
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.
"Tariffs of this magnitude could have enormous consequences—raising costs, worsening shortages, and putting access to lifesaving medicines at risk."
While President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he is working to lower the cost of prescription drugs, advocates for patients on Wednesday expressed alarm over the Republican's plan to impose significant tariffs on imported generic medication.
"Effective August 1st, 2026, all Generic Drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a TARIFF of ZERO PERCENT for a two year period of time, after which the TARIFF will be raised to 100% for a one year period of time, and 200% thereafter," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform late Tuesday.
"This is done in order to RESHORE Generic Pharmaceutical Production into America, with a penalty to those Companies that decide not to build Plant and Equipment within the stated period of time given to them," he continued. "The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States."
A White House official told Politico that the administration intends to use Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose the threatened tariffs. Although the president has not yet issued an order for his new announcement regarding generics, it's already causing concern.
"If imposed, the duty risks upending a global supply chain that keeps generic medicines affordable for Americans," the Los Angeles Times reported. "These off-patent drugs run the gamut from everyday painkillers and antibiotics to cholesterol and cancer drugs, and they're mostly produced at factories in India, Europe, and China."
Merith Basey, CEO of the advocacy organization Patients for Affordable Drugs, argued that "if the administration intends to lower prescription drug prices, it should not pursue policies that threaten to raise them. Imposing massive tariffs on generic medicines risks making lower-cost generic drugs millions of Americans rely on more expensive and harder to access."
"Generic drugs account for approximately 90% of prescriptions filled in the United States and are one of the few areas where Americans pay relatively low prices compared with other countries," she noted. "Tariffs of this magnitude could have enormous consequences—raising costs, worsening shortages, and putting access to lifesaving medicines at risk."
Basey stressed that "at a time when Americans are already struggling to afford healthcare, groceries, housing, and other basic needs, the last thing they need is another additional expense. Seniors, people with chronic conditions, and patients who rely on multiple prescriptions could be particularly hard hit."
"We urge the administration to focus its efforts on brand-name drug companies who abuse their monopoly power to block competition—not jeopardize the lower-cost medicines Americans depend on," she concluded.
The watchdog Public Citizen was also critical, warning that imposing tariffs on generics risks supply chain shocks, shortages, and treatment rationing; prioritizes supply restrictions over flexible supply from multiple sources; and undermines US manufacturing and workers, given the unlikelihood that drugmakers would invest billions to relocate to the United States.
"This reckless and impetuous move will drive up price, force rationing of key medicines, and needlessly create scarcity problems," said Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen's Access to Medicines director, in a statement.
"The sole respite from Trump's reckless pharma tariff plans has been that they so far do not apply to generics, which are vulnerable to supply disruptions that risk people’s access to medicine," he added. "Now, Trump has erased even that modest protection, and set a destructive course that could cause, rather than prevent, scarcity and rationing."
The president's potential levies on generics would follow a similar—and similarly criticized—policy targeting brand-name drugs, which Trump announced in April, on the one-year anniversary of his so-called Liberation Day and after an investigation by the US Department of Commerce.
The April tariffs were aimed at pressuring pharmaceutical companies to negotiate onshoring plans as part of most favored nation (MFN) pricing agreements. However, as Basey pointed out at the time, "the current MFN deals remain opaque and voluntary, and have not delivered meaningful savings for the vast majority of American patients."
A couple of weeks later, the administration announced its 17th MFN agreement, with Regeneron. The other companies that have struck deals are AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
Trump claimed Tuesday that "the Policy on Patented, Branded, or Innovative Drugs, which has been so successful, will remain as is. Pharmaceutical Facilities are being built, at a level never seen before, all over the United States of America."
"Economic development and economic justice must go hand in hand," said New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in announcing Khan's appointment.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Wednesday announced he was appointing Lina Khan, a leading champion of enforcing US antitrust laws, to serve as chair of the city's Economic Development Corporation.
In prepared remarks, Khan—the former chair of the Federal Trade Commission—said she looked forward to working with Tony Shorris, the former executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who was appointed by Mamdani as the EDC's new president.
The former Biden administration official also gave an overview of what she hoped to achieve at the EDC.
"EDC has key tools to drive projects that grow our economy, create good jobs, promote entrepreneurship, and make life more affordable for New Yorkers," she said. "EDC has enormous capacity to make life materially better for New Yorkers—and to ensure that public resources are helping build state capacity."
A Wednesday report from Gothamist noted that Khan's appointment as chair "amounts to a shakeup for the agency, which has been criticized over the years for being too cozy with business interests," while noting that Shorris' appointment as president "was seen by some as a nod to the business community."
During a news conference announcing the appointments of Khan and Shorris, Mamdani emphasized that "economic development and economic justice must go hand in hand," adding that "this is no radical concept."
The president's attempt to control the commission "is particularly troublesome" given the financial stakes that he, his family, and his supporters have in products the agency regulates, said dozens of groups.
Nearly a month after the US Supreme Court overturned almost a century of precedent to give President Donald Trump king-like power to purge independent agencies, consumer groups on Tuesday sounded the alarm over his nominees to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Before the high court's recent ruling, Trump last year fired the three Democratic commissioners appointed by his predecessor—hamstringing the CPSC, which needs at least three members to conduct official business, but currently only has acting Chair Peter Feldman.
Trump nominated Karen Sessions as a commissioner in February and Brien Lorenze, the agency's executive director, in early June. Later last month, the GOP-controlled Senate began considering the nominees, but has not yet confirmed them.
In a Tuesday letter to Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)—respectively, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation—dozens of consumer groups detailed their concerns.
Led by the Consumer Federation of America and National Consumers League, the coalition urged the senators "to protect the independence and nonpartisanship" of "the nation's chief household product safety regulator," stressing that "hazards have no partisan leanings, and neither should the commission tasked with addressing them."
The letter highlights that the agency, created by Congress over five decades ago, cannot have more than three commissioners affiliated with the same political party, and the law bars all of them "from owning stock or bonds of substantial value in a company that sells or manufactures consumer products, or from being in 'any other manner pecuniarily interested in such a person.'"
"Historically, the agency's independence has buffered the commissioners from political pressure from the White House and large donors. This has ensured that the agency has acted with transparency and a diversity of views, which has benefited the American people," the groups wrote. "Further, the presence of minority commissioners provided a layer of oversight and accountability on CPSC actions."
"With this independent and nonpartisan structure, the CPSC has had a lifesaving effect," the coalition emphasized, pointing to drops in residential fires, child poisonings, bicycle and pool injuries, and deaths from cribs, garage door incidents, and refrigerator entrapments.
The organizations stressed their concern that Trump ousted "the three Democratic, Senate-confirmed CPSC commissioners" without cause, and then "nominated two individuals of his own political party, threatening to further undermine the independence and nonpartisanship of the CPSC."
"Silencing the voices of subject matter experts with whom the president politically disagrees or who may not serve his financial interests can have a chilling effect on the CPSC's functions," they argued. "The president's assertion of control over CPSC commissioners has eliminated the transparency provided by minority commissioners and the independence of those who remain."
"This is particularly troublesome given the conflict of interest created by the president's financial stake and those of his family and supporters in consumer products the CPSC is entrusted to regulate," the groups noted.
Specifically, as the letter lays out:
President Trump financially benefits from the distribution of a vast array of consumer products, including Trump Watches, Trump Sneakers, and "45" Guitars. The president also has substantial financial interests in major manufacturers, retailers, and online marketplaces, including Whirlpool Corp., Newell Rubbermaid, Macy’s Retail Holdings, and Amazon.com Inc. The Trump Organization, helmed by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, sells a wide variety of consumer products, including toys and children’s products; apparel, footwear, and accessories; sporting goods; pet products; and household goods such as drinkware, kitchenware, linens, candles, and home décor. First Lady Melania Trump, through MelaniaTrump.com, is associated with the sales of jewelry and Christmas ornaments. Lara Trump and Kai Trump sell apparel through their respective online stores. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon maintains a significant financial stake in TKO Group Holdings, which has lucrative licensing deals for World Wrestling Entertainment toys, apparel, and accessories. Mike Lindell, a prominent supporter of the president, is the founder of MyPillow, which sells bedding and apparel. Former special government employee Elon Musk profits from sales of Tesla’s Powerwall systems and the Tesla Cyberquad for children. Political ally and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) CEO Dana White profits from UFC’s sale of apparel, combat-sport equipment, and collectibles.
"These extensive financial and familial interests heighten concerns that the president could use his authority to influence CPSC enforcement decisions in ways that protect his and his associates' interests, as the administration has done in matters before other federal agencies," the letter warns, citing various actions involving the US Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.
In addition to those actions—from the attempt to create an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to pay off Trump allies, to dropping investigations into his backers—the president has blatantly cashed in on his return to the White House, pocketing at least $2.2 billion, according to recently released annual financial disclosures.
"We are concerned that without balanced representation at the CPSC, this small agency with a big mission will be unable to independently carry out its congressionally mandated duties and provide the public with the transparency it deserves," the coalition told Cruz and Cantwell. "The CPSC is no place for political favoritism. We therefore urge you to oppose reporting favorably the nominations of Brien Lorenze and Karen Sessions to serve as CPSC commissioners."
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman described Trump's latest tariffs as "unutterably idiotic."
Critics are piling on President Donald Trump for once again picking a fight with the United States' top trading partner by moving to slap 50% tariffs on certain imported Canadian goods.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said on Tuesday that Trump's latest broadside against Canada was "yet another shakedown that will raise the cost of living for Americans, their families, and small businesses across the country."
Wyden also said that Trump has "abused every trade authority at his disposal" and vowed to soon release a bill "to rein him in and put Congress back in the driver's seat" in crafting US trade policy.
Wyden wasn't the only Democrat to take a shot at Trump over his new economic attack on Canada.
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) called Trump's new tariffs "really dumb" given that they violate a trade deal that Trump himself negotiated with Canada and Mexico during his first term.
"You cannot negotiate a trade agreement, sign it, celebrate it, then blow it up and expect anyone to trust the next deal," said Levin. "And who actually pays? American importers and American families. Tariffs are a tax on us."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) predicted that US consumers would once again pay the price for the president's trade war.
"We're the ones who will eat the cost," wrote Huffman. "That's what happened with Trump's last tariff spree and it will happen again. Trump's failed foreign and economic policies are making life worse for hardworking people."
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on Tuesday published an analysis trying to make sense of the justifications for Trump's latest trade war with Canada, but he came up mostly empty.
"The White House fact sheet claims that the new tariffs are a response to Canadian policies that discriminate against US products," explained Krugman, "notably the moves by most Canadian provinces... to stop importation of US alcoholic beverages. But these policies were themselves a response to the tariffs on Canadian goods Trump had previously imposed."
Krugman then noted that Trump shifted his justification for the tariffs, saying they were designed to punish Canada after smoke generated by wildfires in Ontario billowed into the US last week.
However, Krugman found this explanation even more absurd.
"Blaming Canada for not controlling fires that are, in reality, largely a consequence of global warming," Krugman remarked, "is unutterably idiotic."
Krugman concluded his analysis by arguing that "whatever the real motivation for these new tariffs, they are almost surely illegal," noting that they run afoul of Trump's own North American trade deal.
Trump on Tuesday indicated that the tariffs on Canada were not actually a response to the wildfires, though he said his administration was looking at separate measures to punish the Canadian government for purportedly doing a poor job of managing its forests.
Q: Are the Canada tariffs in response to the wildfires?
Trump: No, We're looking at that separately. They need us to survive. Without us, there's no way they can survive pic.twitter.com/ycllBXmPTd
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 21, 2026
Several studies have found that Trump's tariffs, which he kicked off in April 2025, have cost US businesses and consumers hundreds of billions of dollars, as importers pass most of the increased costs imposed by the tariffs to consumers in the form of higher prices.
"Time’s up, and so is your bill."
President Donald Trump's trade war, demand for the rapid expansion of energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers, and cancellation of renewable energy projects have all gotten in the way of his ability to deliver on his promise to slash household electricity costs, according to US Energy Information Administration data released as the president's self-imposed deadline for cutting rates by 50% came and went this week.
The latest data from the EIA shows residential rates as recent as this past April, and finds that households paid an average of 18.83 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) that month compared with 17.55 cents in April 2025.
Since January 2025, when Trump entered office for his second term, prices have gone up by more than 18%, according to the EIA.
The data comes as the president reached the 18-month mark of his second administration—the deadline he gave himself to cut electricity rates in half.
"Under my leadership, the United States will commit to the ambitious goal of slashing energy and electricity prices by half at least,” Trump said at a campaign rally in North Carolina in August 2024. “We intend to slash prices by half within 12 months—at a maximum 18 months.”
"Every single thing that I promised, I produced," he added.
As Democratic research group American Bridge 21st Century said Tuesday, "Time's up, and so is your bill."
The 7.3% increase in the average electricity bill over the past 12 months alone shows costs soaring at roughly double the rate of inflation, reported 24/7 Wall Street.
The largest grid operator in the country, PJM Interconnection, reported a capacity price of $16.4 billion for power delivery in the 2028-29 period, according to the outlet. Reason also reported that data centers' electricity use added $6 billion to PJM's capacity auction, which utilities pay to guarantee future power supplies, with the costs flowing to ratepayers.
In the second quarter of 2026, utilities filed $9.2 billion in requests for rate hikes, up 26% from the same period in 2025, according to 24/7 Wall Street.
The EIA projected in May that residential electricity prices would rise by about 5% this year, with costs soaring the most in East Coast states.
Trump's deadline for slashing prices—a promise he made as families were also struggling with rising grocery and housing prices—came as The Century Foundation (TCF) released a report titled "Power Failure: Rising Energy Debt Is Climbing into the Middle Class."
According to the report, energy bills have increased three times faster than the inflation rate since Trump took office for the second time, with the national average utility bill reaching $280 in early 2026—a 12% increase since the end of 2024.
The average household in 18 states is now paying more than $280 per month for utilities, and average costs have gone up by more than 20% in 10 states since Trump began his second term.
In March 2026, the national average overdue utility balance for a household was $817, said TCF.
"The Trump administration’s policies are actively contributing to and worsening the energy cost crisis," reads TCF's report. "The effects of the Iran war will only further increase household utility costs, while runaway data center expansions account for 63 percent of electricity generation capacity costs in the nation’s largest power market. Meanwhile, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act repealed clean-energy tax credits that would have lowered household electricity bills and aid programs to help low-income families afford their energy bills."
Without citing evidence, Trump's energy secretary, Chris Wright, claimed last week that AI data centers "are the greatest tool we have right now to stop the rise of electricity prices," but numerous analyses have tied the rapid growth of the sector—pushed by the White House—to higher household costs, as a typical "hyperscale" data center can use as much as 100 megawatts, the same amount of electricity as 100,000 households.
Trump has also made components of energy infrastructure more expensive, while the think tank Energy Innovation found in a recent analysis that the president's cancellation of solar and other renewable energy projects could leave households paying an additional $460 per year in energy costs by 2035.
"The bottom line is what the data shows," wrote Joel South at 24/7 Wall Street. "The specific promise, cheaper power by mid-2026, was not met."
"States are absolutely contemplating a world in which SNAP isn’t available."
Several reports published this week highlight the brutal impact cuts made to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Republicans' 2025 budget law are having on Americans' access to food.
A lengthy Tuesday report in The New York Times zeroed in on the bill's impact in Arizona, where roughly 440,000 people have been dropped from the program even though many of them are still eligible to receive assistance.
The GOP-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act established severe penalties for states that have high error rates when awarding SNAP benefits, and Arizona has responded by vastly increasing the paperwork applicants must file to qualify for the program in order to avoid making mistakes that could result in the loss of federal funding.
According to the Times, this has created "bureaucratic chaos" that has caused many otherwise eligible people to lose aid.
"It can take months to reach besieged caseworkers, and offices have gone as far as asking people with panhandling income for verification from strangers dropping cash in their jar," reported the Times. "Arizonans losing SNAP say they are skipping meals, quarreling over food, and missing rent payments to restock pantry shelves."
One former SNAP beneficiary featured in the Times story was Dee McDonald, a 65-year-old cancer survivor who reported skipping meals to ensure that the three grandsons she's raising have enough to eat.
According to the Times, McDonald has been scrambling from one local food pantry to another to ensure there is enough food in the house for the whole family, a process she told the paper has left her "exhausted."
“I go to sleep thinking about what are we going to have,” McDonald said.
Michael Wisehart, director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, told the Times that it's "frankly sickening to me the number of individuals" who are suffering due to the bureaucratic hurdles the state is enacting.
However, Wisehart said that if Arizona doesn't add these bureaucratic layers, it could risk seeing its SNAP program completely destroyed.
“It’s an existential threat,” he explained. “States are absolutely contemplating a world in which SNAP isn’t available."
Another state facing this dilemma is Arkansas, which the local news station KATV reported on Monday is scrambling to lower its SNAP error rate that, under new rules, could cost the state $55 million per year.
Keesa Smith-Brantley, executive director of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and former deputy director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, told KATV that the financial penalties imposed on the state could create a downward spiral in which state officials have fewer resources to effectively lower the SNAP error rate.
"It is very concerning that we may not have a SNAP program in years to come if the state can't come up with the funding," said Smith-Brantley.
A Tuesday report in Axios examined how the GOP's SNAP cuts have impacted Virginia, where 100,000 fewer residents are now enrolled in the program compared to a year ago.
Aaron McClung, chief development officer at Feed More, an umbrella organization for food banks in the central part of the state, told Axios that visits to food pantries have increased by more than 20% since the passage of the GOP budget law last year.
While food banks have tried to fill the gap, McClung said, they are no substitute for SNAP, which he described as "the nation's most effective, dignified, and scalable tool for reducing food insecurity."
Jacqueline Mott, Virginia state manager for the Save the Children Action Network, expressed a similar sentiment, telling Axios that "charitable food assistance was never designed to replace SNAP."
US President Donald Trump on Monday invoked an arcane legal provision to impose 50% tariffs on most imported goods from Canada, a move that critics said will hit US consumers already reeling from an unabated cost-of-living crisis and further strain relations with the nation's second-largest trade partner.
Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, an unprecedented move the White House said is aimed at "offsetting the burden and disadvantage on US commerce from Canada’s discriminatory treatment of US commerce" and "leveling the playing field for crucial American exports—cars, alcohol, and dairy."
The new tariffs exempt energy products, potash, fish, and critical minerals.
“While the administration continues to secure fair and reciprocal trade deals with our trading partners, Canada, unlike other partners and allies, continues to retaliate against the United States for its efforts to rebalance trade and protect US industry in national security-sensitive sectors,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement.
“Specifically, Canada has taken US alcohol products off Canadian shelves, given better market access to dairy products from the European Union, and has put a cap on US vehicle exports to Canada from companies reshoring to the United States," Greer added. "Today, President Trump took decisive action to hold Canada accountable for its retaliation and discrimination, delivering on his promise to correct trade imbalances and ensure fairness for American workers, farmers, and businesses.”
While the administration's official communications cite economic reasons for the new tariffs, Trump in recent days has repeatedly cited the Canadian wildfires as justification for the move.
“I told them. I mean, you got to stop these fires from coming in, and you know poisoning our air," Trump said of Canada on Sunday evening. "Our air has been poisoned. Maybe they should pay us some damages or something, or we should do some tariffs."
The president's linkage of the wildfires and tariffs drew widespread ridicule, with Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul posting on X, "Only Donald Trump could see wildfire smoke and decide the answer is more tariffs."
Pod Save America co-host Dan Pfeiffer said on social media, "Americans have to pay high prices because Trump doesn’t understand how wind works."
According to We Pay the Tariffs, a small business coalition, Trump’s capricious tariffs have cost American businesses and consumers upward of $317 billion since March 2025.
That month, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on many Canadian goods and 10% on Canadian energy products. The administration later modified or paused some of those tariffs.
Ottawa has criticized the tariffs and rejected the US justification that Canada is unfairly restricting American products.
"I’ll never stop fighting to protect Ontario," Doug Ford, the province's right-wing premier, said in response to Trump's move. "If these tariffs proceed, Canada should respond tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar."
Some Democratic US lawmakers blasted the new tariffs.
"Trump is raising prices on Americans, again, by jacking up tariffs by 50% on Canadian goods bought by Americans," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said on social media. "Democrats will flip the House. And on day one of next term, Democrats will introduce legislation to repeal Trump’s disastrous tariffs. And we will pass it."
"History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans' lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people," said California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
The $110 billion megamerger between Paramount and Warner Bros., widely criticized as a "disaster" by antitrust advocates, has been temporarily put on hold.
US District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín on Monday granted a temporary restraining order sought by several Democratic state attorneys general to pause the merger from going forward.
In her ruling, Martínez-Olguín found that the plaintiffs provided "compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market," meaning that the merger between the two studios is "likely to violate antitrust laws."
The judge—appointed by former President Joe Biden—issued a 14-day restraining order on the merger, writing that "Paramount and Warner Bros. will continue to operate as separate, viable companies competing in the marketplace while they wait for the court to adjudicate this case."
The combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. has long been controversial because it would put control of CBS, CNN, HBO, TikTok, and other major media properties all under the control of David Ellison, the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a major donor to President Donald Trump.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Paramount-Warner Bros. deal, hailed Martínez-Olguín's ruling as a "critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day."
"History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans' lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people," he said. "With our lawsuit, we're fighting for a free and fair market and a thriving film and television industry that serves creatives and audiences alike."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, delivered a video statement calling the ruling "an important victory for consumers, for workers, and for fair competition."
"We are taking action to protect New Yorkers from the harms of unlawful corporate consolidation," James added, "and protecting democracy while we're at it."
We just won a court order stopping the merger of @ParamountPics and @warnerbros while our lawsuit continues.
We’re going to keep fighting to keep costs down for consumers, protect jobs, and stop this illegal merger. pic.twitter.com/yfcA0sOoLb
— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) July 20, 2026
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a longtime critic of the merger, called the ruling "a WIN thanks to the state attorneys general who stood up and pushed back," and added, "Let's keep up the fight."
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said the ruling was "welcome news," while warning that "we're not out of the woods yet."
"This merger would force prices up, bring wages down, and lead to people losing jobs—all to bring TikTok, CNN, and CBS under one roof," Balint observed. "Perhaps Paramount CEO David Ellison can't wine and dine his way through this one after all."
Attorney Norm Eisen, co-founder of Democracy Defenders Action, accused the Ellisons of trying to "rush" the merger over the finish line before courts could examine antitrust claims being made against it.
"Now the case gets decided on the merits," Eisen said.
Forty-seven percent of Americans surveyed say they have been cutting back on food and medical care to save money.
As the resumption of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran sends gas prices back to an average of $4 per gallon, a poll released by CNBC on Friday shows Americans' perceptions of the US economy growing increasingly negative.
The latest CNBC All-America Economic Survey finds that 61% of Americans are feeling pessimistic about the current state of the economy, with just 25% saying they feel optimistic.
This marks the most pessimistic Americans have felt about the economy since December 2023, after the US suffered through an inflationary shock primarily driven by the re-opening of the global economy after the Covid-19 pandemic.
Americans' biggest concerns are with the cost of living, with voters expressing particular worry about gas and grocery prices.
Forty-seven percent of Americans surveyed say they have been cutting back on food and medical care to save money, while two-thirds report reducing spending on "non-essential" purchases, such as restaurant meals and entertainment.
The survey also finds that US voters are pinning the blame for the state of the economy squarely on Trump, as just 38% of Americans approve of his economic performance while 60% disapprove. Americans are even harsher in their assessment of Trump's handling of the Iran war, with just 35% approving and 63% disapproving.
Democratic pollster Jay Campbell, a partner at Hart Research, told CNBC that the recent drop in gas prices from their peak earlier this year is not enough to put Americans in a better mood, especially given that prices are headed up again.
"People are still paying a lot more for stuff than they were a year and a half ago, two years ago, and that’s recent enough in memory that it still hurts and it still drives a lot of anger," said Campbell. “When gas prices drop 50 cents for a month, that’s just not enough to make up the difference."
According to data published by AAA on Friday, the average price of gas in the US is now $3.98 per gallon, 10 cents higher than it was a week before.
The price of diesel fuel has also risen back over $5 per gallon, up 15 cents from one week ago, according to AAA.
Despite Trump's brutal polling numbers, the CNBC survey finds that Democrats currently have a modest four-point advantage in the generic congressional ballot, which Campbell said "doesn’t point to a wave [election] at the moment."
"Public Citizen again calls on the CFTC to wake up and do its job of overseeing the prediction market industry and enforcing the insider trading laws," said the watchdog's government affairs lobbyist.
As Kalshi confirmed Thursday that it referred a White House teleprompter operator to federal regulators for flagged bets on its prediction market, President Donald Trump's press secretary denounced the suspended staffer's reported actions—without addressing any of the mounting outrage over how her boss has cashed in on his return to the Oval Office.
Citing unnamed sources, ABC News reported that Gabriel Perez, who has been one of Trump's teleprompter operators since his first presidential campaign, is in talks with federal regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) "to settle allegations he used his inside knowledge of the president's speeches to win more than $100,000."
"Of all Trump's closest aides, sources say Perez typically has the final eyes on nearly all of the president's prepared remarks—and is often known to take last-minute edits from Trump himself," the outlet detailed. Federal investigators reportedly found that Perez bet on words or topics mentioned by Trump in more than a dozen speeches.
While the CFTC declined to comment, Robert DeNault, Kalshi's head of enforcement, told multiple media outlets that "our surveillance team promptly flagged and referred these trades to the CFTC after an exchange investigation. We have been assisting regulators on this matter and provided evidence we collected, as we do in any referral."
Asked about the insider trading allegations on Thursday—just hours before Trump was set to deliver a prime-time address on election security—White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Perez has been put on unpaid administrative leave, at the direction of the president himself, and called his reported behavior a "disgrace."
"The White House has extremely strict ethical guidelines with respect to issues like this," Leavitt also claimed.
As National Public Radio detailed Thursday:
In March, White House staff received a memo warning against using nonpublic government information to place bets on Kalshi and its biggest competitor, Polymarket.
The memo, which was reviewed by NPR, stated that it is a criminal offense for anyone inside the White House to "buy" or "sell" on the sites. Prediction markets offer "yes" or "no" contracts that change in price based on the speculation of bettors. Aides in the White House were told in the memo that misusing government information "is a very serious offense and will not be tolerated."
The US Department of Justice this year has charged at least two people for their use of Polymarket: US Army special forces soldier who allegedly gambled on the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and a Google software engineer accused of using internal company information to place bets; they've both pleaded not guilty.
However, in the case of Perez, "the CFTC alerted federal prosecutors in Manhattan, who declined to open a criminal investigation," according to ABC News. Instead, he's discussing a potential settlement that would require him "to give back his profits and refrain from making similar trades."
Responding to the reporting in a Thursday statement, Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at the watchdog group Public Citizen, noted that "betting on political events on the prediction markets has become highly profitable for a small handful of anonymous bettors."
"Ever since the American invasion of Venezuela and Iran, a few people have been placing very large bets moments before the events take place, and scoring millions in profits," he emphasized. "The timing and accuracy of these bets strongly suggest insider trading, probably by a few individuals in the know within the Trump administration."
The reported behavior by Perez "is further evidence of illegal insider trading on the prediction markets—an industry that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has let operate like the Wild West," Holman continued. "Public Citizen again calls on the CFTC to wake up and do its job of overseeing the prediction market industry and enforcing the insider trading laws."
The New York Times reported in May that the Trump administration has stacked CFTC with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers interested in providing oversight on prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi.
Meanwhile, according to recently unveiled annual financial disclosures, Trump made an unprecedented $2.2 billion—more than half of it from his family's cryptocurrency exploits—during his first year back in the White House.
Based on those disclosures, Trump may have finally "crossed a line that even the presidency cannot erase, violating the nation's insider trading laws," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)—who helped write those laws—highlighted in a Wednesday blog post.
Trump—who infamously bankrupted multiple Atlantic City casinos—also has plans to get into prediction markets. His social media company, Trump Media and Technology Group, said last October that it would soon launch a prediction betting marketplace on Truth Social.
The latest supply crunch comes at a time when "US gasoline inventories have become critically low," said one analyst.
President Donald Trump's decision to restart his illegal war with Iran has sent the price of oil back up, leading to a corresponding rise in the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel.
Data published by AAA on Thursday showed that the average price of diesel in the US is once again over $5 per gallon, which is 33% higher than the average price of diesel before Trump unlawfully attacked Iran without congressional authorization in February.
Oil industry analyst Patrick De Haan wrote in a Thursday social media post that diesel fuel powers "the trucks that move nearly everything you buy—groceries, goods, supplies," meaning the current spike will lead to "higher prices down the line" for other key goods.
According to a Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal, the rise in diesel prices is unlikely to be short-lived given that there are now multiple factors pushing costs higher.
In addition to the resumption of the Iran war, the Journal writes, Russia has now banned diesel exports after its refineries came under attack by Ukraine. And in the US, domestic stockpiles of the fuel have now fallen to their lowest levels in 20 years.
Given all these factors, analysts told the Journal that diesel prices "could soon climb an additional 20 to 25 cents a gallon."
An analysis published on Thursday by CNN Business senior reporter David Goldman pointed to another factor pushing diesel prices higher: Global refining capacities have taken a significant hit since the start of the Iran war.
Goldman noted that Iran has "damaged or destroyed 30 Middle Eastern refineries" since the start of the conflict, causing global refinery output to fall by "3 million barrels at the peak of the Strait of Hormuz disruption, and 2.1 million barrels of refining capacity remain offline."
Energy analyst John Kemp said on Thursday that the diesel supply crunch will likely spill over to the price of regular gasoline in the coming weeks.
"US gasoline inventories have become critically low," Kemp explained in a social media post, "as domestic refiners prioritize production of jet fuel and diesel to replace global supplies hit by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Ukraine's escalating attacks on Russia's refineries."
Kemp added that the US gasoline stocks "have depleted in 13 of the last 16 weeks by a total of 43 million barrels" since the start of the war, making it "by far the largest [depletion] on record for the time of year, and three times faster than average over the last decade."
In an interview with Bloomberg published on Wednesday, International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol warned that renewed fighting between the US and Iran was again threatening to create a global fuel supply crisis that could come in "not months" but "weeks."
"If the Strait of Hormuz remains closed," Birol said, "we may again have some difficulty for global economies, including those in the region and developing nations and Asia."