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.
The average household has already paid an additional $291 for gas since the war began and could spend $1,450 by year's end.
Americans' travel plans for this Memorial Day weekend have gotten a lot more expensive as a result of President Donald Trump's war with Iran.
A tracker released on Wednesday by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) projects that Americans will collectively spend an extra $3.5 billion on gas over the holiday weekend due to the global rise in oil costs.
The costs of gas have risen sharply, to above $4.50 per gallon across the US on average, as a result of Iran's restriction of travel through the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the war that the US and Israel launched at the end of February.
“Americans were already struggling with the high cost of living before this war started,” said Carl Davis, research director at ITEP. “The fact that their summer travel plans just got a whole lot more expensive isn’t going to help with that.”
Using publicly available data and price forecasts from the US Energy Information Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and the US Census Bureau, ITEP determined that as a result of the war, Americans have paid about $39.6 billion in additional gas costs in less than three months since the war began.
It is projected that if current conditions continue, the total cost would be about $193 billion by the end of the year.
The average household has already paid an additional $291 for gas since the war began and could spend $1,450 by year's end. However, the cost varies by region, and the tool allows users to estimate their household's added cost based on where they live and how many family members they have.
The tracker only accounts for increased gasoline prices. It does not include price hikes caused by the war on other essentials, such as home utilities and food. Federal data released earlier this month showed that inflation has surged to its highest level since May 2023.
It also does not account for the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on the war. Pentagon officials said that it had cost $25 billion in April, though other independent estimates have placed the total cost much higher.
As Trump flails in response to rising prices, which have driven his approval ratings to their lowest low of his second term, he has proposed suspending federal gas taxes. Lawmakers in both parties have introduced bills that would temporarily suspend the tax, which adds an extra 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel.
However, ITEP argued that these proposals would be "ineffective as they offer very little relief to families" and that they "also run the risk of straining public budgets at a time when governments at all levels are facing some of the same higher costs as the public brought on by this war."
"AI is a freight train, but the future is not a foregone conclusion," said one engineer, urging his colleagues to sign a petition to stop Meta's use of an AI tracking program. "It’s not too late to pump the brakes."
Meta employees reported Wednesday that in the company's offices on the day mass layoffs hit thousands of their colleagues, fliers were taped to walls urging workers to sign a petition in support of stopping the company's new artificial intelligence data tracking program—which CEO Mark Zuckerberg touted late last month as a way for its new AI models to "learn from watching really smart people do things."
A day before about 8,000 Meta employees began receiving emails notifying them that they were being laid off—a process that began in Singapore at 4:00 am local time Wednesday and continued in European and US offices in their respective time zones—the labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union shared a leaked audio file in which Zuckerberg was heard explaining how the AI training program worked.
"The average intelligence of the people who are at this company is significantly higher than the average set of people that you can get to do tasks," said Zuckerberg. "So if we're trying to teach the models coding, for example, then having people internally build tools or solve tasks that help teach the model how to code, we think is going to dramatically increase our model's coding ability faster than what others in the industry have the capability to do, who don't have thousands and thousands of extremely strong engineers at their company."
LEAKED AUDIO: In an all-hands meeting on April 30, Mark Zuckerberg tells employees that he's training AI on them ahead of mass layoffs.
"The AI models learn from watching really smart people do things... The average intelligence of the people who are at this company is… pic.twitter.com/lt9eeJ3cwh
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) May 19, 2026
He assured the company's 78,000 employees that "no human is looking at or watching what people are doing on their computers... None of the data is being used for looking at what people are doing or surveillance or performance tracking or anything like that. It's purely just that we are using this to feed a very large amount of content into the AI model so that way it can learn how smart people use computers to accomplish tasks."
Zuckerberg explained how the employees have been used to train the model that could potentially replace many of them days after Meta announced it was planning to lay off about 10% of its workforce as the company invests heavily in AI, spending $125 billion to $145 billion on the technology—more than double what it spent last year.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that employees "revolted" when they learned about the AI tracking program, and expressed fears that they had unknowingly been training a model that would ultimately replace them.
An engineering manager asked on the company's internal communication platform how workers can opt out of having their computer activity monitored to train the AI model, only to be told by chief technology officer Andrew Bosworth, "There is no option to opt out on your corporate laptop."
Another employee told Bosworth, “Your callousness to the concerns of your own employees is concerning."
On Monday, The New York Times reported, employees learned that in addition to the layoffs, another 7,000 workers will be reassigned to help develop AI tools.
About 2,000 employees began working this month on a new Applied AI and Engineering team, which is set to use the data gathered by the AI tracking program Zuckerberg described to build AI tools. Those who volunteered to join the group would not be included in this week's layoffs, the Times reported.
"Every company is training AI on their employees," said Chen Avnery, an independent adviser on AI governance and data platforms. "Meta just said it out loud. The question stopped being, 'Will AI replace you?' a year ago. Now it's whether you're building the agents or generating their training data."
More than 1,000 people in the company have signed the petition calling to halt the AI data program, according to the newspaper.
Software engineer Mack Ward urged his colleagues to sign on earlier this month, telling them in an internal post that "AI is a freight train, but the future is not a foregone conclusion."
"It’s not too late to pump the brakes and consider how we, society, want to go about this,” Ward said. “Speaking up is never easy, but ‘easy’ isn’t what you were hired to do.”
"Too much money contorts any human being," said one critic of the Amazon founder.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos drew ridicule on Wednesday after he claimed that doubling the amount of taxes he pays wouldn't be beneficial to society.
During an interview on CNBC, journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Bezos about arguments made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that the super-rich have lower effective tax rates than average Americans given how much of their wealth comes from unrealized capital gains and not traditional income earned through actual labor.
"I pay billions of dollars in taxes," replied Bezos, whom Forbes estimates is worth $267 billion. "If people want me to pay billions more, then let's have that debate. But don't pretend, you know, that that's going to solve the problem. You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not gonna help that teacher in Queens, I promise you."
Bezos on CNBC: "You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not gonna help that teacher in Queens. I promise you." pic.twitter.com/ocbf34XZhA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 20, 2026
A 2021 investigation by Pro Publica found that Bezos' effective tax rate of less than 1% between 2014 and 2018, as he paid a total of $973 million in taxes over a period in which his net worth grew by $99 billion.
As explained by the Institute of Taxation and Policy (ITEP), this effective tax rate was "significantly lower" than the tax rate paid by middle-class Americans over that period.
"There were multiple years where Bezos paid nothing at all in income taxes," ITEP noted. "While having billions of dollars of wealth, Bezos consistently avoided income tax by offsetting earned income with other investment losses and various deductions, all while Amazon stock was rapidly rising."
Democratic congressional candidate Melat Kiros in Colorado suggested Bezos had a point about taxation—"because we tax income, not wealth.
"Bezos takes out a tiny salary, pays the income tax, and lives off loans borrowed against his stocks, basically tax-free," said Kiros. "They all do this and now 935 billionaires hold more wealth than 170 million Americans. It’s time to tax wealth."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, took issue with Bezos' claim that doubling his taxes would produce no benefits.
"Jeff Bezos paid $500 million for his super-yacht and $75 million for his super-yacht’s mini-yacht—both of which he’s allowed to write off on his taxes," she wrote in a social media post. "That alone would cover $180 in classroom supplies for every public school teacher in the US."
Craig Harrington, research director at Media Matters for America, marveled at how out of touch Bezos seemed to be.
"There’s a funny thing about being uber wealthy," he observed. "They get so rich that they lose all sense of place, they essentially manifest as stateless people with no connection to or understanding of the world outside their private airports and resplendent villas."
Journalist and screenwriter David Simon expressed a similar view of the impact of immense wealth on Bezos' psyche.
"Too much money contorts any human being," Simon wrote. "And what was once a man is now, for the rest of the world, a fully metastasized cancer."
Author Hemant Mehta, meanwhile, simply wondered if Bezos "auditioning to be the next Bond villain."
"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."