $100 million. The trucking industry has incurred some of the most staggering hits.

In 2024, a St. Louis jury awarded $462 million — including $450 million in punitive damages — against trailer manufacturer Wabash National in a fatal underride tractor-trailer crash. A judge reduced the award, and later the case was settled — yet the initial verdict sent tremors through the industry.

The forces pushing litigation costs beyond the rate of general inflation share a name among insurers: "social inflation." These include a more litigious public, the rise of third-party investors who fund lawsuits in exchange for a cut of the award, growing anti-corporate sentiment in jury pools and increasingly aggressive tactics by plaintiff attorneys. The latter includes the “reptile theory.” This slippery courtroom technique frames cases in terms of public safety and corporate danger, prompting jurors to render outsized verdicts as a broad social message.

The use of outside investors who bankroll lawsuits in exchange for a cut of any settlement removes financial pressure on plaintiffs to settle early. ATRI’s 2025 report flags this as a “developing legal threat,” warning it pushes investors to maximize payouts.

The financial shock is felt first in the insurance market. Swiss Re, the global reinsurance giant, in a 2024 Sigma report, was blunt about trucking’s exposure. It scored the sector as “one of the most affected by mega verdicts,” with excess coverage “seeing rate increases of more than 75%.” The upshot is that trucking companies are “finding it increasingly difficult to secure adequate insurance cover and are being forced to assume more risk than they have in the past.”

Marsh, the global insurance broker, warned in a 2024 advisory that the dynamic is leaving many organizations "unable to purchase sufficient limits to fully transfer the risk.” Some insurers, including Zurich and AIG’s Lexington unit, have significantly reduced their participation or exited the commercial trucking market entirely.

Who ultimately pays the bill?

The colossal costs generated inside the courtroom chug right through the supply chain, eventually hammering consumers.

Over the next decade, commercial vehicle litigation will contribute 15% to the inflation of food prices, according to research by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, modeled with The Brattle Group.

What’s more, every $1 million increase in tort costs is associated with a $2 million reduction in U.S. gross domestic product. The same model projected that meaningful tort reform could add an average of $52.3 billion per year to GDP over a decade, create 5.7 million jobs and reduce food-at-home costs by 15%.

It’s simple math: As verdicts surge, insurance costs soar. This squeezes margins and pushes some motor carriers out of the market or off high-risk routes. As this capacity tightens, freight rates increase. And as freight rates mount, so does the price of goods, everywhere from the grocery store and pharmacy to the home-improvement center.

Swiss Re’s 2025 Behavioral Social Inflation Study adds a sobering long-term dimension: 76% of U.S. consumers now believe jury damage awards are too low, up from 58% in 2016. Among adults under 40, that figure rises to 83%. As younger cohorts make up a larger share of jury pools, the litigation environment for commercial defendants is only becoming more hostile.

What’s being done to stop it?

Reform advocates have pushed for action at both the state and federal level. In September 2025, three Republican members of Congress introduced the Forum Accountability & Integrity in Roadway (FAIR) Trucking Act. If passed, it would route large interstate trucking cases into federal courts, removing them from state venues that plaintiff attorneys select for favorable outcomes. American Trucking Associations President & CEO Chris Spear endorsed the bill. He said it would close loopholes “that the plaintiffs’ bar exploits to move cases to judicial hellholes and engineer these lopsided verdicts.”

Opponents of reform argue that nuclear verdicts serve a necessary function — holding large companies accountable when safety failures cause death or catastrophic injury, and that damage caps could effectively shield negligent operators from full accountability. That debate is ongoing, and any federal legislation faces a difficult path through Congress.

Nuclear verdicts are no longer rare. And thermonuclear verdicts — once almost unthinkable — are now a known and priced category of high risk.

The resulting cost impact does not magically dissolve. No, it rolls, steadily and virtually invisibly, through the supply chain — until it hits consumers smack in the wallet.

Plus, gas prices top $4 and keep climbing. The Iran standoff is tightening supply and hitting drivers where it hurts.

And a selfie taken just minutes before the chaos. New filings reveal what the suspected gunman did before rushing the White House Correspondents’ dinner.

These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Thursday, April 30, 2026.

House clears path for ICE funding, unlocking billions for enforcement

House Republicans are one step closer to unlocking billions of dollars to fund immigration enforcement. The House voted late Wednesday to adopt a budget framework, setting up a path to fund ICE and Border Patrol without Democratic support.

The plan could free up about $75 billion for those agencies using a process that only requires a simple majority in the Senate. 

The vote was close and messy. Lawmakers kept it open for hours as Republicans pushed through internal disputes before finally passing it along party lines. 

Democrats oppose the funding without new restrictions, pointing to recent deadly incidents involving federal agents.

Now, Republicans can move forward on a final bill. President Donald Trump wants it on his desk by June 1.

This marks just the initial step toward ending the partial shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, which has now lasted over 10 weeks.

Oil prices hit wartime high amid Iran standoff

Oil prices have spiked as Trump doubles down on his military blockade against Iran. Brent crude jumped above $125 a barrel overnight — a new wartime high — before easing back, though it still held well above $100.

In the U.S., the national average for gasoline has climbed to about $4.30 a gallon, the highest in nearly four years.

This comes as Trump warned Iran it “better get smart soon.”

According to NBC News, his national security team has presented multiple options as Iran continues to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. But the president is holding firm, saying the blockade will remain in place until Iran agrees to a deal addressing its nuclear program.

"Well, the blockade is genius, okay? The blockade has been 100% foolproof. It shows how good our Navy is, I can tell you that. We're not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon, and we've knocked out their Navy, we've knocked out their Air Force. We've knocked out their anti-aircraft. Everything, apparatus, everything they have, their radar. They have very little left. And they have some missiles, a small percentage. They have a small percentage of missile-making facilities. We've knocked out about 80% of them; the rest could come very quickly, if we don't make a deal."

— President Donald Trump

Iran warned it will not tolerate the blockade and said it will respond if it continues.

Meanwhile, the USS Gerald R. Ford heads home after a record deployment of more than 300 days, and American officials said it will leave the region in the coming days.

Plus, new tensions with Europe have emerged. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said the U.S. is being "humiliated" by Iran and criticized what he called a lack of strategy.

Now, Trump has threatened to pull U.S. troops out of Germany as that dispute escalates.

Florida passes new congressional map giving GOP up to four more seats

Florida state lawmakers passed a new congressional map Wednesday, pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, that could give Republicans as many as four additional seats in the U.S. House. The vote was contentious.

Democrats blasted the plan as a power grab, even interrupting the floor, with one lawmaker shouting through a megaphone as the final vote came down.

The new map redraws districts across the state, including areas around Tampa, Orlando and South Florida, potentially squeezing out Democratic-leaning seats.

DeSantis and his allies argue the plan is legally sound, pointing to a Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that, they say, changes how states can address race in redistricting. That decision, Louisiana vs. Callais, is already sparking similar moves in other states. But it’s also setting up what could be a lengthy legal fight.

"Their new plan, that will undoubtedly face a state court challenge,” said David Becker, executive director at the Center for Election Innovation and Research. “I'm not sure whether it will face a federal court challenge now, given Callais. But that leaves things up in the air in Florida as well."

Democrats and voting rights groups have promised to sue, arguing the map violates Florida’s constitutional limits on gerrymandering.

The bill heads to DeSantis’ desk. If he signs it, the legal battle will begin almost immediately.

Correspondents' dinner suspect took selfie with weapons ahead of attack

New details have emerged about the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting involving the suspect accused of attempting to assassinate Trump. New court filings show Cole Tomas Allen took a selfie in his hotel room just minutes before the attack, armed with guns, knives and ammunition.

Prosecutors said he had tracked the president’s movements that night, watching live coverage as Trump arrived at the Washington Hilton. Investigators also said Allen sent scheduled emails with an “apology and explanation,” suggesting he planned the attack in advance.

Moments later, hotel surveillance video shows Allen sprinting past security toward the ballroom, where the president and hundreds of guests had gathered. He fired a shotgun, sparking an exchange of gunfire with Secret Service agents. A bullet struck one officer in their bulletproof vest, but the agent survived.

Prosecutors said Allen “intended to kill” and described him as a serious danger if released. He now faces a charge of attempted assassination. A hearing on whether he should remain in custody will take place Thursday.

DOJ proposes rollback of gun rules, targeting background checks and dealer penalties

The Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced 34 proposed changes related to Trump’s executive order on gun policy.

Officials said the focus is on easing regulations for law-abiding gun owners and businesses and on shifting enforcement toward criminal activity.

One key change under review: rolling back a Biden-era rule that expanded background checks for gun-show purchases. The ATF also said it will scale back penalties for minor paperwork violations by licensed dealers.

Gun control groups have already pushed back, arguing that the proposal weakens safeguards amid heightened security concerns. The public will have 90 days to comment before any of these changes are finalized.

Mississippi students stop runaway school bus after driver collapses

A group of Mississippi students is being hailed as heroes after stepping in when their school bus driver lost consciousness. The 46-year-old driver had just left a middle school in Hancock County with about 40 students on board when she suffered an asthma attack and passed out.

The bus began to swerve along a four-lane highway. A sixth-grader sitting behind the driver grabbed the wheel, while another rushed forward and slammed on the brakes. The students steered the bus into the median, shifted it into park and brought it to a stop. Another student called 911.

Once the student secured the bus, they located the driver’s nebulizer and helped her use it until first responders arrived. The driver is expected to recover, and no students were harmed on board.

Local officials praised the students for their quick thinking and calm under pressure.

More from Straight Arrow News:

Why a growing number of US adults feel more anxious this year than last

It has been six years since the world stopped spinning. Six years since the COVID-19 pandemic changed the way Americans do seemingly everything — from grocery shopping to sneezing into elbows.

“Things haven’t been the same since,” nurse Trinity Walker told Straight Arrow. “I do sometimes wonder where I would be in my life if it weren’t for the trauma I went through during that time.”

For Walker and many others, something fundamental broke during those years. And it never quite reassembled. Millions of Americans continue to live in “survival mode,” a state in which a person’s nervous system remains activated, awaiting the next crisis. According to a recent report, 43% of adults say they feel more anxious than they did the year before — a steady climb from 37% in 2023 and 32% in 2022. 

“I’m still struggling to put myself back to where I was,” said Jessina Allen, an Atlanta-based personal trainer. During lockdown, the 39-year-old faced the inability to work since gyms were closed. 

“It’s hard to explain, but sometimes I grieve who I might’ve been if all this hadn’t happened,” Allen said.

Read the full story now>

The Fed held its key interest rate in a range of 3.5% to 3.75%.

This rate decision “was guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people” during a period when “the economic outlook remains highly uncertain,” Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters after the board’s meeting.

He signaled that rates could change in the months ahead.  

Powell announced he’ll stay at the Fed as Warsh nomination moves forward

Wednesday’s news came the same day Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump’s pick to replace Powell, moved a step closer to taking over the central bank by clearing a key Senate committee. 

With Warsh’s confirmation all but certain, this was most likely Powell’s last meeting as the agency’s head after a turbulent eight-year run.

However, he announced that he will stay on as a board member, citing his concerns about a "series of legal attacks on the Fed" that he said were unprecedented in the central bank’s 113-year history. 

Trump and Powell have clashed over monetary policy, with the president repeatedly demanding rate cuts as polls showed voters broadly disapproved of his handling of the economy.

At Trump’s urging, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation of Powell over cost overruns in the renovation of the Fed’s headquarters in Washington. Officials recently announced that the investigation was suspended with no charges.

Powell said the legal attacks give him “no choice” but to stay until the investigation is fully closed.

Stepping down from the board would have given Trump a chance to nominate a member more aligned with his agenda.

What does Wednesday’s Fed decision mean for household budgets?

The Fed does not directly set the rates Americans pay for mortgages, car loans, credit cards or other household needs.

Instead, its rate decisions affect how much banks charge each other and serve as a benchmark for setting business and consumer rates. The impacts ripple through the entire economy. 

The Fed is a central player, but not the only one that determines the cost of borrowing money, said Jon Hilsenrath, who covered the Fed for The Wall Street Journal for 25 years and is now a senior advisor at the financial services firm StoneX.

Hilsenrath used the analogy of a game of pool.

“When you hit the break shot, the Fed is like that first ball in a sequence of events that sets the direction of the other balls,” he told Straight Arrow. “While it’s the key ball, it’s not the only ball.”

More immediately, stocks, bonds and other financial markets will respond to Fed decisions, but Hilsenrath said investors had already baked Wednesday’s expected decision into prices. 

The Dow Jones index and the S&P 500 closed only slightly lower on Wednesday.

It can take months for changes in Fed rates to affect the borrowing costs paid by everyday Americans and businesses.

When businesses pay more for loans, they often cut back on hiring and investments, which can raise unemployment and lower GDP that in turn cools inflation.

The Fed’s balancing act: interest rates vs. inflation

The Fed was in a tough bind: If it cut interest rates, inflation would climb higher. But by keeping rates high, it risks slowing economic growth and harming American households and businesses.

Economists had expected the Fed to keep rates unchanged to avoid increasing the annual U.S. inflation rate, which rose to 3.3% last month, according to U.S. Labor Department data. That is well above the Fed’s inflation target of 2%.

Even with interest rates unchanged, experts predict inflation could keep rising, particularly as the Iran war –  which a Pentagon official said Wednesday has already cost the U.S. about $25 billion – continues to push oil prices above $100 a barrel.

Economists warn that succumbing to Trump’s pressure to lower rates could set off a dangerous chain reaction, as history has shown.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed under Powell’s leadership slashed interest rates to near zero to support the economy. But inflation spiked as trillions of dollars of government relief flooded into a reopening economy and as supply bottlenecks, labor shortages, strong consumer demand, the Russia-Ukraine war and other shocks rippled through the economy. The Fed responded by aggressively raising rates to cool spending and bring prices down.

Another cautionary tale, said Hilsenrath, is the public and private pressure campaign by President Richard Nixon on then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns in 1972. Lowered interest rates fueled a short-term economic boom, but then helped drive inflation into the double digits by 1974. Another consequence of that pressure, Hilsenrath said, was that “Americans lost faith in their leadership.” 

Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG, wrote on X that it is a “tough time to become a Fed chair.” She described the Fed as being on the “sidelines” for now, “but in a good place to move in either direction [on rates], dependent on the course of the conflict in the Middle East.”

Will the Fed remain independent going forward?

That is now one of the biggest questions hanging over the central bank. 

Warsh has tried to reassure senators and markets that he would preserve the central bank’s independence, but has stopped short of any pledge to resign over disagreements with Trump. 

“I do not believe that independence of monetary policy is threatened when elected officials state their views on rates,” Warsh said this month. “Independence is up to the Fed.” But he also said that the central bank’s independence must be “earned.”

Powell said Wednesday that he will keep a “low profile” at the Fed once he passes the baton, but stressed that going forward, the Fed must “ignore political considerations completely” for the benefit of the general public. If the bank loses its independence, he warned, “the markets would lose faith in us, and our ability to control inflation would be gone.”

Economists generally agree.

“The incentives of a central banker are different from the incentives of a politician,” Hilsenrath said. “Politicians want the economy to run faster, particularly as elections come up, while Fed members think longer term.”

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes several bills and aims to increase housing supply, lower housing costs, ban institutional investors from buying up single-family homes and more.

Critics say some of that legislation will actually reduce the housing supply, which could keep costs rising.

“It's best understood as Congress's effort to encourage additional housing supply through a variety of changes to incentives and regulations,” Yonah Freemark, researcher at the Urban Institute, told Straight Arrow.

The package has passed in the Senate and is now with the House for review.

There are three main elements to this legislative package.

Housing affordability crisis

The first two elements are the combination of the Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing Act and the Housing for the 21st Century Act.

The former was cosponsored by Sens. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Warren said that legislation would take “a good first step to rein in corporate landlords that are squeezing families out of homeownership.”

That legislation passed the Senate as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for the current fiscal year.

The Housing for the 21st Century Act, which was cosponsored by two Democrats and two Republicans, received nearly unanimous support in the House earlier this year.

One of those cosponsors was Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who called the legislation “a critical first step.”

Among the goals of this package are improving financial literacy through agencies, counselors and training.

The bills in that package would also encourage building more homes in the U.S. and eliminate barriers to building manufactured housing.

The legislation would provide more incentives to localities that change their regulations and encourage additional housing supply.

“It's good that the federal government's taking some action, but really, most of the barriers that [developers] face are at the local level, and this act won't do very much to sort of help with those kinds of issues, like an option zoning board or NIMBY objectors,” Brian Asquith, an economist, told Straight Arrow.

Freemark agreed.

“The reality is that this is not a fundamental change in our housing markets in most ways,” he said.

The bill package also aims to modernize the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help people get loans and protect consumers.

Trouble getting financing and general affordability are some of the biggest reasons Americans are having trouble buying a new home.

“The federal government has a big role in financing, home development, home construction, home development, home purchasing,” Asquith said.

Institutional investors

One of the big additions to this new package is a language that would limit the buying power of institutional investors.

The number of homes being bought up by large investment companies continues to increase.

“This is a departure from the norm in American society, where it's typically been understood that single-family homes are supposed to be for sale,” Freemark said.

While the increase is clear, the number of homes in America owned by institutional investors remains extremely low.

The legislation defines an institutional investor as a landlord with at least 350 properties. Only about 140 institutional investors meet that criterion, which accounts for 0.59% of single-family homes.

They also only accounted for roughly 1% of single-family home purchases over the last decade.

“There's some reasons to think that institutional owners are not helping, but one thing they are doing is making it more feasible for people to rent properties in neighborhoods that previously had been only available for home ownership,” Freemark said.

Industry concerns

The push against institutional investors has been the biggest concern amongst people in the housing industry, who said this could hurt Americans in two ways.

First, it could cause fewer of these larger companies to build more homes.

Second, it could hurt renters.

“You're going to be hurting a lot more people who are potential renters than helping people who are potential buyers,” Asquith said.

The National Association of Home Builders estimates single-family housing starts could drop 40,000 units per year because of that mandate.

It’s also drawn some concern from members of Congress, with 76 House members signing a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La, and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., voicing issues. The representatives said the mandate “would have far reaching and unintended consequences that run counter to the bill’s stated goal of expanding housing opportunity.”

Some projects have already been paused as the bill continues to move through Congress, including a major project in Phoenix. Hancock Builders is in the process of building 35 buy-to-rent communities, which would create 7,200 units.

The company has paused production while it waits to see what comes of the legislation and said they may be forced to lay off workers if the project cannot continue.

Will Trump sign?

During his State of the Union speech earlier this year, President Donald Trump spoke about the housing market several times.

He also specifically called out institutional investors. The president had a mother from Houston in attendance, saying she lost bids on 20 different homes to corporate buyers.

An executive order signed by the president in January aimed to stop that from happening.

So, while the president has not made a specific mention of this legislative package, it likely will have his support.

“If you're a middle-class person looking to buy your first home, if you have your first kid, there's just not that much help that's out there, and at least the federal government is trying to do something,” Asquith said.

“Losing them would be devastating,” Gabe Monzo, who runs Arnold Palmer Regional, told Straight Arrow.

Nevertheless, Monzo said, “if a federal subsidy just prolongs the inevitable, it’s time to move on.”

Monzo’s ambivalence reflects a larger debate as low-cost airlines like Spirit seek federal relief as surging jet fuel prices squeeze carriers already struggling with higher labor, aircraft and maintenance costs. 

The airlines warn that without help, smaller cities like Latrobe could lose air service, and fares could rise for all travelers.

Meanwhile, American taxpayers facing higher costs of their own would not be eager to rescue private airlines yet again. Would another airline bailout protect competition and service, or become a losing investment for the public?

Budget airlines ask for billions in federal relief 

A group of U.S. budget airlines, including Frontier and Avelo, is asking for $2.5 billion in government assistance in exchange for warrants that could give the government equity in the companies, The Wall Street Journal reported this week. That $2.5 billion figure reportedly represents how much their jet fuel costs exceed what the airlines had previously forecast and assumes the spike in oil prices caused by the war in Iran will continue. 

“The White House is aware of outreach that was made by a group of budget airlines to the Department of Transportation,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai wrote to Straight Arrow. “The Administration continues to monitor the health of the U.S. aviation industry for passengers and airline employees.”

Desai added: “Unless an announcement is officially made by the Administration, however, any discussion about federal policymaking should be regarded as baseless speculation.”

The requests followed reports that the administration is considering giving Spirit a lifeline of up to $500 million in government-backed financing. Neither Spirit nor the administration commented to Straight Arrow about the possibility of a rescue package.

However, President Donald Trump has publicly floated the idea of helping the struggling carrier.

“I’d love to be able to save those jobs,” Trump told reporters last week. “I’d love to be able to save an airline.”

Trump himself bought a bankrupt airline in 1989 — which he relaunched and renamed the Trump Shuttle — in a venture that failed after about three years largely due to high debt and weak demand.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy delivered a different message than the president about Spirit Airlines.

“What we don’t want to do,” he told Reuters earlier this month, “is put good money after bad.”

Can budget airlines survive without a bailout?

Budget airlines are under mounting strain as fuel prices surge and other operating costs continue to rise. Experts said these carriers are struggling to compete with major airlines that offer more routes and fare options while possessing greater market power. 

“In traditional times, when jet fuel prices have soared like this, we've seen a wave of mergers and acquisitions and bankruptcies in the airline industry,” said Clint Henderson, principal spokesperson for The Points Guy, a travel rewards website. 

Henderson told Straight Arrow that the industry may now be at the beginning of that process, with “Spirit the first domino to fall, but probably not the last.”

Meanwhile, airfares are spiking. Nationwide, fares were up about 15% in March from a year earlier, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, with prices on some routes climbing even more sharply.

Higher prices could further dampen travel demand. Bureau of Transportation Statistics figures show Americans were already flying less in January, before the Iran war added new cost pressures. 

Henderson said the latest oil shock could be the “nail in the coffin” for some carriers.

What happens when budget airlines disappear?

Experts said if low-cost airlines like Spirit, Frontier and Avelo disappear, airfares could climb higher and smaller cities will lose flight access. 

“Everybody loves to hate on the low-cost carriers until they go out of business, and then fares go up across the board,” said Henderson.

For example, when Spirit stopped serving the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in December 2025, Delta hiked prices for flights leaving from that airport by about 50% “almost overnight,” said Henderson. 

Delta did not immediately respond to Straight Arrow’s request for comment.

Henderson said airfares also shot up in Butte, Montana, after Allegiant Air, another small low-cost carrier, stopped serving that city’s airport.

According to data from The Points Guy, it is now cheaper to fly from New York to many European cities than from Las Vegas to Washington, D.C., or from parts of Montana to New York.

Courtney Goff, a spokesperson for Avelo Airlines, declined to comment on reports Avelo has asked for federal relief.

However, “we emphatically agree that a healthy airline industry with strong competition is important to the U.S. economy, especially during this period of high fuel prices,” Goff said. 

As the country’s smallest and newest airline, Goff said, Avelo’s “focus on underserved airports gives millions of U.S. consumers low-fare nonstop air service options they otherwise would not have.”

Avelo drew criticism last year for operating deportation flights for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement out of Mesa, Arizona, beginning in May 2025. 

Avelo declined to comment about these flights to Straight Arrow. But, according to Reuters, the carrier ended its participation in the ICE program in January because the “short-term benefits” of operating these flights did not provide enough predictable revenue to offset their “operational complexity and costs.”

Are airline bailouts a good use of taxpayer dollars?

While budget airlines can open the skies for some travelers, it is far from clear that a taxpayer investment would pay off. 

American taxpayers already provided roughly $59 billion in relief to the domestic airline industry during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 through the U.S. Treasury Department’s Payroll Support Program. While the program was primarily designed to keep airline workers employed, the Treasury said it recouped only $556 million from the sale of airline warrants — just a fraction of what taxpayers doled out. 

Another attempt to bail out these airlines might be futile and wasteful, said Henderson, from The Points Guy. 

“The low-cost carrier model appears to be completely busted right now,” he said.

Spirit lost billions of dollars even before the Iran war sent fuel prices soaring. “If Spirit can't run its own airline profitably,” Henderson said, “how is the U.S. government supposed to do it?” 

Propping up struggling airlines with federal dollars, he added, “might just put a Band-Aid on an open wound.”

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

Meta cutting jobs 

Meta says it will lay off about 10% of its workforce — roughly 8,000 workers — next month, as it shifts spending toward major investments in AI.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the company told employees the cuts are aimed at improving efficiency and freeing up resources for those investments.

“This is not an easy tradeoff,” Chief People Officer Janelle Gale wrote in a memo, acknowledging the impact on employees who have contributed to the company.

Pushing deeper into AI

Meta is planning to spend up to $135 billion this year on artificial intelligence, part of a broader push to build what it calls “personal superintelligence” for its billions of users.

As Straight Arrow News reported this week, the company has already begun reshaping how work gets done, rolling out tools that track employee activity to help train AI systems, and leaning into smaller teams designed to move faster.

In a memo, Meta’s technology chief Andrew Bosworth said the company is moving toward a model where AI systems do much of the work, with employees overseeing and refining those outputs.

Meta has already made multiple rounds of cuts in recent months, including layoffs earlier this year and performance-based reductions in 2025.

At the end of last year, Meta had about 79,000 employees.

Microsoft offers buyouts

Microsoft, meanwhile, is offering voluntary buyouts to a portion of its U.S. workforce — marking a shift in how the company is restructuring around AI, according to The Wall Street Journal.

About 7% of employees are eligible, according to reporting, with the offer aimed at long-tenured staff.

Chief People Officer Amy Coleman said in a memo the company is looking to simplify operations and move faster as it invests more heavily in artificial intelligence.

Microsoft has roughly 125,000 employees in the U.S. and more than 220,000 globally.

Not just about AI

While both companies are tying these moves to artificial intelligence, AI alone may not fully explain the cuts. Companies across the tech sector have also been under pressure to streamline operations, reduce costs and improve margins. 

Some analysts, along with comments from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, point to a broader trend often described as “AI-washing,” where companies frame layoffs around AI even when other financial factors are at play.

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

Now, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are pushing to allow families on food stamps to use their benefits to buy the chickens. It’s a bipartisan effort ushered by Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., who said it supports both families and the chicken industry.

“It is just plain common sense to allow SNAP participants to purchase a rotisserie chicken with their benefits,” Crawford said in a Thursday press release. “Hot rotisserie chicken is healthy, widely available, popular in grocery stores, and aligned with the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans."

If a person wants to purchase a chicken with their SNAP benefits, Crawford said the birds would currently need to be cold and packaged. Harrison Kircher, president of the National Chicken Council, said the cooling process is a waste of energy while adding costs to the food. 

“At around $7, it can feed an entire family. For the 42 million Americans on SNAP, that matters enormously,” he said in a Thursday press release.

Sens. Jim Justice, R-W.V., John Fetterman, D-Pa., Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., introduced a similar bill in the Senate. 

Already, Crawford’s bill has bipartisan support with seven Democrats and 13 other Republicans joining as cosponsors. 

“As a mom who put dinner on the table every night, I can’t tell you how many times a hot rotisserie chicken has come to the rescue,” Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Mich., said in a press release. “It’s ridiculous for the government to tell working parents they can’t buy such a common staple for an affordable, quick, healthy meal.”

SNAP rules restrict certain purchases

The bills would modify what purchases people can make using their SNAP funds. If an item is prohibited, a person must either use a different form of payment or forfeit the item. Rules were established under the 2008 Food and Nutrition Act.

Certain foods have remained excluded for purchase with SNAP benefits as the law considered “foods” to be anything that isn’t alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot foods or ready-to-eat hot food products. It also excluded coffee, tea, hot chocolate, carbonated and uncarbonated drinks, candy, condiments, live animals, pet food, vitamins and supplements, foods with controlled substances and spices for purchase.  

SNAP benefits are generally not allowed to be used to buy fast food, but states allow a certain class of individuals to do so under the restaurant meals program. Those individuals are anyone 60 years of age or older, a person who receives disability or blindness benefits, a person who is homeless or the spouse of an eligible recipient. 

The program is active in Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has signed food waivers for 22 states that restricted certain food items from purchase. Restrictions can be on soft drinks, energy drinks, items with less than 50% of natural juices, prepared desserts and “sugar-sweetened” beverages. 

“Under President Trump’s leadership, I have encouraged states to serve as the ‘laboratories of innovation,’” Rollins said in a May 19, 2025, press release on Nebraska’s restriction waiver. “Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen and Governors in Iowa, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, West Virginia, and Colorado are pioneers in improving the health of our nation.”

Rotisserie chicken lauded for accessible health benefits

Rotisserie chickens have become a common staple for offering quick, easy dinners on a budget as they cost around $6 for an entire bird. 

Dietitians chimed in on the craze, adding that it’s a good source of protein, averaging about 36 grams per cup of meat. Registered Dietitian Jamie Allers of Hartford HealthCare Digestive Health Institute in Connecticut said in 2023 that the chickens are nearly comparable to an oven-roasted chicken. 

She cautioned people to read labels to scout additives that drive down a rotisserie chicken’s nutritional value. A “good” label will list just chicken on the ingredient list. 

“They add these other compounds – gums, stabilizers – to add flavor and moistness and make it look appetizing,” she said. 

Still, the food is praised for its overall versatility and benefits compared to other hot options. 

“It’s still lower in fat and calories than fast food,” Allers said. “It’s serving its purpose – it’s fast, but it can still help you create a balanced meal. Add some frozen broccoli and brown rice or sweet potato, and it becomes far more balanced than fast food.”

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

The state has lost over a million people more than it has gained since the COVID-19 pandemic. The new report confirms that much of it is due to the cost of living, especially housing.

The report finds many of those leaving are doing so in search of a lower cost of living.

“In case anyone had any doubts, when people leave, they're moving to more affordable communities,” Evan White, executive director of the California Policy Lab at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the authors of the study, told Straight Arrow News.

Data collection

White said he and Brett Fischer put this report together because of a special dataset they use to track people at an individual level. 

That gave them a detailed look at individuals' migration habits and a closer look at their financial situation.

“It's anonymized, but we're able to see the same people over time, when they leave the state, when they come to the state, or move around in the state, and we get quarterly updates,” White said. “It's a very good data set for following migration.”

They tracked that data from 2016 to 2025, including what happened to those individuals’ finances over that time.

Home ownership

The report found that after seven years, people who leave California are 48% more likely to become homeowners than if they had stayed.

California is the most expensive state in the country to buy a home in. Other than Hawaii, it’s not particularly close. The state also has the second-lowest home ownership rate in the nation.

“Just kind of shows that those affordability differences really do add up over time, and that people who want to become a homeowner appear much more likely to do so when they leave the state,” White said.

The report also found that part of the reason home ownership is on the rise for those who leave the state is that they are typically not considered low-income to begin with.

The number of exits from higher-income neighborhoods rose 19% over the last decade.

But many of those in that group were significantly financially weaker than their neighbors, who White said couldn’t “keep up with the Joneses.”

“These are folks who are living in higher-income neighborhoods, but they had lower credit scores than their neighbors, they had twice as much student debt as their neighbors,” White added. “On average, they were much less likely to be a homeowner than their neighbors.”

The report found on average these people are moving to neighborhoods where monthly housing costs are nearly $700 less. Subtracting more than $8,000 on your housing cost every year is sure to increase financial stability.

“Folks who would be rich in most other states, maybe in any other state in the country, can be living in California, and it feels like they are not that well off,” White said.

Impact of departures

California remains the most populous state in the country by a wide margin. But unlike the other states at the top of that list, California’s growth rate has plateaued.

In 2021, following the 2020 census, the state lost a seat in Congress for the first time since it became a state 171 years earlier.

“We might be likely to lose some representation in Congress after the 2030 census,” White said. “And I do think that's likely to happen. How many seats? Maybe three or four seats.”

Among the states that gained seats after 2020 were Florida and Texas. And while some believe those are popular places for Californians to relocate, the report found that neither of those states ranked in the top ten for destinations of those who’ve left.

With more high-earning individuals leaving, that can also impact California’s finances at a time when the state is already losing some serious dough.

“There could also be some impacts on tax revenues, if higher income folks are leaving the state,” White said. “But in the past, the state has proven pretty well able to replace those folks with newer, higher-income folks. One way of putting that is, we're pretty good at making new millionaires to replace the old millionaires.”

Arguably, the most fundamental element of economics is supply and demand.

So, if more people are leaving, does that leave more supply of housing, which would lessen demand and, in theory, prices?

“It actually is going to lessen demand on housing, and could help somewhat with some of the cost of living, right?” White said. “People don't focus on that, because they sort of see it as a bad thing that people are leaving. And from some perspectives, it is. But I think that there are upsides as well to having less population pressure in the state.”

Where is everyone going?

The oldest saying in real estate is location, location, location. And for most people leaving the Golden State, they want a location that’s not too far away.

Nevada receives the most former Californians, followed by other nearby states Idaho, Oregon and Arizona.

When expensive new neighbors move in, it’s called gentrification and is not typically popular with those who already live there. But this is nothing new.

“You can go back and find Oregon bumper stickers that say, ‘Don't Californicate Oregon’ from 20 years ago, 30 years ago,” White said.

That's a sentiment that hasn't gone away decades later in other states.

While those are the most popular states, there were some interesting fads during the pandemic. The state that received the biggest increase in Californians was Wyoming, while other states like Alaska and Utah also saw major increases.

However, those fads have mostly subsided.

What can be done?

“The number of things that need to be done to lower the cost of living are too great to list out,” White said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has called it a statewide priority, and it’s one of the main issues in the unpredictable race to succeed Newsom later this year.

This isn’t a new issue either.

In 1993, Governor Pete Wilson spoke about housing supply issues. Twelve years later, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed concerns about the exact same thing.

“Building more housing is clearly top of mind for policymakers, and it's one of the things that's going to help,” White said.

But White added that, when it comes to cost of living, there are a lot of other factors.

“Gas prices have surged recently, and that's probably for reasons related to the war in Iran,” he said. “Utility costs in the state are really high and has to do with wildfire mitigation. Grocery prices are also much higher in the state of California, even though we produce so much of the food, right? So, there's just, there's a lot to tackle.”

Despite all that focus from policymakers, it’s clearly been tough to direct a state that anchors more Americans than any other into calmer waters.

“It's really hard to turn this ship around,” White said.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says Phase 1 of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries, or CAPE, is limited mostly to recent shipments — specifically those that are still being processed or those where the government finished its final review within the last 80 days. Only the importer of record or the customs broker who filed the entries may submit a CAPE declaration, and refunds will be paid electronically. On its face, the filing is simple: a CSV file listing eligible entry numbers. Phase 1 covers about 63% of affected filings.

The requirements for a refund are more complex than they appear. To get paid, a company must have an active federal trade account within the Automated Commercial Environment and up-to-date banking records on file.

Additionally, the system currently rejects shipments that are tied up in other legal red tape, like cases where a company is already disputing a bill, asking for a different type of tax credit or trying to change a record where the legal deadline has already passed.

Trade attorneys told CBS News that the process leaves importers doing most of the work. One attorney said customs is “putting the burden on the importer,” rather than automatically calculating refunds, even though the agency already has payment records.

CBP says that 56,497 importers had completed the process to receive electronic refunds as of April 9, and that about $127 billion in principal International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff payments and deposits are eligible for refunds in the system’s initial payouts.

Why businesses are still running into problems

The first day did not appear to go smoothly for everyone. CBS News reported that some businesses saw error messages or had trouble accessing the system. CBP said it was looking into those reports. One importer described the portal as overwhelmed. Others said account problems kept them from reaching the filing stage at all.

The refund process is also taking on a political dimension. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump told CNBC he would “remember” companies that do not seek refunds and said it would be “brilliant” if they chose not to apply. CNBC reported that some large companies, including Apple and Amazon, had yet to file claims. Trump did not explicitly threaten companies that do apply, but his comments add another layer of pressure to a process that was already technical and time-consuming.

Businesses also still face uncertainty because Trump has pursued replacement tariffs under other legal authorities. That means some firms could recover money tied to the old IEEPA tariffs while continuing to pay new duties.

What happens next

For now, the portal’s next test is execution: whether businesses can file claims without major problems, be processed at scale and paid on the timeline CBP has laid out. Later phases are expected to cover more complex entries that Phase 1 leaves out.

The bigger question is whether businesses decide the process is worth pursuing. Some companies say they plan to file immediately.

Others may wait, sell their claims or decide that the paperwork, delay and uncertainty outweigh the benefit. And even when refunds do arrive, reporting so far suggests shoppers should not assume cash refunds or lower prices will automatically follow.

An announcement from the company, released shortly after the markets closed Monday, said that John Ternus, a senior vice president of hardware engineering at the tech giant, would replace Cook.

Cook’s resignation is the first transition for Apple since Jobs stepped down shortly before his death. Ternus will be Apple’s eighth CEO.

Cook will stay with the company — the maker of the iPhone, Macintosh computers and other devices ubiquitous in modern society — as executive chairman.

“It has been the greatest privilege of my life to be the CEO of Apple and to have been trusted to lead such an extraordinary company,” Cook, 65, wrote in a statement. “I love Apple with all of my being, and I am so grateful to have had the opportunity to work with a team of such ingenious, innovative, creative, and deeply caring people who have been unwavering in their dedication to enriching the lives of our customers and creating the best products and services in the world.”

Cook said Ternus, 50, has the “mind of an engineer, the soul of an innovator, and the heart to lead,” and called him a “visionary.”

“He is without question the right person to lead Apple into the future,” Cook wrote. “I could not be more confident in his abilities and his character, and I look forward to working closely with him on this transition and in my new role as executive chairman.”

Ternus said he is excited to “carry Apple’s mission forward” and honored to have been given the opportunity.

“I have been lucky to have worked under Steve Jobs and to have had Tim Cook as my mentor,” Ternus said in his statement. “I am humbled to step into this role, and I promise to lead with the values and vision that have come to define this special place for half a century.”

Apple’s stock closed at $273.05 on Monday, up 1.04%. The company’s market capitalization is roughly $4 trillion — 24 times greater than when Cook became CEO.

Who is Ternus?

According to Apple, Ternus joined the company’s product design team in 2001 and became a vice president of hardware engineering in 2013. In 2021, he joined the executive team as the senior vice president of hardware engineering. 

During his time at Apple, Ternus oversaw the hardware engineering on several major projects. The company said he was instrumental in introducing multiple new product lines, like the iPad and the AirPods. 

Before working at Apple, Ternus worked as a mechanical engineer at Virtual Research Systems. Ternus is Ivy League-educated, graduating from the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk on Friday proposed that the federal government establish a universal high-income program, a plan he first suggested in 2023 but never fully endorsed until now.

“Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI,” Musk wrote on X. “AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation.”

Musk’s comments come as fears grow over AI-driven job losses — a fear that he has helped stir with his work developing Optimus, Tesla’s humanoid robot. Companies across industries have cited artificial intelligence as the reason for recent rounds of layoffs, according to International Business Times. 

What’s the difference between UBI and UHI?

Universal high income, known as UHI, is very similar to universal basic income, or UBI. The policy proposal has roots in both progressive American politics and libertarian philosophy. 

In 1962, American economist Milton Friedman wrote about a negative income tax in his book “Capitalism and Freedom.” His proposal, a form of UBI, would have provided a minimum income to poorer families and replaced the country’s welfare system, which he described as costly and inefficient. 

But Friedman’s idea of the government sending people checks if they earned below a certain threshold differs from what Musk and others have proposed. Friedman’s plan replaced the welfare state, while Musk’s plan creates an entirely new system on top of the existing ones. 

Recent UBI proposals and trials are typically small, only providing applicants with the bare minimum needed to survive. Musk’s plan implies it goes beyond subsistence, Bezinga reports, saying if AI and automation make society more productive, companies could share those gains so everyone can benefit. 

“Universal High Income isn't a bigger safety net — it's a dividend narrative," Ryan Waite, a policy expert at Think Big, told the publication. “It’s about sharing AI-driven surplus so people participate in growth, not just get cushioned from loss.”

Earlier this year, during a discussion with NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, Musk said working may become almost like a hobby in the future if his predictions about automation are correct. 

“My prediction is that work will be optional,” Musk said. “It’ll be like playing sports or a video game or something like that.” 

Musk isn’t the only person in Silicon Valley pushing for UHI. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has floated the idea before, too. In 2025, Altman suggested “universal extreme wealth.”

His solution to an AI-dominated future would measure the world’s AI output in tokens before distributing them worldwide. In an example examined by Moneywise, if an AI company created 20 quintillion tokens a year, it would give 60% to the traditional capitalist system and share the rest equally among everyone.  

“I think society will very quickly say, ‘Okay, we got to have some new economic model where we share that and distribute that to people,’” Altman said. “I used to be really excited about things like UBI. I still am kind of excited, like, universal basic income, where you just give everybody money.”

Could this program even work? 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government issued three rounds of stimulus checks to help address the economic hardships many people faced. But the checks had a direct impact on consumer prices, with the Federal Reserve blaming them for an increase in the inflation rate of 2.5 percentage points.

But in his post on Friday, Musk said he believes that automation and AI would create enough goods and services to counteract the money supply, leading to no inflation. 

People close to Musk agree. Peter Diamandis, the founder of the XPRIZE Foundation, wrote in a recent Substack post that if automation causes a price drop, consumers’ buying power would increase.

“When AI and robotics collapse the cost of living's five major categories by more than half, a $3,000/month check that barely covers basics today becomes a genuinely prosperous life,” Diamandis wrote. “The check doesn't change. The world does."

But others aren’t so sure. The Tax Project, a non-partisan educational research foundation, said market dynamics won’t change despite AI’s productivity gains. 

“In Musk’s best-case framing, scarcity evaporates and everyone can have what they want,” the group wrote. “In that world, UHI could raise baseline security while still leaving competition intact. Or it could pour fuel on inflation if supply constraints are not addressed.”

UBI’s ethical dilemma

In the past, Musk has supported deregulation, even serving as head of the controversial Department of Government Efficiency, which sought to cut government spending. But UHI would be a massive federal program with equal federal spending. 

His plan also raises an important question: if AI companies control people’s money, what’s stopping them from taking it back?

A 2025 peer-reviewed paper argues that tech CEOs have begun promoting the program because it makes them appear “benevolent visionaries who are concerned about the wellbeing of humanity.” But this could be a facade.

“Promoting UBI can be a strategic way for AI elites to deflect criticism, maintaining control over narratives about AI's future while avoiding challenges to their profit motives,” the authors of the paper wrote. “This framing distracts from the fact that the same individuals who are pushing for UBI are also those who stand to gain the most.”

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis argues tech companies are trying to create a new form of feudalism called technofeudalism. Rather than creating a UBI program, Varoufakis believes governments should require big tech companies to issue new equity into a public trust that generates income for workers replaced by robots. He calls this a universal basic dividend. 

“Effectively, society becomes a shareholder in every corporation,” Varoufakis wrote, “and the dividends are distributed evenly to all citizens.”

Looking towards an AI future

The same people and companies disrupting the economy are the ones trying to figure out a fix to that disruption. But it’s difficult to plan when you don’t know exactly what’s going to happen. 

Researchers say the expanding influence tech CEOs have with the government “highlights a calculated effort to control AI's development and its societal implications.”

Musk has pushed back on that, saying that the world is entering “a positive AI future.” But conceded that those who find purpose in their work may have difficulties. 

“In [UHI], everyone can have whatever goods & services they want,” he wrote. “It is less clear how we will find meaning in a world where work is optional.”

And not just by a little.

NJ Transit announced on Friday a more than 1,000% fare increase from New York City’s Penn Station to the Meadowlands for games. It will now cost riders $150 on game day.

“We're trying to recover the cost of $48 million that it's going to cost by charging $150 a ticket period,” Kris Kolluri, NJ Transit President and CEO, told WABC.

According to NorthJersey.com, non-World Cup riders won’t have access to Jersey-bound trains from Penn Station four hours before the games kick off for security reasons. 

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority has announced a 357% increase for a round-trip train ticket between Boston and Foxborough. That $80 ride is also 300% higher than the typical price for a New England Patriots game.

The decision to hold World Cup matches in America was made in 2018, so why is this issue coming up now?

While soccer is one of the most simplistic sports in the world to understand, the answer to that question is not.

FIFA agreement

There are many reasons soccer is the most popular sport in the world, including the fact that it’s one of the most inexpensive sports to participate in.

Meanwhile, FIFA, which governs international soccer, is set to make $11 billion from this tournament.

“Yet is nickel and diming host cities left and right,” Victor Matheson, professor of economics at the College of Holy Cross in Massachusetts, told Straight Arrow News. “Assuming that host cities should have to pay for security, host cities should have to pay for transportation.”

FIFA told SAN that the host cities agreed to that deal during negotiations.

“The original FIFA World Cup 2026 Host City Agreements signed in 2018 required free transportation for fans to all matches,” a FIFA spokesperson told SAN. “Recognizing the financial strain this placed on the host cities, back in 2023, FIFA adjusted the Host Agreement requirements across all host cities as follows: All Match Ticket holders and accredited individuals shall be able to access transport (public or additionally planned transport) at cost to allow travel to Stadiums on match days.”

That transportation cost to NJ Transit will run up a tab of roughly $48 million.

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill is not happy with that, especially considering what FIFA is bringing in.

“I’m not going to stick New Jersey commuters with that tab for years to come,” she wrote on X. “FIFA should pay for the rides.”

FIFA said that this is a typical way things are done.

“FIFA is not aware of any other major event previously held at NYNJ Stadium, including other major sports, global concert tours, etc., where organizers were required to pay for fan transportation,” their spokesperson told SAN.

Matheson agreed.

“The NFL did exactly the same thing when the Super Bowl was hosted at MetLife, it does the same thing to host communities all the time,” he said. “Major League Baseball does the same thing with the All-Star Game.”

Why no pushback?

Sherrill added that she inherited this deal, which is true. These decisions were made six years ago.

“These types of outcomes should have been prevented or avoided when the decision was made to apply for the FIFA World Cup many years ago,” Yonah Freemark, researcher at the Urban Institute, told SAN. “It should have been a discussion among the host cities and their transit agencies and the host states, because the fact that these outcomes are being decided just months before these events are supposed to occur is pretty disappointing.”

Why didn’t most of the host cities push back at the time?

“I have no idea,” Freemark said.

The one city that did fight back a little was Foxborough, but that was mostly just on security costs.

Only last month did the town of about 20,000 people officially agree to host World Cup matches. The town wanted assurance that someone else was footing the $8 million security bill.

“It's a little embarrassing that a tiny municipal township in Massachusetts seems to be able to negotiate better than the city government of the largest city in the United States,” Matheson said.

But even that outcome didn’t put any extra bill in FIFA’s mailbox.

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whose net worth is roughly $14 billion, agreed to cover those costs.

“I think this really speaks to the failure of negotiation by these states and these cities with FIFA when this choice was originally made,” Freemark said. “It's disappointing.”

What can cities do?

At the end of the day, someone must pay the transportation bill, and it clearly is not going to be FIFA. So, who’s going to pay?

“There's a ton of ways to do this,” Matheson said. “You can raise sales taxes. You can charge additional sums of money for hotels during this time period. You can raise income taxes. But, in the big picture, the money has to come from somewhere.”

Sherrill has said she won’t allow her constituents to pay the bill, which is where that massive fare increase comes in. 

“The people who are using the services that are going to be required because of the World Cup, you're going to place that bill on them,” Matheson said. “And in many ways, that's a fair way to do things, right?”

What are other cities doing?

While Foxborough and Boston have similar plans, other American host cities are doing things differently.

“Why is it that NJ Transit believes it can only provide this service for $100, but transit agencies in Philadelphia and in Houston are allowing people to use the transit systems for the same price?” Freemark said.

The rail system in Philadelphia is known as SEPTA. Spokesperson Andrew Busch told The Philadelphia Inquirer that they’ll have extra trains going to and from the sports complex, but no price hikes.

“We’re having regular service hours and open stations,” Busch said.

The Houston Metro Board Chair also announced there would be fair increases as they focus on affordability and accessibility.

“While we are thrilled to support hosting the World Cup, Metro’s system is built to serve everyone, every day, and that remains our focus as we proudly welcome the world to Houston,” Elizabeth Gonzalez Brock told The Houston Chronicle.

In other cities, Miami’s privately owned Brightline already has dynamic pricing, meaning fares change depending on numerous factors like time of day, availability, date and more.

Other major cities like Los Angeles and Atlanta have not made any major announcements when it comes to World Cup travel, except for some service expansion and an overall readiness plan.

LA will also be using its train system and a park and ride system with no added fares for the games.

“What are these other agencies doing differently?” Freemark said.

Parking

While many of these other cities are not increasing fares like NJ Transit, many have encouraged fans to use public transportation because parking restrictions are often fairly strict for security reasons.

There is no parking at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. Spots will be very limited around Sofi Stadium, with most lots directly outside being designated security zones, and the available parking further out will be very pricey.

“Even for the wealthy, the train is often the best route in and out of these sort of things, because it can be very difficult to drive in, or to even take private transportation in,” Matheson said. “Mass transit during big events is one of these great levelers.”

The nation’s largest farm organization polled 5,700 farmers and ranchers nationwide from April 3 through April 11, as fertilizer and fuel prices surged because of the war.

As Straight Arrow News has reported, disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a third of the global seaborne fertilizer trade typically passes, have driven the price of some fertilizers up by 40% in a matter of weeks. 

Because fertilizer is traded as a global commodity, like oil, and the Gulf region produces much of the world’s supply, prices are highly sensitive to geopolitical shocks, even when it is also produced and sold here in the U.S.

The pain is not felt evenly

Farmers who pre-booked fertilizer before the Feb. 28 start of the Iran war locked in much lower prices than those who did not. And since the timing of the spring planting season varies widely by region and by crop, the pain has not been evenly felt. 

Last month, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told reporters that about 75% to 80% of U.S. farmers had already booked their spring fertilizer needs before the conflict, while 20% to 25% had not yet locked in supplies.

The USDA has not published data backing Rollins’ estimate, and experts told SAN that they do not know how Rollins arrived at those figures. 

When asked for comment last week about the fertilizer price shock, an agency spokesperson did not address the issue directly, writing to SAN, in part:  “President Trump is the most pro-farmer President of our lifetime,” mentioning the administration’s tax reforms and farm relief programs. 

The agency did not immediately respond to SAN’s request for comment about the Farm Bureau survey, which paints a slightly different, and more detailed, picture. 

Midwestern farmers were the most likely to have locked in fertilizer before prices surged, with 67% saying they had pre-booked supplies. These states grow much of the nation’s corn, a crop central to the U.S. food system and heavily dependent on nitrogen-based fertilizers.

By contrast, just 19% of farmers in the South, 30% in the Northeast and 31% in the West pre-booked all their fertilizer needs before the war, according to the survey. 

These farmers were more likely than those in the Midwest to say they could no longer afford all the fertilizer they need. 

Smaller farms — many of which were operating on razor-thin margins or at a loss before the conflict — are taking the hardest hit across every region, the survey found. Those farmers were much less likely to have pre-booked fertilizer than larger operations.

The impact of the fertilizer price spikes also varies by crop. 

Soybean, barley, corn and wheat growers were more likely to have pre-booked fertilizer, while cotton and peanut growers lagged behind.

More than 80% of American rice, cotton and peanut producers said they could not afford all the fertilizer they need this spring, underscoring how exposed some U.S. crop systems are to these shocks. 

Almost all surveyed farmers said finances have worsened or stayed the same

Rising fertilizer and fuel costs have thrown farmers across the country into crisis. 

Among those surveyed by the Farm Bureau, 94% said their financial situation has worsened or remained the same since last year, while only 6% reported improvement. 

A late-March survey by the National Corn Growers Association also found mounting concern among U.S. corn farmers over fertilizer affordability and access, with many warning that the strain could extend into the 2027 planting season.

Will the farm shocks drive up US food prices?

Experts told SAN that it is too soon to tell how much these farm shocks will affect food prices, but there are signs that food inflation could worsen.

“Without the necessary fertilizers, we’ll face lower yields and some farmers will reduce acres altogether, which will impact food and feed supplies,” Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall said in a press statement. 

“It’s too early to know how this will affect food availability and prices in the long run,” Duvall said, “but it’s a warning light that we’ve shared with leaders in Washington.”