SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"We see no evidence that employers increase wages to attract US-born workers to fill these jobs in the face of immigration enforcement."
A landmark study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that President Donald Trump's mass deportation operations are actually costing Americans jobs, contrary to the White House's frequent claims that its anti-immigration agenda is helping US workers.
The NBER study, which was published last month and reported on by The New York Times Tuesday, claims to provide "the first national, causal empirical evidence on the labor market impacts of immigration enforcement in the second Trump administration," and finds that mass deportations have not resulted in more job offers for native-born Americans.
In fact, the study identifies "a negative and significant impact on employment of US-born male workers with at most a high-school education" who are working in industries that employ the most undocumented immigrants, including construction, agriculture, and manufacturing.
The study finds that instead of hiring more US-born workers in the absence of available undocumented workers—who may have been deported, left the country to avoid deportation, or have stayed home out of fear of immigration raids—employers are more likely to simply slow down economic activity altogether, which has a cascading impact on related industries.
"We see no evidence that employers increase wages to attract US-born workers to fill these jobs in the face of immigration enforcement," the researchers explain. "Instead, our results are consistent with employers reducing labor demand overall, including for jobs more often taken by US-born workers."
The NBER researchers also say that undocumented workers are more often than not complements to US workers, as they "are more likely than US-born individuals to work in jobs that are less desirable due to lower pay, on the job hazards, and irregular schedules."
University of Colorado, Boulder economist Chloe East, who co-authored the NBER study, told the New York Times on Tuesday that construction firms "view it as easier to reduce production, reduce the construction of new homes and new buildings in general, rather than try to increase wages for US-born workers."
East said that this would likely hurt efforts to build more housing in the US, telling the Times that "I assume we're going to see... a long-term shock to the construction sector" due to Trump's mass deportations.
Anirban Basu, chief economist at the Associated Builders and Contractors national trade organization, told the Times that he wasn't surprised by the finding that aggressive immigration raids shut down projects rather than open up new work for native-born Americans.
"Given high interest rates, given rising material prices and fewer people available to provide roofing, tiling, carpeting, and other flooring services," Basu said, "it renders fewer projects financially viable."
NPER's study echoes an analysis released last month by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which found that unemployment for US-born workers has increased since the start of Trump's second term, as the federal government has carried out its draconian deportation operations.
"Claims that mass deportations have helped US-born workers are simply inconsistent with the data," EPI wrote. "This is no surprise, given that economic research has repeatedly shown that increased immigration enforcement harms everyone in the labor market, including US-born workers."
"These megautilities are merely using rising concern about data centers as an excuse to concentrate political and economic power of two giant utilities to maximize financial returns to shareholders," one advocate said.
Seeking to cash in on spiking energy demand from the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers across the US, the Florida energy giant NextEra announced a $67 billion deal on Monday to acquire Virginia's Dominion Energy.
But while the deal is expected to be lucrative for the massive new entity, with national power demands projected to spike perhaps by as much as 25% over the next five years, consumer advocates fear that the proposed merger will be bad for consumers, creating an unaccountable corporate behemoth that will raise costs on ratepayers.
According to Utility Dive, the new entity created by the merger will serve a combined 10 million customers across Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
With a market cap of $250 billion, the companies said they'd be the “world’s largest regulated electric utility business by market capitalization and one of the world’s largest energy infrastructure companies.”
But the deal still needs to be approved by federal regulators, a process that will likely pose minimal difficulty given the Trump administration's friendliness toward other corporate megamergers across industries, from media to railroads.
It will also be required to obtain local approvals, including in Virginia, where the recently elected Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger has made lowering utility costs and requiring data centers to "pay their fair share" central campaign promises, as massive new projects have been met with furious local backlash around the country.
Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for the consumer advocacy watchdog Public Citizen, said that "this absurd proposal to merge two massive, well-capitalized utilities should be dead on arrival for state and federal regulators." He added that "household customers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by allowing two behemoths, NextEra and Dominion, to merge."
The company’s combined rate base—the value of assets recognized by regulators when setting rates—are valued at about $138 billion, according to the deal announcement. It said they plan to expand that value by 11% by 2032 with major infrastructure expansions.
Though the company has proposed offering $2.25 billion in credits to customers for two years after the deal closes, consumer advocates fear it is simply meant to ease upfront investment costs, leaving the real rate hikes to show up later once the credits expire.
The group Clean Virginia argued that the proposal needed to be subject “to the most rigorous scrutiny possible," given NextEra's "deeply troubling track record" in Florida.
The company and its subsidiaries in Florida have faced criticism for profiting from a $1.5 billion rate hike on Floridians and for pocketing $1 billion in tax savings without passing it on to consumers.
The company is also renowned for its extensive use of dark money to influence legislators in both parties, as well as Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, to kill clean energy and other policies that disfavor its business.
David Pomerantz, the executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, told The New York Times that "a megamonopoly of this size, with the kind of money to buy political influence that NextEra will have, will be nearly impossible to regulate.”
NextEra CEO John Ketchum has said the deal is necessary to accommodate “America’s golden age of power demand.”
“Electricity demand is rising faster than it has in decades,” Ketchum said. “We are bringing NextEra Energy and Dominion Energy together because scale matters more than ever.”
But Slocum called this "a false narrative."
"The merger will do nothing to increase generating capacity, let alone desperately needed renewable generating capacity," he said. "These megautilities are merely using rising concern about data centers as an excuse to concentrate political and economic power of two giant utilities to maximize financial returns to shareholders."
He said federal and state regulators "should reject this outlandish, unnecessary merger as completely contrary to the public interest.“
"Cramer here is having what should be the normal reaction to Trump actively insider trading on his own decisions," said journalist Ryan Grim.
One of Wall Street's most recognizable gurus, Jim Cramer, became notably tongue-tied on Monday after President Donald Trump’s recent stock-trading spree entered into a televised conversation with his colleagues on CNBC.
Disclosures published by the US Office of Government Ethics last week revealed that Trump in the first quarter of 2026 carried out over 3,700 stock transactions, including over 30 stock purchases worth $1 million or more.
As noted by The Financial Times, Trump's investments included transactions involving Tesla, Nvidia, Apple, Meta, Visa, Citi, Boeing, Qualcomm, and GE Aerospace, whose executives all accompanied the president on his trip to China last week.
When CNBC co-host Carl Quintanilla brought up these trades during Monday's edition of "Squawk on the Street," Cramer spent ten straight seconds mumbling incoherently.
This promoted co-host David Faber to reassure viewers that "we're not having technical difficulties here," even as Cramer appeared to short circuit.
OMFG the CNBC anchors were puffing up the value of chipmaker Intel, they brought up Trump doing personal trades in the stock, and Jim Cramer stuttered for 15 seconds straight and then was quiet.
Was Cramer shocked by the corruption or mad Trump was picking better stocks? pic.twitter.com/oCl3ypNids
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) May 18, 2026
Journalist Ryan Grim said that Cramer's reaction to mention of Trump's trades was understandable given that some of the companies whose stocks he traded have been direct beneficiaries of the president's illegal war with Iran and other policies.
"Cramer here is having what should be the normal reaction to Trump actively insider trading on his own decisions," remarked Grim. "Just sputtering speechlessness."
Journalist Judd Legum on Monday published an analysis of the Trump stock trades in which he identified multiple instances where the president purchased stocks of companies shortly before—or in some cases, on the exact same day—that he publicly singled them out for praise.
Specifically, Legum found that Trump bought tens of thousands of dollars' worth of shares in biotech firm Thermo Fisher Scientific on the same day he took a tour of one of its manufacturing facilities, and hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of shares in Apple on the same day he delivered a speech calling it "a great company," while saying then-CEO Tim Cook has "done a good job."
Trump also bought up shares in Micron Technology and then described it as "one of the hottest companies" during an interview with Fox News just one day later.
And nine days after buying millions of dollars' worth of shares in Dell, Trump delivered a speech in Georgia where he told his audience to "go out and buy a Dell computer."
In analyzing the trades, Legum explained how Trump has destroyed any remaining guardrails preventing US presidents from using their office to personally enrich themsleves.
"If Trump wanted to legally remove himself from investment decisions he could do so by creating a qualified blind trust," Legum wrote. "Instead, before returning to the White House, Trump transferred his assets in a trust that is managed by his son, Donald Trump Jr. There are no legal or practical barriers preventing Trump from being involved in the management of his assets."
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) warned Trump that details of his assorted stock trades would eventually come to light.
"This smells like blatant and criminal insider trading," Goldman wrote in a social media post. "Even worse, Trump is personally profiting off of his illegal deportation dragnet. Since we know congressional Republicans will pretend like they never saw this and won’t do a thing, anyone involved in these trades should preserve their records for my investigation in January 2027."
"We are living on borrowed time," said one economist about global oil prices.
With no end in sight to the Strait of Hormuz crisis caused by President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, the head of the International Energy Agency warned Monday that global energy supplies are running dangerously low.
IEA executive director Faith Birol told reporters in Paris that the world only has weeks' worth of oil reserves left, raising the likelihood that energy prices will soar even higher in the near future.
Birol said that oil inventories are "declining rapidly" and added that there was "a perception gap in the markets between the physical markets and the financial markets," as the price of oil in futures markets has not yet risen to a level that accurately reflects the coming supply crunch.
In his remarks to the press, given on the sidelines of a G7 gathering taking place this week in France, Birol warned that it's only a matter of time before the supply shortage of fertilizer, which was also caused by the Iran War, leads to a surge in food prices that "might give a big push to inflation numbers."
The Financial Times reported on Sunday that energy markets are approaching a "tipping point" where prices could see another upward surge that would throw the global economy into a recession.
Paul Diggle, chief economist at fund manager Aberdeen, told The Financial Times that he has been modeling the economic impact of oil hitting $180 per barrel, which he said would set off a global inflation crisis.
“We are taking that outcome very seriously,” Diggle said. “We are living on borrowed time."
Oil prices briefly fell last month after the US and Iran announced a ceasefire agreement. However, the Strait of Hormuz has remained closed throughout that period, and Trump is reportedly preparing to restart attacks on Iran in the near future if no deal to reopen the strait is reached.
In a Sunday Truth Social post, Trump again threatened Iran with destruction unless it agrees to his demands.
"For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” the president wrote. “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”