

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 Trump SEC is seeking to bail out the struggling private equity and private credit industry with hardworking Americans' retirement savings."
The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday proposed policies that SEC Chair Paul Atkins framed as an effort to promote private market investments by retail investors—or everyday Americans—while also "protecting those investors from bad actors and fraud," but critics accused the Republican-dominated federal agency of serving Wall Street at the expense of the public.
"Chair Atkins talks about the 'responsible retailization' of the private markets, but the rules the SEC proposed today are irresponsible," declared Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy for the nonprofit Better Markets. "The SEC is supposed to protect retail investors from risky private market assets. Instead, it is encouraging investors saving for college and retirement to direct their savings to private market investments that do not offer greater returns but that do offer less disclosure and more limited legal recourse when harmed."
"Although hedge funds may charge fees based on performance to their investors, the SEC has long prohibited investment advisers from charging retail investors performance-based fees," Schiffrin explained. "This protects them from arrangements that might encourage advisers to take undue risks with retail client funds to increase their compensation. Yet the SEC's proposed rules would make such arrangements permissible. This change would eliminate a limitation on the ability of private funds that charge performance-based fees to sell to retail investors and would incentivize advisers to push retail clients into risky private funds that have performance-based fees."
The new rules would also make it easier to sell interval funds, which "hold complex and illiquid assets and charge high fees," Schiffrin noted. "Given that many interval funds have faced heightened redemption requests from existing investors seeking to exit these funds in recent months, now hardly seems like the time to further expose retail investors to these funds."
“Perhaps most troublingly, the SEC expands the categories of individuals who qualify as so-called 'accredited investors' to whom private market assets may be sold," he continued. Specifically, the agency said it is considering letting individuals with some certificates or licenses—such as certified public accountants, research analysts, and financial analysts and planners—qualify.
"Accredited investors are supposed to be institutions and individuals with enough assets to bear the risk of loss inherent in private market assets," Schiffrin stressed. "Now, the SEC would allow individuals to qualify as accredited investors without regard to their ability to lose money in the private markets."
The expert also highlighted the timing of these proposals, pointing to the agency's Monday statement that "reminded the private funds industry of its obligations regarding valuing assets and providing disclosure to investors," which Schiffrin said was "obviously intended to provide cover for the SEC's desired expansion of the private markets."
"Having previously downplayed the turmoil in the private credit markets, continued redemption requests by private credit investors forced the SEC to acknowledge that private market assets are particularly risky and to reassure investors it was not asleep at the switch," he said. "Yet the statement begs the question of why the SEC would seek to expose retail investors to the private markets at the same time it acknowledges the risks that private market assets pose even to institutional investors."
"The answer is that the SEC has lost its way," he concluded. "Its agenda is now the financial industry's agenda, and private funds need access to retail investors and their savings as institutional investors increasingly pull back from private markets. So the proposed rules the SEC issued today have nothing to do with 'democratizing access' to the private markets and everything to do with allowing the financial industry to prey on unsuspecting retail investors."
The SEC chair said Wednesday that the agency's latest moves "complement efforts undertaken pursuant to" President Donald Trump's August 2025 executive order on Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors—which Schiffrin warned last year "exemplifies the administration's determination to prioritize the interests of Wall Street over the interests of Main Street and retail investors."
"Let's be clear: Neither 401(k) plan sponsors or 401(k) plan participants—regular, hardworking Americans—are asking to replace stocks and bonds in their 401(k)s with risky private assets," Schiffrin said at the time. "Instead, the private funds industry needs a way to get its hands on the $12 trillion in Americans' retirement accounts to boost its profits and make up for the fact that institutional investors are fleeing the private markets due to mediocre returns, higher fees, and more risk."
Despite such criticism of Trump's order, the US Department of Labor unveiled its related proposal in March. Jim Baker, executive director of the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project, pointed to the pending DOL policy in a Wednesday statement responding to the SEC action.
"With the proposed rules, combined with the DOL's 401(k) rule, the Trump SEC is seeking to bail out the struggling private equity and private credit industry with hardworking Americans' retirement savings," he said. "Private equity funds have lagged public markets while charging much higher fees, and institutional investors are pulling back from the asset class. These rules risk shifting more financial risk onto workers who rely on their retirement savings for long-term security."
"Private equity firms are already under pressure from a backlog of unsold assets and declining distributions to investors," Baker emphasized. “At the same time, policymakers are giving private equity access to retirement savers' 401(k) plans, raising serious questions about whether these investment risks are being shifted onto everyday retirement savers."
"Retirement accounts exist to provide security, not to bail out private market investments by shifting liquidity risk onto workers when markets turn," he added. "At a minimum, the SEC should hold private equity to the same disclosure and transparency standards expected of publicly traded stocks, mutual funds, and [exchange-traded funds], including clear reporting on what funds are investing in, the fees and expenses retirement savers are paying, the amount of debt funds are using, and how these investments are actually performing compared with stocks."
Key members of Congress also responded to the SEC's Wednesday proposals. While Republicans on the US Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee welcomed the push to expand the accredited investor definition, which aligns with Chair Tim Scott's (R-SC) Empowering Main Street in America Act, Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was critical.
"Today, the SEC proposed a new rule that would override decades-old protections for Americans' retirements to allow Wall Street to start charging high, private equity-level fees on lower-cost retail funds," Warren said. "Americans already struggling to save in Trump's economy shouldn’t be used as piggy banks to boost the profits of Trump’s Wall Street buddies."
"This brazen scheme is illegal many times over and is an affront to the basic principle that the government exists to serve the people, not to enrich cronies and insiders," said their lawyer.
A pair of watchdog groups on Thursday sued President Donald Trump and other US officials over their "pay-to-play" scheme that gives subscribers who fork over a monthly fee of up to $100,000 early access to key decision-makers' posts on Truth Social.
The president's Trump Media & Technology Group announced the social media platform's program in July, drawing swift criticism from ethics experts and Democratic lawmakers—including House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who opened a probe. Despite corruption concerns, Truth Application Programming Interface (API) launched early last month.
Because Truth API covers the accounts of Trump, as well as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel, they are all named in the new suit—as is the president's executive assistant, Natalie Harp.
"It is no accident that the Truth API covers so many official government accounts," says the complaint, filed by American Oversight and Campaign for Accountability, in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. "Information the Trump administration disseminates on Truth Social through its official accounts can have significant consequences for the global economy."
"Truth API subscribers—who now receive this potentially market-moving information before the rest of the public—can profit on their early knowledge of what the Trump administration says, does, and believes," the filing stresses.
In other words, "the president is selling Wall Street faster access to official government announcements and lining his own pockets in the process," said American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. "Like so much of his agenda, this scheme is built to benefit the wealthy and well-connected while the rest of us are pushed to the back of the line."
Gerstein Harrow attorney Samuel Davis, who is representing the groups, declared that "this brazen scheme is illegal many times over and is an affront to the basic principle that the government exists to serve the people, not to enrich cronies and insiders."
Specifically, "this two-tier system of access" not only "serves no legitimate public purpose" but also "is irrational, inequitable, and illegal under the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution and the Paperwork Reduction Act," the complaint argues. After outlining the alleged violations of federal law, the filing asks the court to declare the scheme unconstitutional and unlawful.
"If President Trump has one talent, it is finding new and creative ways to monetize his presidency," Campaign for Accountability executive director Michelle Kuppersmith said of the man who has pocketed at least $2.2 billion—over half of it from his family's cryptocurrency endeavors—during his first year back in the White House, according to recent disclosures.
"In another era, Congress would be outraged and take immediate action, but since that's out of the question, a lawsuit offers the only possible remedy," Kuppersmith continued. "We look forward to discovery so the American public can learn exactly which companies are willing to pay up."
The suit—filed less than two months ahead of the November midterm elections in which Democrats aim to take control of both chambers of Congress from Trump's Republican Party—is not the first filed over Trump API. The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and the media outlet The Intercept sued last month in the Southern District of New York.
That pair—represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, the Public Integrity Project, and Altshuler Berzon—filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction earlier this month. The Intercept's CEO, Annie Chabel, said that "Trump doesn't get to charge people for his own public statements."
"The First Amendment doesn't have a paywall, and we're not going to let him build one," Chabel added. "Journalists and the public shouldn't have to pay the president for news he's constitutionally obligated to share with everyone."
"Doctors should be able to do what's best for their patients, not what's best for some wealthy investor."
Thanks to legislation passed in Oregon last year, physicians in the state have stopped corporate takeovers of medical practices—and six Democratic members of Congress on Wednesday introduced a bill to replicate the state law nationwide, arguing, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, that "patients want to know that decisions about their health are being made by their doctors, not by Wall Street investors."
The Massachusetts Democrat was joined by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), along with Reps. Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) in introducing the Stop Corporate Takeovers of Physicians Act.
The bill would ban the corporate practice of medicine by making it illegal for private equity funds, insurance companies, and other for-profit corporations to own or control medical practices—as is increasingly the case in the profit-driven US healthcare system.
Over 80% of doctors in the US are employed by corporate entities including private equity firms—up from 62% just seven years ago, according to the lawmakers.
Corporations have also exploited legal loopholes that allow them to take over medical practices, despite laws in over 30 states banning the corporate practice of medicine.
“Americans want medical decisions to stay between patients and their doctor, not dictated by corporate actors and private equity firms focused on maximizing profits,” said Wyden. “I’m proud of Oregon’s pioneering state law that has been used by doctors to protect their independence, and it’s time to take that model to the federal level. Corporate medicine is making healthcare more expensive for everyone, and safeguards must be put in place to ensure healthcare decisions stay in the hands of physicians.”
The legislation would:
"But these actors often challenge the autonomy of acquired physicians once in control," they said. "For example, corporate entities often assume control over clinical operations, management and staffing decisions, and billing and coding practices—all of which can exert pressure on physicians to change care delivery."
Such entities "often cut corners, leading to patients paying more for significantly worse care," said Ocasio-Cortez. “I’m proud to co-lead the Stop Corporate Takeovers of Physicians Act to get Wall Street out of Americans’ doctors’ offices."
Warren added that "doctors should be able to do what's best for their patients, not what's best for some wealthy investor."
BREAKING: Today, I'm introducing a bill to BAN corporate takeovers of your doctor's office.
Doctors should be able to care for their patients without greedy private equity investors getting in the way.
Let's get this done. pic.twitter.com/e3gdamIotQ
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 16, 2026
The legislation is supported by several medical associations as well as economic justice advocates.
"A prohibition is only as strong as its enforcement, and this bill backs its corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) prohibition with three enforcement paths: the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general suing on behalf of residents, and physicians themselves through a private right of action with treble damages. That layered enforcement, paired with mandatory divestment, is what gives this bill teeth that earlier CPOM laws have often lacked,” said Dr. Marco Fernandez, president of the Association for Independent Medicine.
Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, said that the "groundbreaking legislation is absolutely needed to give health providers and patients a fighting chance against corporate greed."
"Congress must stop private equity from ripping the copper wires out of American healthcare and put patients first," said Lawson. "Social Security Works is proud to endorse this legislation."
Charles Idelson, the former communications director of National Nurses United, which advocates for Medicare for All, said the bill "would help close some, though not all, of the worst profiteering in healthcare."
"Exploiting sickness to enrich wealthy executives," said Idelson, "is obscene."
The president is making "significant profits on the global instability he's inciting," said one government ethics expert. "It's profoundly unethical."
In a mandated filing with the Office of Government Ethics released Thursday, President Donald Trump was found to have made more than 1,000 stock transactions in June, including thousands of dollars invested in energy companies that were reaping record profits from the war Trump started with Iran.
Trump submitted financial disclosure forms to the OGE covering the second quarter of 2026, during which the Iran War continued, was paused for a ceasefire, and restarted again.
CBS News pointed to a "notable large transaction" on April 7, the day Trump declared a ceasefire with Iran after having threatened to destroy the country's "entire civilization." His investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million of ExxonMobil stock that same day.
The filings were submitted days after Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) estimated that Trump's oil and gas stocks have soared in value since before he began attacking Iran in February—an act that raised oil prices due to Iran's retaliatory closing of the Strait of Hormuz. The holdings were estimated at $13 million to $46 million at the start of 2026 and $17 million to $61 million this month.
"President Trump saw his wealth go up by as much as $15.5 million just through stocks he owned in oil and gas companies at the end of 2025," said the JEC Democrats. "These companies’ profits and stock values are rising because Trump’s reckless war in Iran has caused gas and oil prices to skyrocket."
The JEC's estimates were based on his holdings in 2025 and did not account for the trades he continued to make as the war dragged on.
"Trump's war in Iran has inflicted higher energy and gas prices on the American people," said Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Meanwhile, Trump's brokers have been trading oil and gas stocks for him, helping him profit on the global instability he's inciting. It's profoundly unethical."
The White House said the president does not make trades himself, but CREW president Donald Sherman told CBS News that Trump should not be making "significant profits on the global instability he's inciting."
"President Trump's war of choice in Iran has cost the American people in the form of higher energy and gas prices and higher shipping costs," Sherman said. "Meanwhile, Trump's brokers have been trading oil and gas stocks for him... It doesn't matter whether he's trading the stocks himself—the president has a duty to avoid conflicts of interest between his finances and what's best for the American people."
Unlike other US presidents, Trump has refused to place his assets in a blind trust, instead continuing to hold stocks that are visible to him in all 11 sectors involved in the stock market.
In June, the president's stock portfolio made a series of energy trades, including two sales and one purchase of ExxonMobil stock that were valued between $1,001 and $15,000. He also bought and sold Chevron stocks three times and made three sales of ConocoPhillips holdings.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said that the new filings show "Trump's only focus is enriching himself at the expense of the American people."
An open letter to Trump's Treasury Secretary, whose economic analysis is, frankly... shite.
Dear Scott (if I may).
I’ve argued that the K-shaped economy — a term used to describe growing inequality between high- and low-income households — can be seen in sales of McDonald’s burgers, whose lower- and middle-income customers fell by double digits in the first quarter of 2025 as they struggled with affordability.
Last Monday, you criticized me, arguing that McDonald’s problems are instead due to competition from rivals like Burger King.
(By the way, Scott,Bill Clinton didn’t fire me and Berkeley won’t, either. But your boss has a well-recorded tendency to fire his Cabinet secretaries, so I’d be careful if I were you.)
In a recent interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” you even declared that the U.S. economy is no longer in a K shape: “I got sick of hearing about this K-shaped economy. I can say here definitively, the K-shaped economy is over.”
As a former Cabinet secretary, I hope you won’t mind if I’m candid with a current one. Scott, your analysis is full of shite. It’s still a K-shaped economy.
Lower-income workers continue to struggle with stagnant wages and inflation, while high-income workers are riding high on the wealth effects of the stock market. Real wages may be growing slightly more for low income than high income, but the booming stock market is mostly benefiting the high income.
Widening inequalities are partly due to policies you and your boss in the Oval Office have been pursuing — especially your tariffs and war in Iran, both of which have been pushing prices upward and imposing a far greater burden on lower-income than high-income Americans.
July’s jobs report showed wage growth falling sharply, with average hourly earnings increasing at the slowest pace in five years — 3.2% year-over-year. Inflation, meanwhile, is not slowing. As a result, consumers’ purchasing power is falling. Prices are now rising 3.5% year-over-year, as wage growth has slowed to just 3.2% — meaning that the real earnings of Americans have been dropping since April.
And I’m not just talking about McDonald’s, Scott. When major retailers reported quarterly results in May, many noted the growing divide between high- and low-income consumers. Wealthier households continue to drive spending, while lower- and middle-income households struggle to keep up. “We certainly see with our higher-income consumers, they’re benefiting probably from the wealth effect of a buoyant stock market,” said Walmart’s CFO John David Rainey. “But with low-income consumers, they don’t necessarily get that benefit, and then it’s a little bit more of paycheck to paycheck.”
Grocery chains like Kroger are considering rolling back prices to gain market share in this K-shaped consumer environment. Target is also trying to adjust to it. We’re “expanding both low, low price points, starting at $1, all the way up to some of the new premium brands,” says Cara Sylvester, who became Target’s chief merchandising officer in mid-February.
On recent quarterly earnings calls, CEOs in grocery, outdoor apparel, and kids’ apparel noted the same K-shape pattern. Kevin Depew, deputy chief economist and industry eminence program leader at RSM, attributes what’s happening to an economy in which lower- and middle-income households face real spending pressure while upper-income consumers remain cushioned by equity gains. Home improvement retailer Home Depot notes the impact of higher fuel costs in particular. “There’s no question that the average consumer is feeling pressure from rising fuel costs,” Home Depot CFO Richard McPhail said.
Other major firms report that premium travel and high-end goods (luxury airline seats and high-tier tech products) have seen double-digit growth, while discount retailers and dollar stores report high demand for basic necessities from budget-constrained consumers.
Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City confirm the same trend. After analyzing changes in consumer spending between 2021 and 2025, they found that households with high incomes (fourth and fifth quintiles) increased their spending substantially faster than did consumers with low incomes (first to third quintiles). Because inflation-adjusted wage growth for the bottom quartiles has lagged behind top earners, everyday expenses like groceries, rent, and insurance are consuming larger shares of lower-income budgets.
The Federal Reserve’s May Beige Book also reflects this K-shaped divide, noting that higher-income households have remained relatively resilient, while lower-income consumers are showing greater financial strain and increased reliance on credit.
According to Moody’s Analytics, the richest 10% of American earners — composed of households making about $250,000 a year or more — are driving a record 49.7% of total U.S. consumer spending, significantly boosting the economy through the wealth effect of higher stock and home prices. They own over 90% of the value of all shares of stock, so big gains in the stock market have encouraged them to splurge on everything from vacations to designer handbags. “The finances of the well-to-do have never been better, their spending never stronger and the economy never more dependent on that group,” says Mark Zandi, who oversaw the analysis, based on data from the Federal Reserve. Zandi says the K-shaped economy remains “firmly intact.”
All told, rich Americans have increased their spending far beyond inflation, but nobody else has. The bottom 80% of earners spent 25% more than they did four years earlier, barely outpacing price increases of 21% over that period. And they’re going into debt to do so (researchers find auto repossessions and credit card delinquencies rising among lower-to-middle-income borrowers). But the top 10% spent 58% more.
Research by U.S.Bank also shows the K-shaped economy’s divide across household balance sheets, labor market access, generational wealth-building, and sector performance. “Higher-income households are more likely to own homes, equities, and retirement assets,” says Matt Schoeppner, senior economist for U.S. Bank, “allowing them to participate more directly when financial markets and home values rise.”
Federal Reserve distributional data reveal that wealth is increasingly concentrated. As of the fourth quarter of 2025, the richest 1% of Americans held 29.2% of the nation’s aggregate wealth (up from around 20% in the early 1990s), compared with just 5.3% for the bottom half.

Meanwhile, lower- and middle-income households are struggling. “Wage gains for most have been moderating, while essential costs for rent, groceries and gasoline remain elevated,” notes Schoeppner. “At the same time, savings buffers have continued to narrow while reliance on credit — particularly credit cards — has increased.”

Scott, what more evidence do you need? If this isn’t a K-shaped economy, what is it?
The labor market further reveals the K-shape. Hiring rates have fallen to 15-year lows of around 3.2% while layoff rates remain near historically low levels of 1.1%. In this “low-hire, low-fire” environment, workers who are already employed have some stability, but job seekers and those looking to advance are in trouble.
This is significant because mobility is the major way for workers to improve earnings, move into higher-productivity roles, and build financial buffers. “When hiring slows and job-switching premiums narrow,” says Beth Ann Bovino, U.S. Bank’s chief economist, “pathways to higher pay and better job matches become more limited.”
As a result, the labor market can appear stable at the aggregate level while becoming less dynamic beneath the surface — particularly for workers in lower-wage or more cyclical industries.
I’ve got to emphasize how badly the war in Iran is aggravating this K-shaped divide. U.S. Bank’s Schoeppner notes that “the resulting higher gasoline prices … may be more of an inconvenience for higher-income households, but for those with thinner buffers, they can quickly crowd out discretionary spending.” The San Francisco Fed has similarly noted that elevated gasoline and grocery costs are consuming a larger share of household budgets among the bottom 80%.
Credit conditions reveal the same widening divide. Bovino notes that lower-income households “tend to rely more heavily on higher-cost borrowing and devote a larger share of income to debt service, leaving them more sensitive to higher rates and reduced credit availability.” Recent Beige Book commentary also points to increased reliance on credit among lower-income households. The April 2026 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey shows tighter lending standards across key segments, suggesting that access to financing is becoming more constrained.
Scott, it’s important that you and your colleagues at the treasury and elsewhere in the Trump administration know what’s going on. The K-shaped economy can make the macro environment appear more stable than it is actually experienced by average working Americans. The fact is, the overall health of the economy increasingly depends on a narrowing base of consumption coming from the wealthy — who are spending because their stock market assets have risen so high but will stop spending if and when the stock market comes back to earth.
Meanwhile, inflation and credit pressures continue to land especially hard on lower-income Americans. In that sense, the K-shaped economy is not just a feature of recent cycles. It’s become the defining characteristic of how today’s economy absorbs shocks and generates growth.
Go ahead, Scott — attack me with all the ad hominem arguments you want. But you need to know the reality I’m talking about. You’re the one with the power. I’m just a retired professor. Your failure to comprehend the struggles facing average working Americans makes me worry that you and your boss will continue to pursue policies that worsen them.
Best wishes, Scott.
"Trump's right. His economy is a win for Wall Street. Meanwhile, while the rich get richer, millions of Americans cannot afford the basic necessities of life."
President Donald Trump on Friday said that the US economy is "doing unbelievably from the standpoint of Wall Street," bragging about record equity prices as job and wage growth remain stagnant and millions of Americans struggle to afford groceries.
In remarks to reporters, Trump hailed what he described as "the best market in history" as the S&P 500 index notched its third consecutive week of gains and hovered near its all-time high. The president, a prolific trader who has personally profited from the stock market's performance, said surging equities are "good for 401(k)s"—retirement accounts that a growing share of Americans are tapping to cover emergency expenses amid a worsening cost-of-living crisis.
"Trump's right. His economy is a win for Wall Street," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in response to the president. "Meanwhile, while the rich get richer, millions of Americans cannot afford the basic necessities of life—food, housing, healthcare, and a decent retirement."
The Alliance for Retired Americans, an advocacy group with more than 4 million members across the US, expressed astonishment at Trump's rosy and narrow assessment of the economy, which the White House posted on its official YouTube page.
"Can't make it up," the group wrote on social media. "We don't live on Wall Street. How is the economy working for you?"
Trump's comments came the same day that new data showed US consumer sentiment has fallen in August after two consecutive months of improvement, with Americans' outlook on the nation's economic conditions worsening across the political spectrum.
Last week, the Labor Department published figures showing that the US economy shed 23,000 jobs in July, wage growth decelerated, and the unemployment rate fell slightly as more people left the workforce.
Despite Trump's promise to bring them down, prices remain elevated across the economy, driven in part by the president's illegal war against Iran. Research published last month by the Urban Institute found that American families are increasingly relying on savings and credit—including buy now, pay later programs—to meet their grocery needs.
Americans are also facing what The Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers describe as "a worsening utility debt crisis."
"Energy bills have increased three times faster than the rate of inflation while Trump has been president," the groups wrote in an analysis published last month. "The national average monthly utility bill reached $280 in early 2026, a 12% increase since the end of 2024, just before the second Trump administration took office."
Meanwhile, corporate profits are booming under Trump, with the pharmaceutical industry, Big Oil, and other sectors posting banner earnings.
"Second quarter earnings for S&P 500 companies are on pace to rise 50% year over year, the highest growth rate since the second quarter of 2021," Yahoo Finance reported.
“Hiding the consumer narratives and concealing the wrongdoing of corporations and powerful interests—that’s what you do if you’re afraid of the truth,” said one advocate.
Consumer complaints against financial companies have skyrocketed over the past three years, and the trend drove President Donald Trump's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to take action Friday—but not against the firms that have been accused of charging unfair fees, failing to resolve disputed credit card charges, attempting to wrongly collect debts, and other offenses.
Instead, the CFPB announced that it would no longer be publishing complaint "narratives"—the written description by a complainant of their interaction with the financial company—or data visualizations in the database of complaints, hiding from public view consumers' remarks on the institutions' business practices.
“Hiding the consumer narratives and concealing the wrongdoing of corporations and powerful interests—that’s what you do if you’re afraid of the truth,” said Diane Thompson, deputy director and chief advocacy officer at the National Consumer Law Center, in response to the bureau's announcement. “Nothing could be a clearer sign of the Trump CFPB’s choice to stand against ordinary people and for corporate power and predation.”
The CFPB asserted that "the utility" of the public database of complaint narratives has proven "minimal" since the bureau began publishing the complaints in 2015, four years after it began allowing consumers to submit the complaints, as required by law.
"By their very nature, complaint narratives reflect negative consumer experiences and present only one side of an issue," said the CFPB.
Christine Hines, senior policy director at the National Association of Consumer Advocates, suggested that presenting "only one side" of an interaction that a consumer has with a financial institution is the point of the database.
"Nearly 6 million consumers who have filed with the CFPB have received some kind of relief, such as getting money back or getting a mistake on a credit report fixed. That’s a real, tangible benefit the public database makes possible."
“As it shuts down narratives in the complaint database, this CFPB is disregarding its obligation to make the marketplace fair and transparent for everyday consumers, and instead, is helping big banks, lenders, debt collectors, credit bureaus, and others to evade public scrutiny and accountability,” said Hines.
Companies have 15 days to respond to a complaint before the CFPB makes the consumers' comments public. The bureau has published more than 17 million complaints that have been made since 2011, and in each of the last three years, the complaints have doubled annually.
The bureau received 6.6. million complaints in 2025, up from 3.2 million in 2024 and 1.6 million in 2023.
Erie Meyer, who served as chief technologist at the CFPB and helped build the complaint database, accused the Trump administration of "inventing excuses to hide credit reporting and Wall Street abuses from the public."
"More than 17 million people have filed complaints with the CFPB about their credit report, mortgage provider, student loan servicer, payment app, or bank account—and the CFPB in turn has worked diligently to resolve these problems, even saving people’s homes from foreclosure and cars from repossession," said Meyer. "Taking down this data doesn’t protect consumers from confusion, but it does protect companies from public transparency and scrutiny."
Meyer also pushed back against the administration's claim that the database is rife with "confusing or misleading information" submitted by complainants.
"The CFPB complaint database and its narratives are the earliest warning system we have for what’s breaking in the economy," said Meyer. "Before a single story is published, the CFPB confirms the person is a real customer of that company. The company gets two weeks to respond, on the record, in public. That’s not an anonymous internet review—that’s closer to due process than most Americans get anywhere else in their financial lives. Burying this information is an intentional decision to make corporate misconduct harder to see.”
The new rule was announced two months after former CFPB acting Director Russell Vought purged the bureau's backlog of complaints and made other changes that, the administration said, were aimed at eliminating artificial intelligence-generated and duplicative complaints.
The database, said Public Interest Research Network consumer campaign director Mike Litt, ensures that "companies have an incentive to respond to and fix problems precisely because complaints are made public."
“Hiding the ‘narratives’ or any other part of the CFPB’s Consumer Complaint Database would truly hurt consumers. Americans deserve user-friendly, searchable access to details about these issues, so they can make educated purchasing decisions," said Litt. "Nearly 6 million consumers who have filed with the CFPB have received some kind of relief, such as getting money back or getting a mistake on a credit report fixed. That’s a real, tangible benefit the public database makes possible."
Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, added that law enforcement agencies, Congress, and the press have all been informed by complaint narratives "on what problems are occurring in their communities."
“These narratives, all published with consumer consent, convey the emotional hurt caused when companies act without regard for the law," said Rust. "It’s wrong, especially at a time when so many people are struggling to make ends meet, to blunt their voices.”
In a sane world, Trump would be impeached for such a blatantly illegal scheme. But that's not the world we currently live in.
You may not have heard about this latest tax from Trump. That could be because he’s not going through Congress to get it. Also, this scam could get buried in the middle of his many other grifting schemes. Trump is starting a new special subscription service to his social media platform, Truth Social, where big investors will pay $100,000 a month for advance access to Trump posts that can move markets.
This means that the next time Trump posts that he will blow Iran off the map and sends oil prices soaring, the people who paid Trump’s fee will have the opportunity to buy oil futures before the jump. The same story applies on the way down, as when he posts that a deal with Iran’s leaders is imminent.
And the inside information goes well beyond oil prices. He may announce a big military contract with Lockheed or one of his sons’ companies, sending stock prices soaring. Or he could announce a big DEI investigation of Disney or some other Hollywood entertainment company, causing their stock to plummet.
There are an infinite number of ways that Trump Truth Social announcements can move markets. This subscription service allows rich investors around the country to get in on the action.
If it’s not clear how Trump’s scheme amounts to a tax on your 401(k), think more carefully. If Trump’s clients get the jump on a big rise in oil prices, that means that they get the money, not you. This is true even if, like the vast majority of small investors, you are not actively managing your funds.
The person who is managing whatever fund(s) you hold will pay the higher price for oil or stock or anything else the funds might buy because Trump’s accomplices got their first. The same applies on the way down. The fund will get less money because the Trump gang already sold the stock before your fund manager had the chance to do so.
At this point, we can’t know how much money is involved because we don’t know how many big investors are prepared to sign up for what is blatantly an insider trading scheme. But we can do some speculation.
First, we need to calculate how much money an investor would expect to make from a service where they are paying $1.2 million a year. Since this scheme would likely lead to civil and possibly criminal charges if the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or Justice Department ever gets taken over by honest people, it seems a very big payoff would be required.
Any person paying Trump for insider information would need to expect substantial legal bills, and also the possibility of being forced to leave the country or face prison time. (Ask Martha Stewart.) Let’s say the payoff has to be at least 20 to 1, which would mean they would need to earn $24 million a year for their Trump Truth Social subscription to make sense.
Then we need to speculate on how many people are prepared to sign up for Trump’s racket. We know Wall Street is a cesspool, but this level of open corruption is probably too sleazy even for most of the big traders. Still, there could be a 1,000 Trump-loving sewer dwellers who don’t mind being open about their thefts.
In that case, the Trump insiders would be siphoning off $24 billion a year from other investors in the market. That is not huge in the context of a $7.5 trillion budget, but it is larger than many things we have big fights over.
For example, the AIDS program for Africa, which saved tens of millions of lives, and Elon Musk eagerly fed into the wood chopper, cost $6 billion a year. That’s roughly a fourth of Trump’s 401(k) tax. The cost of extending the subsidies in the ACA exchanges, which Trump and the Republicans ended, would have been a bit higher at $27 billion a year.
So, 401(k) holders and other small investors are paying a considerable chunk of money through this “tax” to Trump and his enrolled insiders. As I said, this tax is not going to Congress for approval, but we can assume that all the Republicans in Congress approve of it. If not, Trump would be impeached for such a blatantly illegal scheme, but we know the Republican motto: “If Trump Does It, It’s Good.”
Advance knowledge of both a military threat and its cancellation could allow politically connected traders to profit from the oil market twice—first from the panic, then from its disappearance.
Military threats move markets before they move armies. Announce a massive strike against Iranian oil, military, and infrastructure sites, and traders will immediately begin pricing in damaged production, regional retaliation, interrupted shipping, higher insurance costs, and possible disruption of the Strait of Hormuz. No missile needs to be launched. The announcement itself can add a substantial geopolitical premium to every barrel of oil.
Cancel the attack a few days later, however, and much of that premium may disappear just as quickly. Oil prices fall as traders conclude that the threatened supply disruption will not occur.
For ordinary investors, this is an exceptionally dangerous sequence. They must guess whether the threat is credible, whether an attack will happen, how much damage it might cause, whether Iran will retaliate, and how long any disruption will last. But for someone possessing advance knowledge of both the threat and its prearranged cancellation, the same sequence could provide an extraordinary opportunity to profit from a government-created price movement in both directions.
Consider a hypothetical political-corruption scheme.
Before the threat is announced, politically connected insiders go long 1,000 crude-oil futures contracts at $75 per barrel. A standard crude-oil futures contract represents 1,000 barrels, so 1,000 contracts provide exposure to one million barrels of oil. At $75 per barrel, the position has a notional value of $75 million.
This hypothetical identifies a corruption risk that should not be dismissed merely because it does not resemble the traditional envelope of cash passed beneath a table.
The traders do not necessarily put up the entire $75 million. Futures are leveraged instruments. Depending on prevailing exchange requirements, broker rules, and market volatility, a position of that size might require roughly $9 million in initial collateral, although a broker could demand considerably more for such a concentrated and conspicuous trade.
Then comes the public announcement: a massive military strike is imminent.
Television networks display maps of Iranian oil facilities. Analysts speculate about retaliation. Commentators warn that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed. Traders who had bet on lower oil prices rush to cover their short positions, while momentum buyers pile into the market out of fear that oil will soon become still more expensive.
Suppose the price rises from $75 to $100 per barrel.
The insiders close their 1,000 long contracts. A $25 increase across one million barrels produces a gross profit of $25 million.
But they are not finished.
Knowing the military threat is scheduled to be withdrawn, they immediately reverse direction and sell short 1,000 contracts at $100. To the public, the crisis appears to be intensifying. To the insiders, the ending is already known.
A few days later, the attack is canceled. With the immediate threat to oil production receding, the geopolitical premium collapses and oil falls from $100 back to $75. The insiders buy back the 1,000 contracts they previously sold short, earning another $25 million.
The two trades produce a combined gross profit of approximately $50 million. Measured against the roughly $9 million initially posted as collateral, that is about a 556% gross return. Not bad.
That figure should not be confused with a risk-free return on an ordinary $9 million investment. Technically, the traders would still control positions with notional values ranging from $75 million to $100 million. Futures margin requirements might rise. Prices could temporarily move against them. A broker might require additional collateral. A position of 1,000 contracts could attract regulatory scrutiny, although that possibility could be alleviated.
Inside information would not make those risks literally disappear. It would, however, radically reduce the central uncertainty facing everyone else: that is, which direction the market will move after each announcement. Knowing both turning points would make the enormous notional exposure far less worrisome than it would be to an ordinary trader.
Who pays for the insiders’ profits?
During the first phase, traders who had previously sold oil short may be forced to buy back their contracts as prices rise. Those purchases can accelerate the spike and provide liquidity for insiders closing profitable long positions near the top.
During the second phase, the losses fall on investors who buy after hearing the military threat. These late buyers are not necessarily irrational. They are reacting to public information supplied by government officials and to the genuine possibility of war, damaged infrastructure, and interrupted oil supplies. But they do not know that the threat is scripted to disappear.
When the attack is canceled and oil falls, those buyers are left holding the bag. Their losses become the economic counterpart of the insiders’ second profit.
What appears to the public as an unfolding geopolitical emergency therefore appears to the insider as a price chart whose two principal turning points have been conveniently set.
This hypothetical does not establish that any particular official, relative, donor, associate, or political ally has executed such trades. Suspicion is not proof. A serious allegation would require trading records, beneficial-ownership information, communications, financial disclosures, and evidence connecting traders to those controlling the announcements. Examining such records could be discouraged.
What appears to the public as an unfolding geopolitical emergency therefore appears to the insider as a price chart whose two principal turning points have been conveniently set.
This hypothetical identifies a corruption risk that should not be dismissed merely because it does not resemble the traditional envelope of cash passed beneath a table.
Government officials possess the power to create market-moving information. Military threats, sanctions, tariff announcements, regulatory decisions, and abrupt policy reversals can generate billions of dollars in gains and losses within hours. When advance notice of those actions is shared selectively—or when public policy is manipulated for private profit—the government itself becomes the instrument of market manipulation.
That possibility demands safeguards: timely disclosure of officials’ financial interests, meaningful restrictions on trading by senior policymakers and their households, scrutiny of unusual commodity positions surrounding major announcements, preservation of relevant communications, and investigation of accounts whose beneficial owners may be concealed behind partnerships, trusts, or shell entities.
The central question is not whether a hypothetical insider could make money from a manufactured crisis. The arithmetic shows that the opportunity is obvious.
The question is whether anyone with access to the script could begin trading before the public learns how the drama will end.
"This White House-Wall Street-Trump-Business feedback loop represents the depraved essence of insider trading," said the Maryland Democrat.
"Are you helping the president sell people advance access to market-moving information?"
That's the opening line of a Thursday letter that US House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sent to Kevin McGurn, interim CEO of President Donald Trump's Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) Corp.
TMTG runs Trump's Truth Social platform and earlier this month announced plans to launch "Truth API" by August 1. API, or application programming interface, lets software applications talk to each other. Critics have warned that the new endeavor will give Wall Street firms faster access to posts by the president and other top accounts.
"Trump Media's target market for buyers of this service is 'high-frequency and algorithmic trading firms,' which would each pay a
handsome $100,000 monthly subscription fee," Raskin wrote. "Nearly half of each fee would go directly into the pocket of Donald Trump, who owns roughly 41% of the company's shares through a trust that he continues to control."
"Put another way, Trump Media will soon be selling early access to President Trump's so-called 'Truth' missives to the most sophisticated investment firms in the world," he stressed. "This insider-information scheme will enable Wall Street to profit from the president's frequent market-moving posts on major businesses and cash in on swings in stock prices caused by the president's buying and selling (or pumping and dumping, if you prefer) of publicly traded stocks to unwitting retail investors."
As Investopedia pointed out Thursday: "In recent months Trump has posted about new developments in the Iran War, which is particularly important for buyers and sellers of futures contracts who are trying to ascertain where oil prices are headed. Over the past year, he has also posted about tariff policy, government investments in publicly traded companies, and other corporate news developments."
Additionally, as Raskin highlighted, "Trump has promoted over 20 companies on his Truth Social account shortly after purchasing the companies’ stocks, including government contractors where the Trump administration exerted substantial ability to move markets in those companies' favor. Donald Trump Jr.'s investment firm, 1789 Capital, has posted a staggering 200% investment return since his father's return to the White House, with the president recently admitting that his oldest sons are coventurers in his corruption."
Once the new service is up and running, "whenever President Trump uses Truth Social to announce that a ceasefire is imminent, or prematurely leaks US jobs data, his customers will now be able to front-run the market using their privileged access to his social media posts, leaving retail investors, pension plans, and retirement accounts irreparably disadvantaged," he warned. "This is precisely the type of harm that federal securities laws are designed to prevent."
Concerns about TMTG's plans led Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Adam Schiff (Calif.) to demand that US Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins launch an investigation. The senators wrote to the Trump-nominated SEC leader on Tuesday that the current administration "is the most corrupt in the nation's history," and the company's "new service threatens to undermine the integrity of capital markets."
In the meantime, Raskin—a constitutional scholar who managed Trump's historic second impeachment—is conducting his own probe of what he called a "reverse Robin Hood scheme," arguing that "this White House-Wall Street-Trump-Business feedback loop represents the depraved essence of insider trading." The congressman is demanding a lengthy list of records from the CEO of Trump's company by August 13.
"The president of the United States should be using the office to 'take care' that laws are enforced and to advance the public interest," he said, nodding to the US Constitution. "Instead, President Trump is, once again, using it to enrich in spectacular fashion himself, his family, and corporate cronies while also destroying the integrity of financial markets in the process."