To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
Our Summer Campaign fundraising drive is underway, and we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on August 31. Will you donate to help power the nonprofit, independent journalism of Common Dreams?
Our Summer Campaign fundraising drive is underway, and we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on August 31. Will you donate to help power the nonprofit, independent journalism of Common Dreams?
Rep. Don Beyer blamed the surge in gas prices on President Donald Trump's decision to wage "an illegal war against Iran with no plan or strategy."
As President Donald Trump continues threatening to commit war crimes in Iran by bombing power plants, Iran is signaling that it could put a further squeeze on global oil prices by shutting down yet another strait used for transporting petroleum outside the Middle East.
Ali Akbar Velayati, a former Iranian foreign minister and a top adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, threatened in a Sunday social media post to close down the Strait of Bab al-Mandeb, a waterway adjacent to the coast of Yemen that is under control of Iran-backed Houthi militants.
“If the White House dares to repeat its foolish mistakes," Velayati cautioned, "it will soon realize that the flow of global energy and trade can be disrupted with a single move."
As Al Jazeera noted in a Monday report, the Houthis already shut down the strait during Israel's war on Gaza, and doing so again at the same time Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz could send global energy prices to unprecedented highs.
"The strait is a vital route through which Saudi Arabia sends its oil to Asia," Al Jazeera reported. "If Bab al-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz were both shut, that would block 25%... of the world’s oil and gas supply."
Oil prices have shot up since Trump launched his illegal war with Iran more than a month ago, and on Monday the price of Brent crude oil futures was trading at $110 per barrel, while the average price for gas in the US rose to $4.12 per gallon, according to data from AAA.
Democratic members of the US Congress Joint Economic Committee (JEC) last week released a study estimating that, thanks to Trump's war, Americans are paying 35% more to fill up their cars than they were paying a month earlier.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a member of the JEC, pointed to the report in a Monday social media post and said Americans were getting hit with major price shocks because "President Trump decided to wage an illegal war against Iran with no plan or strategy."
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Ranking Member of the JEC, told WMUR that Trump's Iran war took an already bad situation for American families and made it worse.
"Families are already being pushed to the brink," Hassan said. "That was true before the war started, by the cost of everything from groceries to rent to healthcare insurance premiums and prescriptions and even more. But now they're being forced to pay more at the pump."
Sen. Maggie Hassan said that while paying back businesses hit by Trump’s illegal tariffs, the administration “refuses to provide relief for families.”
American families could pay a combined $330 billion this year as a result of President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff policy, according to a report released Friday by the Democratic minority on the Joint Economic Committee in Congress.
Although the Supreme Court ruled Trump's use of emergency powers to pass sweeping tariffs illegal last month, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the government is expected to bring in "virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026" compared with the previous year, as Trump has continued to enact new tariffs using different legal authorities in hopes of getting around the high court's ruling.
If Bessent's projection holds true, the committee's Democrats estimated that the average US household would pay more than $2,500 in tariff costs this year, a considerable increase from the more than $1,700 the committee found Americans paid in 2025.
The minority said it reached its findings based on official data on the amount of tariff revenue collected by the Treasury since 2025 combined with independent research from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which found last month that only about 5% of tariff costs are borne by foreign entities. About 30% is taken on by domestic companies, and the remaining 65% is passed on to consumers.
There is already somewhat of an answer in the works for businesses to recoup the illegal duties they've had to pay. Earlier this month, the US Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that the Treasury Department and Customs and Border Protection must return $166 billion to around 330,000 importers hit by tariffs, including thousands of companies that have filed lawsuits seeking to recover their money.
However, the Trump administration has said it could take more than 4.4 million hours to process all refund requests for more than 53 million entries subject to the now-illegal tariffs.
On Thursday, Brandon Lord, an official with US Customs and Border Protection responsible for tariff collections, informed the court that CBP is about 40-80% done creating a system that will allow importers and brokers to submit refund requests. He said in a filing last week that it could be operational as soon as mid-April.
But Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the ranking member of the joint committee, lamented on Friday that while businesses are going to be reimbursed with interest, "the Trump administration refuses to provide relief for families" and is instead "choosing to institute new tariffs that will push prices even higher.”
On Thursday, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), another committee member, introduced a bill to create a new tax rebate for individuals and families hit by tariffs.
The so-called "Working Families Refund" would provide a $600 rebate to individuals earning $90,000 or less annually and to head-of-household filers earning $120,000 or less. Joint filers earning $180,000 or less per year would receive a $1,200 rebate. Each family would also receive an additional $600 for each dependent child.
"This is money that belongs to working families—not the CEOs of Walmart or Amazon or any other big corporation,” Heinrich said.
Trump has pressed ahead with his tariffs despite their rising unpopularity. In an NBC News poll last week, 55% of voters said the tariffs have hurt the economy, while just 33% said they have helped. And as his newly launched war with Iran has heightened economic instability, 62% of voters said they disapproved of his handling of inflation and the cost of living.
Seeking to stop Trump from squeezing a political win out of his policy's failure, Heinrich's bill also forbids the president from putting his own name on the tariff rebate checks, as he famously did with Covid-19 stimulus checks sent months before the 2020 election.
“The president may call the affordability crisis a ‘hoax,’ but working people feel it every time they pay for groceries or everyday essentials," Heinrich said. "This bill will return the money lost to Trump’s tariffs back to the people who paid the price.”
Just four major data broker breaches in recent years have cost US consumers over $20 billion, according to a Thursday report from a key leader in Congress that argues "additional action is needed to protect Americans from scams."
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC), launched a sweeping investigation into financial scams last July. As part of it, she's examined data brokers, which collect and sell individuals' personal information. These companies often operate with limited transparency, her report explains, making it "more difficult for individuals to secure their information online and, ultimately, protect themselves from the growing threat of scams."
"Data brokers, for example, can enable scams by making consumers' personal information available to bad actors, who can then use details like Social Security numbers, home addresses, or banking information to develop customized and convincing scams," the report explains. "In some cases, data brokers have allegedly sold this information directly to scammers; in others, cyber hacks of data brokers have exposed individuals' data to uncontrolled circulation online."
Last August, after Wired reported that some data brokers took steps to hide their opt-out pages, Hassan issued investigative requests to Comscore, Findem, IQVIA Digital, Telesign, and 6Sense Insights. The report states that all of the companies but Findem responded with "actions to make their opt-out options more accessible to consumers and other parties," which "included removing 'no index' code that had blocked opt-out pages from search engine results, adding opt-out links in more prominent locations, and publishing blog content explaining how people can exercise their privacy rights."
"Notably," the report continues, "Findem did not respond to the ranking member's requests or written outreach from committee staff and has not removed the 'no index' code from its opt-out page—raising serious concerns about its responsiveness to opt-out requests and commitment to data privacy."
Months after the report was first released, on May 15, the JEC announced that Findem had also "updated its data collection opt-out processes to make it easier for people to protect their personal data." The panel published a supplement about the update.
While recognizing the companies for their positive responses, Hassan's report also stresses that more must be done. For instance, she requested information about efforts "to audit or assess the visibility of opt-out options or the success rates of opt-out requests," and "only 6sense stated that it contracts with third-party auditors to conduct both of these assessments."
Highlighting the need for further action, Hassan's staff estimated that identity theft stemming from four large data broker breaches—Equifax in 2017, impacting 147 million US residents; Exactis in 2018, impacting 230 million; National Public in 2023, impacting 270 million; and TransUnion in 2025, impacting 4.4 million—cost American consumers $20.9 billion.
"As international criminal syndicates increasingly use scams to target Americans, data brokers shouldn't make it harder for people to protect themselves," Hassan said in a statement. "This report shows the scope of the threat that people face from data broker breaches and underscores the importance of protecting Americans' private data."
She added that "it is encouraging that after we launched our investigation, many companies took steps to improve opt-out options for Americans, which in turn can help more consumers keep their information out of the wrong hands."
As a related webpage from the Electronic Privacy Information Center details: "There is no federal law in the United States that adequately regulates the data broker industry. As a result, private companies invade our private lives, spy on our families, and gather our most intimate facts, on a mass scale, for profit. EPIC supports state and federal legislative efforts that set limits on data brokers’ collection, use, retention, and disclosure of personal data."
In recent years, members of Congress have introduced various legislative proposals aimed at reining in data brokers—including in the Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act, introduced on Monday. The bipartisan bill would, among other things, close the so-called "data broker loophole" that, as Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) put it, "intelligence and law enforcement agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment" to the US Constitution.
There are some limits that have passed, including in Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024. Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission sent letters reminding 13 companies of their obligations to comply with the PADFAA, which "prohibits data brokers from selling, licensing, renting, trading, transferring, releasing, disclosing, providing access to, or otherwise making available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to any foreign adversary country or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary."
However, as Lartease Tiffith, an expert at American and George Mason universities, laid out in an article for Just Security last November, while Congress enacted the PADFAA "with the right goal," the law, as written, "could penalize legitimate US companies for routine global operations while failing to deliver the targeted national security tool Congress intended."
This article has been updated to include the announcement and supplement about Findem released on May 15.
Local protests against plans to build immigration detention centers have been held in states including New Hampshire, New York, and Maryland in recent weeks.
Merrimack, New Hampshire over the weekend became one of the latest US communities to rally against Trump administration plans to use a local warehouse to detain up to 1,000 people at a time, and on Monday, federal lawmakers from the New England state unveiled legislation to ensure the Department of Homeland Security listens to the 1,500 people who showed up to protest.
In the US Senate, Democratic Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen introduced the Respect for Local Communities Act, while Reps. Chris Pappas and Maggie Goodlander, also Democrats from the Granite State, proposed a companion bill in the House.
The legislation would require DHS to open a public comment period and receive approval from state and local officials before building, acquiring, or operating any new Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers or processing facilities—at least two dozen of which ICE plans to open in order to hold up to 10,000 people at a time as part of President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign.
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, the administration plans to spend $38.3 billion to acquire and retrofit warehouses in states including New Hampshire, Georgia, and New York to detain immigrants.
The plan has received pushback from both sides of the aisle. Although the Republican Party vehemently backs Trump's mass deportation and detention campaign—which has killed at least 26 people in the last year, including least three US citizens who were fatally shot—lawmakers including Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) have objected to plans to build detention facilities in their states and districts, citing "economic development" and "infrastructure" concerns.
The Democrats who introduced the legislation on Monday spoke about widespread opposition to the "secretive facilities" and the "stunning displays of violence and cruelty" that have been part of Trump's mass detention operation.
"At a time when so many Americans are struggling with high costs for things like healthcare and housing, the Trump administration is instead spending $38 billion in taxpayer money to purchase and operate these facilities,” said Shaheen. “Our new bill responds directly to the concerns we’ve heard from local officials in towns like Merrimack, New Hampshire and across the country: They were never consulted about ICE’s plans, and they don’t want the chaos of new detention facilities in their communities. By requiring DHS to secure approval from state and local officials, our legislation would ensure that Americans and Granite Staters have a say in what the federal government is planning in our own communities.”
The bill would also require DHS to notify Congress before setting up new detention centers.
Last week, Hassan noted in a hearing where acting ICE Director Todd Lyons testified that Wicker had successfully pushed DHS to cancel plans to open a facility in Mississippi.
“I would hope that I would get the same treatment that Sen. Wicker got—which is to say the town doesn’t want the dentition center, so please cancel it,” Hassan said. “And I would expect that my partisan affiliation shouldn’t make any difference to that determination.”
In Merrimack over the weekend, hundreds of locals lined the streets outside the town hall, holding signs that read, "Human rights are for everyone" and “ICE: bringing terror and cruelty to a community near you."
Communities in Tennessee, New York, and Maryland have also spokesn out about plans for new detention centers recent weeks, and in the latter state, Attorney General Anthony Brown sued the Trump administration in Monday over its purchase of a warehouse in Williamsport where it plans to detain up to 1,500 people.
“Federal law gives Marylanders the right to know when and how detention facilities are built in their communities,” said Brown. “That right was denied. Today, our office is taking them to court.”
"The president should work with Democrats and Republicans to actually lower prescription drug costs for families," said Sen. Maggie Hassan, "rather than helping Big Pharma line its pockets."
Democratic members of the congressional Joint Economic Committee on Friday released a report warning that US families could end up spending thousands of dollars more on prescription drugs because of a website recently unveiled by President Donald Trump.
Launched last week with pharmaceutical companies, TrumpRx.gov is marketed as an aggregator to help patients save on prescription drugs by using manufacturer coupons or buying directly from manufacturers.
However, as the new report highlights, "many of the brand-name drugs listed on TrumpRx have significantly cheaper generic alternatives, which are excluded from TrumpRx. This means that TrumpRx steers families to pay more to Big Pharma when they could be getting the same medication at a much lower price."
"No matter what the president says, the bottom line is that TrumpRx directs families to buy expensive brand-name drugs when generic versions are available elsewhere at a fraction of the cost."
The report provides a chart comparing TrumpRx and generic prices, both for one prescription fill and the full annual cost. It also notes the difference. In some cases, the president's option is $10-50 more a year. However, there are also examples in which families could save hundreds or thousands of dollars with generic drugs.
For example, Colestid, a medication that lowers cholesterol, would cost $2,771.21 a year through TrumpRx, compared with $856.70 for the generic option, a difference of $1,914.51. The antidepressant Pristiq is $2,401.20 on the president's website, versus just $320.88 for the generic, a potential yearly savings of $2,080.32.
The biggest difference featured in the document is for Tikosyn, which helps patients maintain a normal heart rhythm. The TrumpRx annual cost is $4,032, whereas the generic is only $192.68, a difference of $3,839.32.
The report also stresses how extra costs from the president's site could stack up for households in which multiple people need medication:
"No matter what the president says, the bottom line is that TrumpRx directs families to buy expensive brand-name drugs when generic versions are available elsewhere at a fraction of the cost," said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee and the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care.
"The president should work with Democrats and Republicans to actually lower prescription drug costs for families," Hassan argued, "rather than helping Big Pharma line its pockets."
While the Trump White House responded defensively to the Democratic report, with spokesperson Kush Desai claiming to MS NOW that "product listings on TrumpRx.gov are in no way an endorsement for use of any prescription drug over another" and accusing Democrats of "resorting to idiotic or simply ignorant lines of attack instead of simply giving the president credit where it's due," the panel members aren't alone is highlighting such cost differences.
The added cost for US families also isn't lawmakers' only concern about TrumpRx. Last month, shortly before the site's launch, Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), and Peter Welch (Vt.) sent a letter to the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General raising concerns about the new direct-to-consumer (DTC) platform.
"There appear to be possible conflicts of interest involved in the potential relationship between TrumpRx and an online dispensing company, BlinkRx, on whose board the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., has sat since February 2025," they wrote. "Moreover, legitimate concerns about inappropriate prescribing, conflicts of interest, and inadequate care have been raised about the exact types of DTC platforms to which TrumpRx would route patients."
The trio also expressed alarm about high prices, noting that "pharmaceutical manufacturers who will reportedly be participating in TrumpRx have spent billions of dollars in combined advertising expenses for drugs sold on existing DTC platforms."
"The pharmaceutical industry's outrageous DTC advertisements fuel demand for specific medications, which balloon healthcare expenses," the senators wrote. "We are concerned that DTC advertising, including in relation to TrumpRx, will steer customers to prescriptions that may be reimbursed by federal health programs, creating the potential for unnecessary or wasteful spending."
"The president’s tax on American families is simply making things more expensive.”
As President Donald Trump persistently claims the economy is working for Americans, Democrats in the US House and Senate on Thursday released an analysis that puts a number to the recent polling that's found many Americans feel squeezed by higher prices: $1,200.
That's how much the average household in the US has paid in tariff costs over the past 10 months, according to the Joint Economic Committee—and costs are expected to continue climbing.
The Democrats, including Ranking Member Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), analyzed official US Treasury Department data on the amount of tariff revenue collected since the beginning of Trump's second term as he's imposed tariffs across the European Union and on dozens of other countries—some as high as 50%.
The White House has insisted the tariffs on imports will "pry open foreign markets" and force exporters overseas to pay more, resulting in lower prices for US consumers.
But the JEC combined the Treasury data with independent estimates of the percent of each tariff dollar that is paid by consumers, as companies pass along their higher import prices to them.
At first, US families were paying an average of less than $60 in tariff costs when Trump began the trade war in February and March.
But that amount shot up to more than $80 per family in April when he expanded the tariffs, and monthly costs have steadily increased since then.
In November, a total of $24.04 billion was paid by consumers in tariff costs—or $181.29 per family.
“While President Trump promised that he would lower costs, this report shows that his tariffs have done nothing but drive prices even higher for families."
From February-November, families have paid an average of $1,197.50 each, according to the JEC analysis.
“While President Trump promised that he would lower costs, this report shows that his tariffs have done nothing but drive prices even higher for families,” said Hassan.
If costs remain as high as they were over the next 12 months, families are projected to pay $2,100 per year as a result of Trump's tariffs.
The analysis comes a week after Republicans on a House Ways and Means subcommittee attempted to avoid the topic of tariffs—which have a 61% disapproval rating among the public, according to Pew Research—at a hearing on global competitiveness for workers and businesses.
"Rep. Jimmy Gomez [D-Calif.] read several quotes from [former Rep. Kevin] Brady [R-Texas] during his time in Congress stating that tariffs are taxes that impede economic growth. Brady, who chaired the Ways and Means Committee and drafted Trump’s first tax law in 2017 (and now works as a lobbyist), had no desire to discuss those quotes or the topic of tariffs," wrote Steve Warmhoff, federal policy director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "Nor did Republicans address the point made by the Democrats’ witness, Kimberly Clausing, when she explained that Trump’s tariffs are the biggest tax increase on Americans (measured as a share of the economy) since 1982."
Clausing estimated that the tariffs will amount "to an annual tax increase of about $1,700 for an average household" if they stay at current levels, while Trump's decision to lower tariffs on goods such as meat, vegetables, fruits, and coffee last month amounted to just $35 in annual savings per household.
The JEC has also recently released analyses of annual household electricity costs under Trump, which were projected to go up by $100 for the average family despite the president's campaign pledge that "your energy bill within 12 months will be cut in half."
Last month the panel found that the average household is spending approximately $700 more per month on essentials like food, shelter, and energy since Trump took office.
“At a time when both parties should be working together to lower costs," said Hassan on Thursday, "the president’s tax on American families is simply making things more expensive.”
"This isn’t normal," said the president of the group behind the ad campaign. "If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will."
The progressive advocacy group Demand Justice on Wednesday launched a seven-figure advertising campaign targeting three members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees, enabling the ongoing right-wing takeover of the nation's courts.
The first series of ads will target Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and Angus King (D-Maine), three of the 16 members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm at least one Trump judge this year. Other Senate Democrats who have voted with Republicans in support of at least one Trump judicial pick include Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California, and Chris Coons of Delaware.
"It is outrageous that Senate Democrats are voting to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees who refuse to tell the truth about January 6th and the 2020 election,” Josh Orton, the president of Demand Justice, said in a statement. “This isn’t normal. If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will. And we won’t let up.”
The group's campaign will also include a national cable TV ad buy and "coordinated digital rollout across key battleground states" naming and shaming Democrats who support "Trump loyalist judges" even as the lawmakers condemn the president's authoritarian assault on democracy.
Watch the Demand Justice ad targeting Maggie Hassan, who on Tuesday voted to confirm Lindsey Ann Freeman, Trump's nominee to the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina:
Freeman, like other Trump judicial picks, refused during her confirmation process to say directly that the president lost the 2020 election.
"President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States," Freeman wrote in response to questions from Durbin, who ultimately voted in favor of her confirmation.
In a report released last month, Demand Justice analyzed Trump judicial picks' written responses to senators' questions. The analysis shows that "nominees' responses appear nearly identical, with many nominees using verbatim phrasing, repeating key words, and, overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events."
"Every nominee provided near-identical phrasing to avoid a direct answer about the 2020 election, instead referencing the results of the congressional 'certification' process, or answering by noting that President Biden 'served' as president," the report notes. "And 21 of 27 nominees provided extremely similar responses in regard to January 6, often describing what transpired as a 'political issue' and refusing to comment further."
Orton of Demand Justice said that "it is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth."
That more than a dozen Senate Democrats still voted to confirm at least one of those nominees is "simply unacceptable," said Orton.
"While President Trump claimed that he would bring down prices, the reality is that Americans have seen their costs soar even higher since he took office."
Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report Thursday detailing how much more the average American family in every US state is having to spend monthly to cover the rising costs of food, shelter, energy, and other necessities under the leadership of President Donald Trump.
The panel released its report on the same day the Trump administration was supposed to publish the October Consumer Price Index (CPI) data. The closely watched CPI report was delayed by the shutdown, and the Trump White House said Wednesday that it's likely the figures will never be released.
Deploying the same methodology that Republicans used to track cost increases under former President Joe Biden, JEC Democrats found that the average US family is spending roughly $700 more per month on basic items since Trump took office in January, pledging to bring prices "way down."
"While President Trump claimed that he would bring down prices, the reality is that Americans have seen their costs soar even higher since he took office," said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the JEC's ranking member. "As families across the country spend more to pay their bills and put food on the table, Democrats and Republicans should be working together to lower costs. Instead, President Trump is pushing ahead with reckless tariffs that continue to fuel inflation and drive prices up even higher."
In some states—including Alaska, California, and Colorado—average families are spending over $1,000 more per month to maintain their living standards as costs continue to rise, in part due to Trump's erratic tariff regime.
The report's findings run directly counter to Trump's triumphant rhetoric on inflation and the US economy more broadly.
CNN's Daniel Dale noted earlier this week that Trump has been on a "lying spree about inflation," falsely claiming that "every price is down" and that "everybody knows that it's far less expensive under Trump than it was under Sleepy Joe Biden."
"None of that is true," Dale wrote. "Prices are up during this administration. Average prices were 1.7% higher in September than they were in January, according to the most recent figures from the federal Consumer Price Index, and 3% higher than they were in September 2024. There has been inflation every month of the term, and far more products have gotten costlier than cheaper."
"Inflation not only very much continues to exist but has been accelerating since the spring," Dale added. "As of September, the year-over-year inflation rate had increased for five consecutive months."
Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee said that "continued uncertainty" caused by the president's policies could reduce manufacturing investments by nearly half a trillion dollars by the end of this decade.
US President Donald Trump's tariff whiplash has already harmed domestic manufacturing and could continue to do so through at least the end of this decade to the tune of nearly half a trillion dollars, a report published Monday by congressional Democrats on a key economic committee warned.
The Joint Economic Committee (JEC)-Minority said that recent data belied Trump's claim that his global trade war would boost domestic manufacturing, pointing to the 37,000 manufacturing jobs lost since the president announced his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs in April.
"Hiring in the manufacturing sector has dropped to its lowest level in nearly a decade," the Democrats on the committee wrote. "In addition, many experts have noted that in and of itself, the uncertainty created by the administration so far could significantly damage the broader economy long-term."
"Based on both US business investment projections and economic analyses of the UK in the aftermath of Brexit, the Joint Economic Committee-Minority calculates that a similarly prolonged period of uncertainty in the US could result in an average of 13% less manufacturing investment per year, amounting to approximately $490 billion in foregone investment by 2029," the report states.
"The uncertainty created by the administration so far could significantly damage the broader economy long-term."
"Although businesses have received additional clarity on reciprocal tariff rates in recent days, uncertainty over outstanding negotiations is likely to continue to delay long-term investments and pricing decisions," the publication adds. "Furthermore, even if the uncertainty about the US economy were to end tomorrow, evidence suggests that the uncertainty that businesses have already faced in recent months would still have long-term consequences for the manufacturing sector."
According to the JEC Democrats, the Trump administration has made nearly 100 different tariff policy decisions since April—"including threats, delays, and reversals"—creating uncertainty and insecurity in markets and economies around the world. It's not just manufacturing and markets—economic data released last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that businesses in some sectors are passing the costs of Trump's tariffs on to consumers.
As the new JEC minority report notes:
As independent research has shown, businesses are less likely to make long-term investments when they face high uncertainty about future policies and economic conditions. For manufacturers, decisions to expand production—which often entail major, irreversible investments in equipment and new facilities that typically take years to complete—require an especially high degree of confidence that these expenses will pay off. This barrier, along with other factors, makes manufacturing the sector most likely to see its growth affected by trade policy uncertainty, as noted recently by analysts at Goldman Sachs.
"Strengthening American manufacturing is critical to the future of our economy and our national security," Joint Economic Committee Ranking Member Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said in a statement Monday. "While President Trump promised that he would expand our manufacturing sector, this report shows that, instead, the chaos and uncertainty created by his tariffs has placed a burden on American manufacturers that could weigh our country down for years to come."
One Democrat said it displays how "those who make up the backbone of our country—firefighters, teachers, truck drivers, and others—will all face higher costs because of President Trump's plans."
As U.S. President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress pursue a package that would give tax breaks to the wealthy by gutting programs for the working class, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee released a Tuesday report detailing how that so-called Big Beautiful Bill and the administration's tariffs would negative impact the "typical firefighter, teacher, or truck driver."
"Families across the country were already struggling because of high prices, and President Trump is increasing costs even more while giving the very wealthiest more tax breaks," said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), the panel's ranking member, in a statement. "This new analysis shows the ways in which those who make up the backbone of our country—firefighters, teachers, truck drivers, and others—will all face higher costs because of President Trump's plans, while the top 0.1% of earners get a massive windfall."
Specifically, according to the two-page report, the top 1% of income earners would see an estimated benefit of $32,450 next year, which soars to $348,500 for the top 0.1%. Meanwhile, the report shows a range of $250-710 in annual losses for various workers, including healthcare professionals, housekeepers, police officers, and retail employees.
For workers facing losses on the higher end of that range, that money could feed a family of two adults and two children for a few weeks, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data from April, which put the weekly cost of groceries at $229.40.
The Joint Economic Committee report on the GOP plans—which the panel's Democrats summarized by saying "middle-class workers lose, very wealthiest win"—is based on multiple nonpartisan sources, including the Congressional Budget Office.
Republicans in the House of Representatives passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last month, and the budget reconciliation package is now before the GOP-controlled Senate, where right-wing lawmakers are pushing various tax changes and bigger cuts to funding for Medicaid, a federal healthcare program for low-income people.
New polling from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that large shares of U.S. adults—including about two-thirds of Democrats and nearly that many Independents—think the government spends "too little" on Medicaid and food assistance programs.
As for Trump's tariffs, they remain in effect, for now, thanks to a recent federal appellate court decision, but oral arguments are scheduled for this summer. On Tuesday, a pair of toy companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court—which has a right-wing majority that includes three Trump appointees—to weigh in on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) empowers the president to impose such tariffs.
In a filing to the high court, lawyers for Learning Resources and hand2mind wrote that "in light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process (even on an expedited timeline)."