US economy

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares40 Views

    Boom time for US billionaires: why the system perpetuates wealth inequality

    by

    To many Americans, the economy of the past five years has been rough. Prices have soared yet pay remains stagnant. High mortgage rates have made buying a home a dismal prospect. The unemployment rate has been creeping up.Most people have indicated they are delaying major life decisions, including having kids or switching jobs, because of the instability. But for a very small group of people, the last five years couldn’t have been any better.The wealth of the world’s billionaires grew 54% in 2020, at the height of the pandemic. And even amid all the economic instability, the stock market has only continued to grow. This growth has largely benefited just a small number of Americans: 10% of the population owns 93% of stock market wealth.As uneven as this distribution seems, it’s the system working as it is currently designed.In his new book Burned by Billionaires, inequality researcher Chuck Collins argues that the system that perpetuates wealth inequality is purposely opaque to most Americans.“[The wealthy] have bought their jets, they’ve bought their multiple houses and mansions, but now they’re buying senators and media outlets,” Collins told the Guardian in an interview. “We’re now entering this other chapter of hyper-extraction where the wealthy are preying on the system of inequality.”Collins, a director at the Institute for Policy Studies, is no stranger to wealth. A great-grandson to Oscar F Mayer, the founder of the meat processing brand, he is a member of the Patriotic Millionaires, a non-partisan group of wealthy Americans who advocate for higher taxes for the rich and higher wages.To help others understand what exactly it means to be “wealthy” in the US, Collins borrows a concept from journalist Robert Frank who, in a 2007 book on the rich, imagined the different levels of wealth as “Richistan” villages: Affluent Town, Lower Richistan, Middle Richistan, Upper Richistan and Billionaireville.To modernize the concept, Collins categorizes these “wealth villages” based on income levels. At the lowest tier, Affluent Town, are the 10 million Americans who have a household income of at least $110,000 and an overall wealth of over $1.5m. The villages get more exclusive as wealth goes up: Lower Richistan has 2.6 million households who have wealth between $6m and $13m; Middle Richistan has 1.3 million households who have assets worth an average of $37m; while Upper Richistan, made up of 130,000 Americans (roughly the size of a small city) has between $60m to $1bn in wealth.Altogether, the residents of these villages make up the top 10% of the wealth income distribution, about 14 million Americans altogether, though their experiences vary dramatically.“You could be in Lower Richistan, and you’re still sitting in the coach section of a commercial plane,” Collins said. “Whereas in Upper Richistan, you’re flying in a private jet. That’s a really different cultural experience. You fly private, you have no stakes in the commercial aviation system. You don’t care if the whole system shuts down – you’re set.”The highest hill in “Richistan” is Billionaireville, which is made up of about 800 American billionaires who are some of the world’s wealthiest. The power that this group has far surpasses those who are simply affluent, let alone the average American who doesn’t reside in “Richistan” at all.But Collins thinks the progressive slogan “billionaires shouldn’t exist” or “abolish billionaires” misses the point and has a “whiff of exterminism” to it.“It’s the distinction between individual behaviors and a system of rules and policies,” Collins said. “We should be concerned about an economic system that funnels so much wealth upward to the billionaires.”In other words, it’s not about the billionaires themselves, but about the system that allows them to have an enormous amount of influence and control over society today.To understand how wealth at the billionaire level works, Collins breaks it down into four parts: getting the wealth, defending the wealth, political capture and hyper-extraction.When many Americans think about wealth, they usually think solely about the first step, Collins said. People can create a modest amount of wealth through starting or running a successful business, which could get them residency in Affluent Town.But getting to Billionaireville requires serious investment and strategy in those next three steps. Collins describes what he calls the “wealth defense industry”: the tax layers, accountants and wealth managers who use their expertise to ensure that the super rich are being strategic about their taxes.“Wealth defense professionals use a wide variety of tools such as trusts, offshore bank accounts, anonymous shell companies, charitable foundations and other vehicles to hold assets,” he writes.To further a wealth defense strategy, a family needs political support. Wealth of over $40m translates to political power, Collins says, and can be used to defend wealth and protect its accumulation. He notes that the 2010 landmark supreme court decision Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allowed the wealthy to pump a seemingly unlimited amount of money into elections, which has dramatically increased the power the ultra-wealthy have on politics.The last stage is a different kind of wealth accumulation, one that Collins calls “hyper extraction”, to describe how the wealthy have come to touch nearly every single part of an Americans’ everyday life largely through private equity, which allows wealthy individuals to invest in private companies.“Private equity is looking for those corners of the economy where they can squeeze things a little bit harder,” Collins said. “One thing I don’t think people understand is these billionaire private-equity funds are what happens when so much wealth is parked in so few hands, and they can kind of turn around and say, ‘Where else can we squeeze money out of the economy?’ Healthcare? Great. Mobile home parks? These people can’t go anywhere, [so] you can raise their rents.”Collins writes about the Mars family, best known for their dominance in the confectionary market, with M&Ms, Snickers and Skittles, but who have also cornered the pet industry. Along with being the biggest owner of pet care products in the US, the Mars family owns more than 2,500 pet care facilities across the US.The effects of this inequality go beyond the wealth getting wealthier. It’s about people paying more for their healthcare, rent and vet bills without seeing any meaningful wage increases. And Collins said the pain and frustration of this kind of society can lead to deep discontent.“The most powerful oligarchs understand people are being left behind [and] are economically suffering,” Collins said, adding that Republicans have been good at tapping into a potent “phony populism”.“They can basically project this message that actually, Democrats are elitists. They just care about rich Hollywood executives and woke politics, and the people who care about you are over here. They’re the Donald Trumps of the world. They hear your pain, they feel your pain,” he said.The irony, Collins points out in his book, is that Trump has appointed a string of billionaires to his cabinet. Along with Elon Musk, who had a brief but powerful role as head of the so-called “department of government efficiency”, which oversaw massive cuts to the federal workforce, Trump’s secretaries for commerce, treasury, education and the interior are also all billionaires.His cabinet, along with help from Republicans in Congress, helped him pass his huge tax bill, which will make permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.While Republican continue to argue that immigration and bad trade agreements are the source of everyone’s economic problems, “the question becomes: Will the Democratic party, which has also been captured by the billionaires and big money, be able to meaningfully address the underlying harms?” Collins said.Democrats, he argues, know what policies are needed to “reverse the updraft of wealth”, including deep changes to the tax system, increasing the minimum wage and strengthening unions.Collins recalled four years ago, when the Democrats were in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. The Democrats introduced the $4.3bn Build Back Better bill, which would have seen deep investments in the climate crisis, Medicaid, housing and childcare, among other things. The bill was going to be partially funded through changes in the tax system, including higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy and closing out tax loopholes.But while the bill passed the House in November 2021, it ultimately died in the Senate because two centrist Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, blocked it. Both Manchin and Sinema have since both left their Senate seats.“It was so, so close, and the bill really did reflect the will of the majority of people who really want lawmakers to solve some of these urgent problems,” Collins said. “Oligarchic power is not about creating so much as blocking. It’s easier to block than it is to make something meaningful happen, but the muscle memory is there. We know what that looks like.”Collins is optimistic that there can be change, but said it would require sustained political momentum.“It may be before we know it that the pendulum swings back, and then it really is about maintaining a sustained really popular movement to make progress on this extreme inequality we’re living in,” he said. “We can fix this. It is fixable.” More

    More stories

    • 200 Shares91 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans and US food banks brace for Trump cuts: ‘Battling hunger is no longer a priority’

      by

      Americans are bracing for the impact of the largest cuts to the government’s food assistance program for low-income people in US history that have begun to take effect as a result of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.Effective 1 October, the beginning of fiscal year 2026, funding for Snap-Ed, part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) that provided funding for food banks across the US, is being eliminated. The cuts are part of the sweeping spending bill Trump signed in July.A report this month by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted “some low-income families will see their food assistance terminated or cut substantially (or will be denied benefits) this fall, though most current participants will face cuts when their SNAP eligibility is next recertified,” with estimates that 4 million Americans in a typical month will lose some or all of their Snap benefits when the cuts are fully implemented.A Snap recipient in Camden county, New Jersey, who works as a cake decorator at a small business and requested to remain anonymous, said their Snap benefits were cut off in September without receiving a notice.“Snap was my way to finally not pay half to three-quarters of my paycheck on groceries. Now, I have nothing in my house regularly and it just feels like no one wants to help people any more,” they said. “I only got a little over $110 a month, but it helped tremendously.”They said it’s made it more difficult to work at a job they love, but that doesn’t pay enough.Jessica Griffin of Fort Smith, Arkansas, a mother of three, said she lost her job about five months ago and has struggled to find another, with her family relying on her husband’s income.After rent and utility bills, there isn’t much left over to buy groceries and she doesn’t have reliable transportation to get to food banks, she said.“I used to be able to buy $100 worth of groceries a week to feed a family of five, now even with one child out of the house $100 will only go a couple days,” she said. “The rent rates are so high now as well as groceries that families can barely afford to feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads at the same time. So it almost feels like we have two options, to either live in a house or live on the street and not starve.”View image in fullscreenFunding cuts to states, which will be expected to share costs of Snap for the first time as well as cover more administrative costs, are phased for fiscal years 2027 and 2028, but several provisions and changes to Snap are being implemented as states have to grapple with drastic costs shifted on to them from the federal government.“States don’t have enough administrative staff or capacity to handle this,” said Gina Plata-Nino, interim Snap director at the Food Research and Action Center. “I think we’re on a downward path. Polling and data is showing that one of the biggest obstacles that people are having in being able to eat is just how expensive food is at the moment. This is a direct result of tariffs and other policy choices that the administration has made. It’s something that everyone, regardless of income, can understand.”The looming Snap cuts come as food prices are still rising under the Trump administration and are expected to continue rising due to tariffs and labor shortages in the food industry due to Trump’s immigration policies.From January 2022 to August 2025, overall food cost in the US increased by about 17.8%, according the consumer price index, and has increased 2.0% since January 2025, when Trump took office. Trump’s tariffs are expected to drive further increases, with food prices set to rise 3.4% in the short term and stay 2.5% higher in the long run, according to the Yale Budget Lab.Food banks have been struggling across the US to keep up with demand and manage rising food prices, while bracing for further cuts, higher prices, and a surge in demand once Snap cuts begin taking effect.At a food bank in Charlottesville, Virginia, Jane Colony Mills, executive director of Loaves & Fishes, said the food bank has “experienced a 20% increase in the numbers of people coming for food assistance in 2025, likely driven not only by the cost of groceries in our community, but by the overall cost of living in Charlottesville and Albemarle area.”She noted their food supply has decreased as well, since they rely on food that stores cannot sell, and have also been affected by cuts at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to programs that support food banks. Colony Mills noted Snap cuts haven’t taken effect yet in Virginia, but local social service departments are bracing for those reductions or cancellations starting 1 October.“People who rely on these incremental supports will be struggling even more to provide food for their households each month,” she added.In Washington, the Thurston County Food Bank said they are bracing for significant cuts to Snap that will increase demand and make it more difficult to meet the current demand, let alone handle increases. They have already had to lay off staff positions funded by the Snap-Ed program that was cut by the Trump administration.“We have been told to brace for cuts that could be as much as 20% to 25% of the food we received in prior years. For us, 25% is $1m worth of food in 2024 prices, so with rising food costs, we can assume that is a gap of well over a million dollars,” said executive director of the Thurston County Food Bank.Ahead of the cuts to Snap and rising food prices, the Trump administration announced the cancellation of the annual hunger survey that measures food insecurity in the US and food researchers at the USDA were put on leave.USDA deferred comment to a press release, where they claimed “these redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fear monger.”The decision is viewed by anti-hunger advocates as an effort by the Trump administration to obfuscate the impacts of their cuts to Snap and other policies affecting food insecurity for Americans.“By cancelling the survey, USDA is sending a signal that tracking and battling hunger is no longer a priority,” Eric Mitchell, president of the Alliance to End Hunger, said in a statement. “It is further troubling that the decision comes amid predictions that hunger may increase in the coming months and years. Hunger will not disappear simply because it is no longer tracked.” More

    • 175 Shares90 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says US will impose new tariffs on heavy trucks, drugs and kitchen cabinets

      by

      Donald Trump on Thursday announced a new round of punishing tariffs, saying the United States will impose a 100% tariffs on imported branded drugs, 25% tariff on imports of all heavy-duty trucks and 50% tariffs on kitchen cabinets.The US president also said he would start charging a 50% tariff on bathroom vanities and a 30% tariff on upholstered furniture next week, with all the new duties to take effect from 1 October.Drug companies warned earlier this year that Americans would suffer the most if Trump decided to impose tariffs on pharmaceuticals.In 2024, the US imported nearly $233bn in pharmaceutical and medicinal products, according to the Census Bureau. The prospect of prices doubling for some medicines could send shock waves to voters as healthcare expenses, as well as the costs of Medicare and Medicaid, potentially increase.Pascal Chan, vice-president for strategic policy and supply chains at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, warned that the tariffs could harm Americans’ health with “immediate price hikes, strained insurance systems, hospital shortages, and the real risk of patients rationing or foregoing essential medicines”.“We are already being crushed by the highest prescription drug costs in the world and this will cause them to skyrocket further,” 314 Action, a US advocacy group that tries to elect scientists to office, said in a statement. “If [Trump] goes through with these tariffs, people across the country will die.”Trump had previously suggested that pharmaceutical tariffs would be phased in over time so that companies had time to build factories and relocate production, making the sudden announcement of a 100% tariff more of a shock. On CNBC in August, Trump said he would start by charging a “small tariff” on pharmaceuticals and raise the rate over a year or more to 150% and even 250%.Trump said on Truth Social that the pharmaceutical tariffs would not apply to companies that are building manufacturing plants in the United States, which he defined as either “breaking ground” or being “under construction”. It was unclear how the tariffs would apply to companies that already have factories in the US.Several major pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Johnson & Johnson, had already announced plans to invest in or increase manufacturing of their drugs in the US in an attempt to prepare for potential tariffs. Trump’s White House has touted these changes as a win.Markets dropped following the news, as concerns about the impact of Trump’s tariffs mounted. All three main indexes on Wall Street were down, having already fallen every day since Monday.Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney, Seoul, Wellington, Taipei and Manila retreated on Friday, with some pharmaceutical companies in Japan and South Korea leading the way.While Trump did not provide a legal justification for the tariffs, he appeared to stretch the bounds of his role as commander-in-chief by stating on Truth Social that the taxes on imported kitchen cabinets and sofas were needed “for National Security and other reasons”.He said the new heavy-duty truck tariffs were to protect manufacturers from “unfair outside competition” and said the move would benefit companies such as Paccar-owned Peterbilt and Kenworth and Daimler Truck-owned Freightliner.“We need our Truckers to be financially healthy and strong, for many reasons, but above all else, for National Security purposes!” Trump added.The new tariffs are another dose of uncertainty for the US economy with a solid stock market but a weakening outlook for jobs and elevated inflation. These new taxes on imports could pass through to consumers in the form of higher prices and dampen hiring, a process that economic data suggests is already underway.“We have begun to see goods prices showing through into higher inflation,” Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, warned in a recent news conference, adding that higher costs for goods account for “most” or potentially “all” of the increase in inflation levels this year.Trump has pressured Powell to resign, arguing that the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates more aggressively because inflation is no longer a concern.The US Chamber of Commerce urged the department not to impose new tariffs, noting the top five import sources are Mexico, Canada, Japan, Germany, and Finland “all of which are allies or close partners of the United States posing no threat to U.S. national security”.Trump has launched numerous national security inquiries into potential new tariffs on a wide variety of products. He said the new tariffs on kitchen, bathroom and some furniture were because of huge levels of imports which were hurting local manufacturers.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The reason for this is the large scale ‘FLOODING’ of these products into the United States by other outside Countries,” Trump said.Mexico is the largest exporter of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to the United States. A study released in January said imports of those larger vehicles from Mexico have tripled since 2019.Higher tariffs on commercial vehicles could put pressure on transportation costs just as Trump has vowed to reduce inflation, especially on consumer goods such as groceries.Tariffs could also affect Chrysler-parent Stellantis which produces heavy-duty Ram trucks and commercial vans in Mexico. Sweden’s Volvo Group is building a $700m heavy-truck factory in Monterrey, Mexico, due to start operations in 2026.Mexico is home to 14 manufacturers and assemblers of buses, trucks, and tractor trucks, and two manufacturers of engines, according to the US International Trade Administration.The country is also the leading global exporter of tractor trucks, 95% of which are destined for the United States.Mexico opposed new tariffs, telling the commerce department in May that all Mexican trucks exported to the United States have on average 50% US content, including diesel engines.Last year, the United States imported almost $128bn in heavy vehicle parts from Mexico, accounting for approximately 28% of total US imports, Mexico said.The Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association also opposed new tariffs, saying Japanese companies have cut exports to the United States as they have boosted US production of medium- and heavy-duty trucks.Reuters and the Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 188 Shares111 Views

      in US Politics

      Lisa Cook urges supreme court to reject Trump’s bid to fire her from Fed board

      by

      Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook urged the US supreme court on Thursday to reject Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her, telling the justices the Republican president’s unprecedented move would destroy the central bank’s independence and disrupt financial markets.Lawyers for Cook filed a written response opposing the justice department’s 18 September emergency request to lift a federal judge’s order that blocked Trump from immediately removing Cook, an appointee of Democratic former president Joe Biden, while her legal challenge continues.Granting Trump’s request, her lawyers told the supreme court, “would dramatically alter the status quo, ignore centuries of history and transform the Federal Reserve into a body subservient to the president’s will”.Washington-based US district judge Jia Cobb ruled on 9 September that Trump’s claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office – allegations that Cook denies – likely were not sufficient grounds for removal under the 1913 law that created the Fed.The US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in a 2-1 ruling on 15 September denied the administration’s request to put Cobb’s order on hold, ruling that Cook likely was denied due process in violation of the US constitution’s fifth amendment.In Thursday’s filing, Cook’s lawyers said the Fed’s “unique history of independence” has helped make the US economy the strongest in the world. Siding with Trump, they wrote, “would signal to the financial markets that the Federal Reserve no longer enjoys its traditional independence, risking chaos and disruption”.Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, sued Trump in August after the president announced he would remove her. Cook has said the claims made by Trump against her did not give him the legal authority to remove her and were a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.Earlier on Thursday, a group of 18 former US Federal Reserve officials, Treasury secretaries and other top economic officials who served under presidents from both parties urged the supreme court in a brief to reject Trump’s petition to allow his attempt to fire Cook.The group included the past three Fed chairs – Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan – as well as former Treasury secretaries Henry Paulson, Lawrence Summers, Jacob Lew, Timothy Geithner and Robert Rubin. They argued that letting the president remove Cook while her legal challenge to Trump’s action is ongoing would threaten the central bank’s independence and erode public confidence in it.In its filing to the court last week, the justice department wrote: “This application involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority – here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause.”Congress included provisions in the law that created the Fed to shield the central bank from political interference. Under that law, Fed governors may be removed by a president only “for cause”, though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed governor, and the law has never been tested in court.Trump has pursued a broad vision of presidential power since returning to office in January.The Cook legal battle has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to the wishes of politicians, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to function independently to carry out tasks such as keeping inflation under control.Trump this year has demanded that the Fed cut rates aggressively, berating Fed chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy as the central bank focused on fighting inflation. Trump has called Powell a “numbskull”, “incompetent” and a “stubborn moron.“Trump on 25 August said he was removing Cook from the Fed’s board of governors, citing the allegations that, before joining the central bank in 2022, she falsified records to obtain favorable terms on a mortgage. In blocking Cook’s removal, the judge found that the 1913 law only allows a Fed governor to be removed for misconduct while in office. The mortgage fraud claims against Cook relate to actions prior to her Senate confirmation in 2022. More

    • 238 Shares69 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump wants to rebrand his tax bill as the ‘Working Families Tax Cut’. Don’t be fooled | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      Just a few months ago, Donald Trump sought to bamboozle the American people into believing that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act – with its trillions in tax cuts for the rich – was a legislative wonder stuffed with one marvel after another. But a Pew opinion poll in August found that millions of Americans have wised up about the measure and now view it as a big, unbeautiful monstrosity.Many Americans have come to realize that Trump’s not-so-beautiful bill – instead of being filled with good things that benefit average Americans – is overflowing with big tax cuts for the wealthy as well as many unfortunate things that will hurt typical working families. As we saw in the town halls held across the US, many Americans are furious about some painful things that Trump and congressional Republicans inserted into the bill: cuts that will make health insurance more expensive, cuts that reduce food assistance, cuts that make it harder for students from working families to afford college. All this is bad news for working families who struggle to make ends meet.President Trump and his administration can’t hide from the fact that many Americans detest the bill — 46% disapprove of it, while just 32% approve (23% say they’re unsure what they think). What’s more, 33% of Americans “strongly disapprove” of the bill.Alarmed that the bill has become a public relations and political disaster, Trump and his allies have embraced a curious strategy to address that problem. Their strategy is not what you might hope – they’re not seeking to amend the bill to make it less painful for average Americans. Rather, their strategy is slick marketing: to simply rebrand the bill, to make it sound better. The White House is telling Republicans to stop calling it the One Big Beautiful Bill and instead call it the nice-sounding Working Families Tax Cut Bill.Unfortunately, that name is another effort to dupe America’s working families. The bill gives 45% of next year’s tax cuts to the highest-earning 5% of US households, while just 1% of the tax cuts go the lowest-earning 20% of households. Under the bill, far more in net tax cuts, $117bn, will go to the wealthiest 1% of households next year than will go to the bottom 60% ($77bn).If the White House and GOP lawmakers want to be accurate, they should call the bill the Billionaires’ and Millionaires’ Tax Cut Act. The bill gives a $13,622 tax cut to households in the top 10% by income, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The top 0.1% of households (those with income of more than $3.3m a year) will receive annual tax cuts of $103,500 on average, according to the Yale Budget Lab.If you’re wealthy enough to have $15m in assets, the bill is very good for you. Under the bill, the first $15m in an individual’s assets are exempt from the estate tax, nearly triple the $5.5m in pre-Trump days. For couples, the first $30m in assets will be exempt. Does anyone think that these sound like working family tax cuts?Frankly, it would be more accurate to call the bill the Working Families Benefits Cut Bill. Containing a painful $1.4tn in Medicaid and other cuts that Republicans insisted on to help finance their tax cuts for the rich, the bill is filled with benefit cuts that hurt working families. Roughly 15 million Americans will lose health coverage and become uninsured because the bill cuts Medicaid funding and reduces subsidies for Obamacare.Other results of the bill: 4 million people will lose some or all of their food aid, while 4.4 million students from working families might lose all or some of their federal aid to go to college.“Who’s getting hit, who’s bearing the cost? It’s people with low and middle incomes, people that the president and many Republican policymakers promised to serve and support in the last election,” said Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.President Trump is correct that the bill contains some tax cuts for working Americans – for instance, it increases the standard income tax deduction by $750 for individuals and $1,500 for couples. The bad news is that for tens of millions of families, the bill’s benefit cuts, especially on health coverage, outweigh the meager tax cuts that the bill gives non-affluent Americans. In many ways, Trump and GOP lawmakers are making this a shell game – they say you’re benefiting from tax cuts, but the fact is that because of the benefit cuts, millions of working families will end up worse off.According to the CBO, Americans in the bottom 10% by income (averaging $23,751) will end up $1,214 worse off on average per year, while the next lowest 10% (averaging $43,092) will end up $392 worse off per year. Those in the third-lowest tenth ($54,453) will receive a mere $23 annual gain. Those in the fourth-lowest decile ($67,637) will see a very modest net gain of $379. Cutting through all these numbers, this shows that for tens of millions of families, the bill is a net loser or a wash.“This really is a big, beautiful bill for billionaires, but for the poor and the working class in this country, you are actually poorer,” said the representative Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House budget committee.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFor those solidly in the middle class, the bill provides modest gains. Middle-class families earning between $86,000 and $108,000 would receive between $800 and $1,200, around 1% of income, the CBO says.Since we’re discussing taxes, we shouldn’t forget Trump’s massive tariffs – they are unarguably a tax, a sales tax on imports that will hit working-class Americans hardest. The reason: the non-wealthy spend a higher share of their income on imports, whether on furniture, electronics or coffee, than the wealthy do. The Yale Budget Lab found that when one combines the effects of Trump’s tariffs and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, 90% of American families will end up worse off. Seventy per cent of households will face losses ranging from $780 to $2,570 each year.President Trump boasts that two provisions he championed – no tax on tips and no tax on overtime – will be great for working Americans. But those provisions will be far less helpful than people realize. Just 3% of US workers receive tips, and one-third of them earn so little that they don’t pay federal income taxes. So no tax on tips won’t help them.No tax on overtime won’t help workers nearly as much as many think. The deduction applies only to the “half” in “time and a half” overtime pay. So if a worker earns $20 an hour and receives $30 per overtime hour, that worker can deduct only the $10 premium per overtime hour, not the full $30. John Ricco, an analyst at the Yale Budget Lab, says that for the bottom 40% of Americans by income, no tax on overtime will mean “less than a $10 tax cut per year” – “essentially a rounding error”.By seeking to call this bill the Working Families Tax Cut Bill, Trump and the GOP are again seeking to hold themselves out as the best friends of American workers, even though Trump, since returning to office, has taken dozens of anti-worker actions. He halted enforcement of a regulation that protects miners from a debilitating, often fatal lung disease. He has stripped 1 million federal employees of their important right to bargain collectively and has torn up union contracts for hundreds of thousands. He fired the chair of the National Labor Relations Board, leaving the nation’s top labor watchdog without a quorum to protect workers from companies’ unlawful anti-union actions. Trump is also pushing to end minimum wage and overtime protections for 3.7 million home-care and domestic workers.People who care about working families – whether union leaders, clergy or community leaders – need to make clear to the public that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act hurts many working Americans. It is a bait and switch, telling working families that it’s good for them even as it cuts benefits for millions of working Americans while lavishing big tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans.

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More

    • 113 Shares95 Views

      in US Politics

      The American system is badly broken | Bernie Sanders

      by

      Let’s take a deep breath and, for one moment, forget about Donald Trump, Jimmy Kimmel, the UN, Charlie Kirk, Gaza, a government shutdown and the other crises that we face.Let’s talk instead about the reality which the corporate-controlled media and the corporate-controlled political system don’t talk about very much.What we are witnessing right now is the rise of two Americas. One for the billionaire class. And one for everybody else.In one America, the richest people are becoming obscenely richer and have never, ever had it so good. That America is overflowing with unimaginable wealth, greed and opulence that makes the Gilded Age seem very modest.And then there is a second America – an America where a majority of people live paycheck to paycheck, struggling to secure the very basic necessities of life – food, healthcare, housing and education.The simple truth is that never before in our history have so few had so much wealth and power while so many live in economic desperation.In the first America, one man – Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, worth more than $480bn, owns more wealth than the bottom 52% of American households. After spending $290m to put Trump back into the White House, Musk has become more than $180bn richer since election day. That’s a pretty good return on his investment.But that’s apparently not good enough for Musk. In order to keep him “motivated” as CEO, Tesla’s board proposed giving him a $1tn pay package if he meets certain goals. A trillion dollars.Jeff Bezos, the fourth wealthiest person in the world, has a fortune of $233bn. He can sail to Venice on his $500m yacht for his reported $50m wedding, where he gave his wife a $3m-$5m ring – because, among other things, his effective tax rate is just a reported 1.1%.Mark Zuckerberg, the third richest person in the world, is worth $258bn. He has spent $110m to buy 11 homes in Palo Alto, California, to create his own private compound, and another $270m for more than 2,300 acres in Hawaii with a 5,000 sqft underground bunker and three yachts reportedly worth more than $530m.Larry Ellison, the second wealthiest person in the world – worth $377bn – recently became nearly $100bn richer in a single day. He owns a private island in Hawaii and a fleet of jets, and now he’s reportedly trying to buy up major media companies such as Warner Bros and CNN.Together, these four men alone are worth more than $1.3tn. But it’s not just them. The top 1% now owns more wealth than the bottom 93%.The 1% lives in a world completely removed from ordinary Americans. They don’t ride overcrowded subways to get to work or sit in traffic jams to get home. They fly on private jets and helicopters they own. They live in mansions all over the world, send their kids to the most elite private schools and vacation on their own islands. And, for fun, some spend millions to fly off into space on their own rocket ships.And then there is the other America, where the vast majority of our people live. For them, the economy is not just broken, it is collapsing. In this America, despite a massive increase in worker productivity, real weekly wages for the average American worker are lower today than they were more than 52 years ago.In this America, people are unable to afford a doctor’s visit (if they’re lucky enough to find one); are paying over half of their limited incomes on rent or a mortgage; and are unable to afford the outrageous cost of childcare or send their kids to college. In this America, the price of vegetables, fruit and other healthy foods is beyond the budget for many.For most Americans, the system is not just broken, it is collapsing and is increasingly resembling life in the third world.Everyone needs healthcare. Yet today, more than 85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured – a number that will rise by at least 15 million under Trump’s so-called big, beautiful bill.Everyone needs housing. Yet today, nearly 800,000 Americans are homeless and more than 20m households pay more than 50% of their limited incomes on rent or a mortgage. Since 2000, average rents have more than doubled and the median price of a home has soared to more than $435,000.Everyone needs a decent education. Yet today, our childcare system is broken and wildly expensive. Many of our public schools are dilapidated with teachers underpaid and underappreciated, and American students are falling behind in math, science and reading compared with their international peers. College education is unaffordable for millions and vocational schools fail to train the workers we desperately need.Everyone needs a secure retirement. Yet, nearly half of older workers have no retirement savings and no idea how they will ever retire with any shred of dignity or respect. Meanwhile, 22% of seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $15,000 a year.Enough is enough.As supreme court justice Louis Brandeis said in 1933: “We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.”That warning is even more relevant today.In this pivotal moment in American history, we must create a government and an economy that works for all, or we will continue sliding into oligarchy – where the billionaire class controls our government, our economy and our future.Let me say to my fellow Americans: I know day-to-day life can take a toll, but we must not allow ourselves to fall into despair. If we do not allow ourselves to be divided up by Trump and his oligarch allies, we can change the path we are on.The choice is clear. Let’s stand together for democracy and justice. More

    • 138 Shares122 Views

      in US Politics

      Jerome Powell dismisses Trump’s criticism of ‘political’ Fed as ‘cheap shot’

      by

      The US Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, pushed back hard against claims the central bank allows politics to drive decisions, in the midst of an extraordinary battle over its independence.Donald Trump, who is seeking to increase his administration’s control over the Fed, has branded Powell “a very political guy” after he declined to bow to the president’s public demands for drastically lower interest rates.The White House has launched an unprecedented campaign to overhaul the Fed’s rate-setting board of governors, installing an administration official and trying to fire a Biden appointee over unconfirmed claims of mortgage fraud.But on Tuesday, Powell, who is typically diplomatic when speaking publicly, roundly dismissed one of the common allegations made by Trump and his allies: that the Fed is somehow political when making key decisions about the world’s largest economy.“Many people don’t believe” the Fed is simply allowing economic data to drive its decisions, Powell acknowledged at an event in Rhode Island. “But the truth is, mostly people who are calling us political, it’s just a cheap shot.”He did not mention Trump by name. But the president has become the most prominent critic of the Fed and Powell since returning to office.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt comes a week after the central bank ordered its first rate cut since December, a move to stabilize a wobbling labor market, even as Trump’s tariffs continue to push up prices.“Near-term risks to inflation are tilted to the upside and risks to employment to the downside – a challenging situation,” Powell reiterated on Tuesday.Stephen Miran, the Trump official now serving as a Fed governor, takes a different view. He dissented from every other policymaker on the central bank’s board of governors last week to advocate for a deeper rate cut.“Relatively small changes in some good prices have led to what I view as unreasonable levels of concern,” Miran argued in a speech earlier this week, claiming that tariffs would ultimately lead to “substantial swings in net national savings” for the country.Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 213 Shares122 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s take on a court decision on tariffs is bonkers – even for him | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      Just hours after an appeals court ruled that it was illegal for Donald Trump to impose his unpopular across-the-board tariffs on dozens of countries, he posted a frantic, over-the-top rant that declared: “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”So here the president of the United States was asserting that if the courts torpedoed his tariffs, then the US, the most powerful nation on earth, would be destroyed, would “literally” be kaput. Trump seemed to suggest that court rulings that blocked his beloved tariffs would have the destructive power of, say, 100 hydrogen bombs.Call me naive, but I never cease to be amazed when Trump says such egregiously false and ludicrous things. OK, I sometimes forget that he’s the guy who said that noise from wind turbines causes cancer. After narrowly winning the presidency a second time notwithstanding the 30,573 Trump lies, falsehoods and misleading claims in his first term, Trump evidently thinks he can say anything, no matter how false or foolish, and get away with it. As part of his tariff fight, Trump also blurted this absurdity: if the courts don’t uphold his tariffs, “we would become a Third World Nation.”Trump’s statement that ending tariffs will destroy the US is totally bonkers because the US became the world’s richest nation and has largely prospered for nearly 250 years (despite occasional slumps) before Trump imposed his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April. In the months before then, the US had solid GDP growth, low unemployment and declining inflation – the Economist magazine even called the US economy “the envy of the world”. But now Trump says that if the courts give a thumbs down to his favorite plaything – I mean weapon – to bang other countries over the head with, it would end the US. Even Ramesh Ponnuru, editor of the conservative National Review, called that “lunatic stuff”.The truth is that if the courts block Trump’s across-the-board tariffs, that would be good news for the US economy. It would prevent Trump’s tariffs from further pushing up inflation and slowing economic growth. By giving a thumbs down to Trump’s tariffs, the courts might be doing him a huge economic and political favor because his tariffs, and the inflation they are fueling, have been dragging his dismal approval ratings even lower.On 29 August, the US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his Liberation Day tariffs. The court said that act doesn’t give presidents the authority to slap sweeping tariffs on other countries. Trump has appealed the ruling to the supreme court, which might rule on the tariffs this fall.The court of appeals repeatedly noted that the constitution gives Congress, not presidents, the power to impose tariffs. It further noted that the Emergency Act doesn’t mention the word “tariffs” even once among the tools the act authorizes presidents to use to deal with emergency trade problems. (That appellate ruling overturned the bulk of Trump’s tariffs: the blanket 10% to 50% tariffs on exports from more than 70 countries. The court didn’t rule on Trump’s product-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum and auto parts.)As part of his conniptions over the appeals court ruling, Trump also warned of fiscal disaster, complaining that the US would lose hundreds of billions of dollars if his tariffs were halted. But Trump conveniently forgets that it’s embattled US consumers who will be paying most of those hundreds of billions as they pay Trump’s tariffs, essentially import taxes on furniture, cars, coffee, electronics and other foreign goods.In using his hysterical language, Trump evidently had one audience in mind: the supreme court’s six conservative justices who have repeatedly ruled his way. Trump’s goal is evidently to scare the bejesus out of those justices – he hopes that by shrieking “You’ll Destroy the Country If You Rule Against Me,” that will persuade them to overturn the appellate court’s decision and uphold his tariffs. (The appellate court let the tariffs remain in force to allow time for appeal.)So far in his second term, Trump has a remarkable batting average with the supreme court’s six rightwing justices, who seem astonishingly subservient and supine vis-a-vis the most authoritarian, power-grabbing president in US history. The justices have used their emergency docket to grant Trump administration requests 18 times in a row, often vacating injunctions that lower courts put in place to stop what they saw as Trump’s rampant lawlessness. In repeatedly siding with Trump, the supreme court has scrapped lower court injunctions in several highly controversial cases, provisionally letting Trump fire the chair of the National Labor Relations Board, gut the federal Department of Education, and give Doge – with its staff of twentysomethings – access to the highly private social security information of hundreds of millions of Americans.Trump is no doubt worried that the supreme court, though submissive so far, will overturn his tariffs. Many conservative and libertarian scholars and lawyers oppose his tariffs as both harmful and illegal. Not only do they dislike the tariffs for pushing up inflation and disrupting global supply chains, but they see Trump’s tariffs as anti-free market and mucking up the US and world economies.When Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs, he invoked a national emergency, saying the US trade deficit and other countries’ tariffs were urgent problems undermining the US economy. Admittedly the trade deficit and other countries’ tariffs are a problem, but in no way do they constitute a national emergency, especially since the US economy was seen as “the envy of the world” before Trump went hog wild with his tariffs. (There’s no denying that the flood of imports from China and other low-wage nations badly damaged many communities in America’s industrial heartland two and three decades ago.) Wouldn’t it be great if, in this tariff litigation, the supreme court stood up to Trump and issued a candid ruling that told him: “Sorry, Mr President, your supposed national emergency is hogwash, a pretext for you to pursue your destructive tariff obsession”?The supreme court’s justices shouldn’t let themselves be cowed, bullied or fooled by Trump’s talk that the nation will be destroyed if they nix his tariffs. Trump is like the boy who cried wolf, forever crying catastrophe if he doesn’t get his way. It’s time for the court and the nation to wise up to Trump’s lies, hype and shenanigans.Virtually every non-Trumpian economist agrees that Trump’s tariffs have hurt the US by increasing inflation, undermining GDP growth, creating huge headaches for corporations and seriously damaging the US’s relations with other nations. The justices shouldn’t buy Trump’s calamitous warnings that if they overturn his tariffs, the world will end.If the justices declare his tariffs illegal, it certainly won’t be a “disaster” for the US, as Trump has claimed. But it might be a disaster for Trump’s ego and for his dangerous dream of having an authoritarian presidency wholly unchecked by the other branches of government.If the supreme court rules against Trump’s tariffs, let’s hope that will serve as a much-needed first step to the court’s developing the backbone to rule many times more against Trump’s authoritarian and lawless actions.

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More

    • 250 Shares91 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal Reserve cuts interest rates by a quarter point, for first time in nearly a year – as it happened

      by

      The Fed just announced an interest rate cut by a quarter point, which was largely anticipated amid a weakening labor market.This is the first time the Fed has cut rates since December 2024. Rates now stand at a range of 4% to 4.25%, the lowest since November 2022.Stay tuned for a press conference Fed chair Jerome Powell is expected to give at 2.30pm ET.The US Federal Reserve cut interest rates by a quarter point today, a move that will reverberate across the economy in the coming months. Fed chair Jerome Powell spoke at a closely watched press conference about the Fed’s decision.Here’s a summary of what happened this afternoon:

      The Fed cut interest rates by a quarter point, the first cut since December 2024. Rates are now at a range of 4% to 4.25%.

      Fed economists also released projections, which point to a majority expecting at least one more rate cut by the end of the year.

      During his press conference, Powell said the rate cut was a move toward “risk management” instead of a testament to the strength of the economy. Economists at the Fed are concerned about a weakening labor market, which could see higher layoffs if worsened.

      But Fed officials are still concerned about inflation. Powell said that prices are likely to continue going up toward the end of the year as companies pass along the price of tariffs to consumers.

      A question remains: Will tariff-related inflation be a one-time price increase, or will it be persistent? Powell said economists at the Fed expect it to be more of a one-time price increase but that the Fed’s just is to make sure it’s not persistent.

      With pressure from the labor market and prices, Powell described it as an “unusual” situation for the Fed to manage. “Our tools can’t do two things at once,” he said.

      Powell also took questions about the recent appointment of Fed governor Stephen Miran, who was confirmed by the Senate on Monday. Powell assured that the Fed’s independence is a priority to the entire committee that sets interest rates. And the Fed’s structure offers protection: For a single member to have outsized influence, they need to “make really strong arguments based on the data and one’s understanding of the economy… That’s in the DNA of the institution.”
      Powell responded to a question about comments new Fed governor Stephen Miran made at his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate earlier this week.Miran said that the Fed actually has a “third mandate”, which is to “moderate long-term interest rates”.The introduction of a third mandate is in opposition to how Powell has framed the Fed’s “dual mandate” – balancing unemployment and price increases.“We always think of it as the dual mandate,” Powell said, explaining that moderate interest rates come from stable inflation.“As far as I’m concerned, there’s no thought of … incorporating that in a different way,” he said.Markets appear to be relatively unresponsiveness to the Fed’s highly anticipated rate cut. Both the S&P and Nasdaq are both slightly down for the day, while the Dow is up.It’s a stark contrast to last week, when markets shot up at data that showed wholesale prices falling slightly in August, and consumer inflation being within expectations for the month.The overall picture that Powell has painted of the economy in his press conference isn’t necessarily one that’s thriving. Powell said that the economy has left the Fed in an “unusual” situation, and said that the Fed’s rate cut is more about “risk management” rather than an testament to a strong economy. The recent rate cut could cause inflation to rise, but risks of the job market worsening under current rates are higher.“We’ve seen much more challenging economic times from a policy standpoint, the standpoint of what we’re trying to accomplish, it’s challenging to know what to do,” Powell said. “There are no risk-free paths now.”Powell was, again, questioned about Stephen Miran’s role as both a new Fed governor and Trump’s chair to the Council of Economic Advisor.A reporter asked Powell how the Fed can be nonpolitical if one of its voting members is explicitly connected to politics. Powell emphasized that there are 12 voting members and 19 total participants on the board.“The only way for any voter to really move things around is to be incredibly persuasive, and the only way to do that in the context in which we work is to make really strong arguments based on the data and one’s understanding of the economy,” Powell said. “That’s really all that matters. … That’s in the DNA of the institution, that’s not going to change.”A Politico reporter asked Powell how Americans will be able to tell if the Fed, which has historically been nonpartisan, starts to be partisan.“We don’t frame these questions at all or see them in terms of political outcomes. In another part of Washington, everything is seen through the lens of does it help or hurt this political party, this politicians,” Powell said. “That’s the framework. People find it hard to believe that’s not at all the way we think about things at the Fed. We take a longer perspective, we’re trying to serve the American people as best as we can.”“I think you would be able to tell. I don’t think we’ll ever get to that place.”When asked about Fed governor Lisa Cook’s lawsuit against Donald Trump for her firing (a court reinstated her last week), Powell said: “I see it as a court case that I would see as inappropriate for me to comment on.”Powell said that Fed officials are expecting inflation from tariffs to be a one-time price level increase, though “we can’t just assume that, [and] or job is to make sure that’s what happens.”“We continue to expect it to move up,” Powell said of prices. “Maybe not as high as we would have expected it to.”He added that the case for “persistent inflation” is weaker.Which is why the Fed cut rates, what he described as a “neutral” policy, given that inflation isn’t out of control, but the labor market has slowed down.But Powell acknowledged that it’s “an unusual situation” – the Fed would most likely want to be more careful with rate cuts because of inflation, but has to be wary of the labor market.“Our tools can’t do two things at once,” he said.Powell is again describing the labor market as being in a “curious balance” – a term that he first used in his Jackson Hole speech last month.The labor market is balanced out, meaning that the supply of workers is on par with the demand that employers have for workers, but it’s not necessarily a sign of strength.Because of immigration, “the supply of workers is coming down”, Powell noted. “At the same time, demand for workers has come down quite sharply to the point where we see what I’ve called a ‘curious balance’.”“Typically, when we say things are in balance that sounds good,” he added. “But in this case, the balance is because both demand and supply have come down sharply, now demand is coming down more sharply because we now see the unemployment rate going up.”A reporter asked Jerome Powell about Stephen Miran’s appointment, specifically on the fact that Miran is the first Fed governor to also have a role in the executive branch while also serving on the Fed board. Miran is the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors.“The committee remains united in pursuing our dual mandate goals,” Powell said in response. “We’re strongly committed to maintaining our independence and beyond that, I really don’t have anything to share.”Fed chair Jerome Powell just started his press conference on the Fed’s rate cut decision.As outlined in the board’s statement, Powell said that the unemployment rate, while still generally low, has edged up.“Job gains have slowed and the downside risks to unemployment have risen,” he said.Powell pointed to new immigration policy as a major factor in the labor market slowdown.“A good part of the slowing likely reflects a decline in the growth of the labor force, due to lower immigration and lower labor force participation,” Powell said. “Even so, labor demand has softened and the recent pace of job creation appears to be running below the breakeven rate needed to hold the unemployment rate constant.”The median projection for the unemployment rate, which is currently at 4.3%, sees it rising to 4.5% by the end of the year.Powells also said higher tariffs have begun to push up some prices in some categories of goods, though the full impact have yet to be seen. Price increases due to tariffs could be a one-time price increase or it could lead to “persistent” inflation.“Our obligation is to ensure that a one-time price increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem,” he said.Much of this is what Powell said during his speech last month at the Fed’s symposium in Jackson Hole, during which he first suggested that the Fed was looking toward an interest rate cut.In economic projections released after the Fed’s rate-cute decision, members of the Fed’s board submitted their economic predictions for the economy over the next few years.A slight majority of board members seem to expect another rate cut by the end of the year, while a majority see more rate cuts in 2026. Board members are predicting a slight increase in unemployment, though they seem to think that inflation will largely cool in 2026 and 2027.It’s a more dovish take on the economy than how the Fed is describing the current economy in its board statement, where the Fed said that the labor market has slowed and inflation is going up – a dynamic that points to an economic condition known as stagflation.Before Fed chair Jerome Powell can expand on the Fed’s decision in his 2.30pm ET press conference, right now we just have the Fed’s statement on its rate cut to parse through why officials voted for a cut.Notably, the Fed’s rate-setting board took note of the jobs market.“Job gains have slowed, and the unemployment rate has edged up but remains low,” it said. It also noted that “inflation has moved up and remains somewhat elevated”.This is a change from the board’s last meeting in July, when it said that labor market conditions “remain solid”. And this is the first time the board has said inflation is going up.The statement also noted that Stephen Miran, Trump’s appointee to the board who was confirmed on Monday, was the only member of the board to vote against the rate cut. Miran wanted to lower rates by a half-point, instead of a quarter-point.The Fed just announced an interest rate cut by a quarter point, which was largely anticipated amid a weakening labor market.This is the first time the Fed has cut rates since December 2024. Rates now stand at a range of 4% to 4.25%, the lowest since November 2022.Stay tuned for a press conference Fed chair Jerome Powell is expected to give at 2.30pm ET.Inflation rose slightly in August as companies continued to push the cost of tariffs on to consumers.The newest update to the consumer price index (CPI), which measures a basket of goods and services, showed that prices increased 2.9% over the last year – the highest since January. Core CPI, which excludes energy and food costs, stayed stable at 3.1% after going up in July.Despite this slight uptick in inflation, Wall Street remains optimistic that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at the central bank’s board meeting next week. The Fed is under intense pressure from Donald Trump to cut rates, but the decision looks likely to be led by fears that the US jobs market is weakening.Investors are anticipating a quarter-point rate cut. Rates currently stand at a range of 4.25% to 5.5%.The Fed chair Jerome Powell indicated last month that the central bank was gearing up to cut interest rates for the first time this year.For months, policymakers defied public calls from Trump to lower rates – and brushed off his increasingly aggressive criticism of the Fed’s decision to hold them steady.“With policy in restrictive territory, the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance,” Powell said in a closely scrutinized speech at the Jackson Hole symposium in Wyoming, highlighting a “challenging” dichotomy of risks: that Trump’s tariffs might increase inflation, while his immigration policies knock the US labor market.Concerning economic signs, including data indicating that the labor market has stalled while inflation picked up, have reinforced expectations that many policymakers will want to tread carefully in the months ahead.Trump has already suggested that he will be unhappy with the modest cut the Fed is widely expected to unveil later. Powell “MUST CUT INTEREST RATES, NOW, AND BIGGER THAN HE HAD IN MIND”, the US president wrote on his Truth Social platform early on Monday, claiming: “HOUSING WILL SOAR!!!”The Trump administration’s extraordinary bid to fire Lisa Cook, a Fed governor appointed by Biden, and remove her from the central bank’s board before this meeting, has so far failed.Late on Monday, a federal appeals court rejected Trump’s request to block Cook from attending the Fed’s latest rate-setting session, which started yesterday.The president cited unconfirmed allegations of mortgage fraud as he attempted to fire Cook, who has denied wrongdoing and argued Trump has no authority to fire her. Her term is not due to expire until 2038.No president has pursued such action – and moved to dismiss a governor at the Fed, which has long been independent from political interference – since the central bank’s founding in 1913.Trump has made no secret of his hopes to increase his oversight of the Fed, calling into question the future of its longstanding independence from political oversight by publicly describing plans to swiftly build “a majority” on its board.The Trump administration raced to strengthen its influence over the Fed ahead of this week’s meeting.Stephen Miran, a senior official who served as chair of the White House council of economic advisers, was confirmed by Senate Republicans as a Fed governor on Monday evening, and formally sworn in on Tuesday.His appointment marks the first time in the history of the modern Federal Reserve, which stretches back almost a century, that a sitting member of the executive branch will also work at the highest levels of the central bank.While Miran described the Fed’s independence as “critical” during a confirmation hearing earlier this month, and pledged to preserve it as governor, his decision to only take unpaid leave from his current job at the White House, rather than resign, raised questions over his ability to operate independently.The US Federal Reserve is expected to announce the first interest rate cut since December as a two-day policy meeting nears its end.The Fed started the meeting on Tuesday, hours after Donald Trump’s new appointee narrowly won confirmation to join the central bank – while Fed governor Lisa Cook continues to fight her removal by the president.Stephen Miran, the chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, took the oath of office as a Fed governor early on Tuesday after narrowly winning a Senate confirmation vote along party lines on Monday night.There is little doubt that the Fed will make its first interest rate cut of 2025 after the latest gathering, as policymakers pivot towards shoring up a deteriorating jobs market.But concerns about political influence targeting the independent central bank looms over the gathering, as Trump repeatedly bashes Fed Chair Jerome Powell over his rate decisions, and after he moved to fire governor Lisa Cook, sparking a legal battle.On Tuesday, Trump told reporters that the Fed should “listen to smart people like me”. More