Fewer Americans are reporting that they drink alcohol amid a growing belief that even moderate alcohol consumption is a health risk, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday.

A record high percentage of U.S. adults, 53%, now say moderate drinking is bad for their health, up from 28% in 2015. The uptick in doubt about alcohol’s benefits is largely driven by young adults — the age group that is most likely to believe drinking “one or two drinks a day” can cause health hazards — but older adults are also now increasingly likely to think moderate drinking carries risks.

As concerns about health impacts rise, fewer Americans are reporting that they drink. The survey finds that 54% of U.S. adults say they drink alcoholic beverages such as liquor, wine or beer. That’s lower than at any other point in the past three decades.

The findings of the poll, which was conducted in July, indicate that after years of many believing that moderate drinking was harmless — or even beneficial — worries about alcohol consumption are taking hold. According to Gallup’s data, even those who consume alcohol are drinking less.

The federal government is updating new dietary guidelines, including those around alcohol. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, government data showed U.S. alcohol consumption was trending up. But other government surveys have shown a decline in certain types of drinking, particularly among teenagers and young adults.

This comes alongside a new drumbeat of information about alcohol’s risks. While moderate drinking was once thought to have benefits for heart health, health professionals in recent years have pointed to overwhelming evidence that alcohol consumption leads to negative health outcomes and is a leading cause of cancer.

Growing skepticism about alcohol’s benefits

Younger adults have been quicker than older Americans to accept that drinking is harmful, but older adults are coming around to the same view.

About two-thirds of 18- to 34-year-olds believe moderate drinking is unhealthy, according to the poll, up from about 4 in 10 in 2015. Older adults are less likely to see alcohol as harmful — about half of Americans age 55 or older believe this — but that’s a substantial increase, too. In 2015, only about 2 in 10 adults age 55 or older thought alcohol was bad for their health.

In the past, moderate drinking was thought to have some benefits. That idea came from imperfect studies that largely didn’t include younger people and couldn’t prove cause and effect. Now the scientific consensus has shifted, and several countries recently lowered their alcohol consumption recommendations. Earlier this year, the outgoing U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, recommended a label on bottles of beer, wine and liquor that would clearly outline the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The federal government’s current dietary guidelines recommend Americans not drink or, if they do consume alcohol, men should limit themselves to two drinks a day or fewer while women should stick to one or fewer.

Gallup’s director of U.S. social research, Lydia Saad, said shifting health advice throughout older Americans’ lives may be a reason they have been more gradual than young adults to recognize alcohol as harmful.

“Older folks may be a little more hardened in terms of the whiplash that they get with recommendations,” Saad said. “It may take them a little longer to absorb or accept the information. Whereas, for young folks, this is the environment that they’ve grown up in … in many cases, it would be the first thing young adults would have heard as they were coming into adulthood.”

The government is expected to release new guidelines later this year, under the directive of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has promised big changes. Kennedy has not hinted at how the alcohol recommendations may shift.

Drinking rates fall to decade low

Slightly more than half of Americans, 54%, report that they drink alcohol — a low in Gallup’s data that is especially pronounced among women and young adults.

Young Americans’ alcohol consumption has been trending downward for years, accelerating the overall decline in alcohol consumption. In sharp contrast with Gallup’s findings two decades ago, when young adults were likeliest to report drinking, young adults’ drinking rate is now slightly below middle-aged and older adults.

Americans’ reported drinking is among the lowest since the question was first asked in 1939. For most of the last few decades, at least 6 in 10 Americans have reported drinking alcoholic beverages, only dipping below that point a few times in the question’s history.

Americans who drink alcohol are consuming less

Even if concerns about health risks aren’t causing some adults to give up alcohol entirely, these worries could be influencing how often they drink.

The survey found that adults who think moderate drinking is bad for one’s health are just as likely as people who don’t share those concerns to report that they drink, but fewer of the people with health worries had consumed alcohol recently.

About half of those who worry moderate drinking is unhealthy said they had a drink in the previous week, compared with about 7 in 10 who did not think drinking was bad for their health.

Overall, only about one-quarter of Americans who drink said they had consumed alcohol in the prior 24 hours, a record low in the survey. Roughly 4 in 10 said that it had been more than a week since they had poured a drink.

___

Associated Press writer Amanda Seitz contributed to this report.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

Andrew Cuomo is demanding that his opponent in New York City’s mayoral race, Zohran Mamdani, vacate his rent stabilized apartment, while pushing a longshot proposal that would bar other middle-class renters from accessing much of the city’s housing.

“I am calling on you to move out immediately,” Cuomo wrote in a widely-viewed social media post this weekend, casting Mamdani as “a very rich person” occupying an apartment that could otherwise be used by a homeless family.

The line of attack drew tens of millions of views online and revived a long-standing debate about who should have access to New York’s highly sought-after rent stabilized units, which make up roughly 40% of the city’s rental stock and are currently open to people of all incomes.

It also illustrated the rhetorical lengths that Cuomo is willing to go to as he mounts an independent bid for mayor against Mamdani, a democratic socialist who defeated him handily in the Democratic primary on a platform that centered on affordability and freezing rent on stabilized units.

Mamdani, who earns $143,000 annually as a state legislator, has said he pays $2,300 per month for a one-bedroom apartment in Queens that he shares with his wife — a living situation that Cuomo called “disgusting.”

By contrast, Cuomo, a multimillionaire who previously served as the state’s governor, spends roughly $8,000 monthly on an apartment in Midtown Manhattan that he moved to last year from Westchester County, a wealthy suburb.

In recent weeks, the 67-year-old Cuomo has adopted a more aggressive social media presence, earning both praise and mockery for his use of millennial internet-speak and repeated references to his opponent’s “privilege.” Mamdani’s mother is a successful independent filmmaker and his father is a Columbia University professor.

On Monday, Cuomo went a step further, releasing a formal proposal, which he dubbed “Zohran’s Law,” barring landlords from leasing vacant rent stabilized units to “wealthy tenants,” defined as those who would pay less than 30% of their income toward the existing rent.

The rent regulation program, which caps how much landlords can raise rent each year on roughly 1 million apartments, does not currently include any income restrictions — something opponents have long pushed to change.

While the average rent stabilized household makes $60,000 annually, it is not uncommon for middle- or higher-income New Yorkers to live in the units, which sometimes rent for several thousand dollars per month.

But Cuomo’s idea drew swift skepticism from some housing experts, who noted the cap would, by definition, mean all new tenants of rent stabilized units would give up a substantial portion of their income.

“The idea that we should only have people living in apartments they can’t afford seems to be setting people up for failure,” said Ellen Davidson, a housing attorney at The Legal Aid Society. “It’s not a proposal from somebody who knows anything about the housing market or New York City.”

The Real Estate Board of New York, a landlord group whose members overwhelmingly backed Cuomo in the primary, did not respond to an inquiry about whether they supported the proposal. But in an email, the group’s president, James Whelan, said that the “benefits of rent regulation are not well targeted” and that some form of means testing should be considered.

Under state law, hikes on rent-stabilized units are decided by an appointed board, rather than landlords.

“Rent stabilization has never been means tested because it’s not an affordable housing program, it’s a program about neighborhood stability,” said Davidson, the housing attorney, adding that the proposal would likely present a “bureaucratic nightmare.”

A spokesperson for Cuomo’s campaign, Rich Azzopardi, said in a text message that “the ultra wealthy and privileged should not be taking advantage of a program meant to aide working New Yorkers,” adding that the income threshold standards would fall under the same system that governs the city’s other programs for low-income housing.

Mamdani’s spokesperson, Dora Pekec, said the proposal proved that Cuomo was both desperate and out of touch.

“While Cuomo cares only for the well-being of his Republican donors, Zohran believes city government’s job is to guarantee a life of dignity, not determine who is worth one,” she added.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, file

The U.S. government’s gross national debt has surpassed $37 trillion, a record number that highlights the accelerating debt on America’s balance sheet and increased cost pressures on taxpayers.

The $37 trillion update is found in the latest Treasury Department report issued Tuesday which logs the nation’s daily finances.

The national debt eclipsed $37 trillion years sooner than pre-pandemic projections. The Congressional Budget Office’s January 2020 projections had gross federal debt eclipsing $37 trillion after fiscal year 2030. But the debt grew faster than expected because of a multi-year COVID-19 pandemic starting in 2020 that shut down much of the U.S. economy, where the federal government borrowed heavily under then-President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden to stabilize the national economy and support a recovery.

And now, more government spending has been approved after Trump signed into law Republicans’ tax cut and spending legislation earlier this year. The law set to add $4.1 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Chair and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Michael Peterson said in a statement that government borrowing puts upward pressure on interest rates, “adding costs for everyone and reducing private sector investment. Within the federal budget, the debt crowds out important priorities and creates a damaging cycle of more borrowing, more interest costs, and even more borrowing.”

Wendy Edelberg, a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution said Congress has a major role in setting in motion spending and revenue policy and the result of the Republicans’ tax law “means that we’re going to borrow a lot over the course of 2026, we’re going to borrow a lot over the course of 2027, and it’s just going to keep going.”

The Government Accountability Office outlines some of the impacts of rising government debt on Americans — including higher borrowing costs for things like mortgages and cars, lower wages from businesses having less money available to invest, and more expensive goods and services.

Peterson points out how the trillion-dollar milestones are “piling up at a rapid rate.”

The U.S. hit $34 trillion in debt in January 2024, $35 trillion in July 2024 and $36 trillion in November 2024. “We are now adding a trillion more to the national debt every 5 months,” Peterson said. “That’s more than twice as fast as the average rate over the last 25 years.”

The Joint Economic Committee estimates at the current average daily rate of growth an increase of another trillion dollars to the debt would be reached in approximately 173 days.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in a statement that “hopefully this milestone is enough to wake up policymakers to the reality that we need to do something, and we need to do it quickly.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon,File

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. inflation was unchanged last month while a measure of underlying inflation rose to its highest level in five months, as tariffs have raised the cost of some imported goods while gas and procery prices cooled.

Consumer prices rose 2.7% in July from a year earlier, the Labor Department said Tuesday, the same as the previous month and up from a post-pandemic low of 2.3% in April. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core prices rose 3.1%, up from 2.9% in June.

The figures suggest that slowing cost growth for rents and cheaper gas are offsetting some of the impact of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs. Tuesday’s figures likely reflect the 10% universal tariff Trump imposed in April, as well as higher duties on countries such as China and Canada.

Still, stubbornly high inflation puts the Federal Reserve in a difficult spot: Hiring slowed sharply in the spring, after Trump announced tariffs in April. The stalling out of job gains has boosted financial market expectations for an interest rate cut by the central bank.

Yet Fed chair Jerome Powell has warned that worsening inflation could keep the Fed on the sidelines — a stance that has enraged Trump, who has defied traditional norms of central bank independence and demanded lower borrowing costs.

Tuesday’s data arrives at a highly-charged moment for the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, which collects and publishes the inflation data. Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, then the head of BLS, after the Aug. 1 jobs report also showed sharply lower hiring for May and June than had previously been reported.

The president posted on social media Monday that he has picked E.J. Antoni, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a frequent critic of the jobs report, to replace McEntarfer.

“E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE,” Trump said on Truth Social.

Adding to the BLS’s turmoil is a government-wide hiring freeze that has forced it to cut back on the amount of data it collects for each inflation report, the agency has said. UBS economist Alan Detmeister estimates that BLS is now collecting about 18% fewer price quotes for the inflation report than it did a few months ago. He thinks the report will produce more volatile results, though averaged out over time, still reliable.

On a monthly basis, prices are expected to rise modestly, increasing just 0.2% from June to July and core prices rising 0.3%. Gas prices likely fell in July and grocery costs are expected to barely increase, muting overall inflation.

Signs of duties pushing up prices first emerged in the June inflation report released last month. Toy prices jumped 1.8% from May to June, after a 1.3% increase the previous month. Clothing prices rose 0.4% in June, while sporting goods leapt 1.8%.

Meanwhile, the average tariff level has climbed from about 2% before Trump’s inauguration to nearly 18%, the highest since the early 1930s, according to the Budget Lab at Yale. Most imports from the European Union and Japan now face duties of 15%, while goods from Taiwan pay 20% and Switzerland, 39%.

Other trends are helping keep inflation from rising more quickly. Price increases for apartment rents, for example, are steadily cooling after sharp spikes during the pandemic era. And prices for new cars have declined slightly in recent months, even after Trump slapped 25% duties on autos and auto parts.

So far, U.S. and overseas carmakers are paying the tariffs, though economists say they likely will pass them on to consumers soon. Car companies are also paying 50% import taxes on steel and aluminum and 30% on parts from China.

Ford has said it paid $800 million in tariffs in the second quarter, while General Motors shouldered $1.1 billion. Stellantis, the world’s fourth-largest carmaker and the maker of brands such as Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep, has said it has paid $350 million in tariffs out of a $1.7 billion expected cost this year.

Consumers are likely to absorb more costs beyond the auto industry in the coming months, as Trump has begun to finalize many tariffs. Once businesses know what they will be paying, they are more likely to pass those costs to consumers, economists say.

Trump has insisted that overseas manufacturers will pay the tariffs by reducing their prices to offset the duties. Yet the pre-tariff prices of imports haven’t fallen much since the levies were put in place.

Economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that foreign manufacturers have absorbed just 14% of the duties through June, while 22% has been paid by consumers and 64% by U.S. companies. Based on previous patterns, however — such as Trump’s 2018 duties on washing machines — the economists expect that by this fall consumers will bear 67% of the burden, while foreign exporters pay 25% and U.S. companies handle just 8%.

Many large firms are still raising prices in response to the tariffs, including apparel makers Ralph Lauren and Under Armour, and eyewear company Warby Parker.

Consumer products giant Procter & Gamble, maker of Crest toothpaste, Tide detergent and Charmin toilet paper, said late last month that it would lift prices on about a quarter of its products by mid-single-digit percentages.

And cosmetics maker e.l.f. Beauty, which makes a majority of its products in China, said on Wednesday that it had raised prices by a dollar on its entire product assortment as of Aug. 1 because of tariff costs, the third price hike in its 21-year history.

“We tend to lead and then we will see how many more kind of follow us,” CEO Tarang Amin said on an earnings call Wednesday.

Matt Pavich, CEO of Revionics, a company that provides AI tools to large retailers to help them evaluate pricing decisions, says many companies are raising prices selectively to offset tariffs, rather than across the board.

“Up until now we haven’t seen a massive hit to consumers in retail prices,” Pavich said. “Now, they are going up, we’ve seen that.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Manuel Balce Ceneta—AP Photo

President Donald Trump’stax and spending law will result in less income for the poorest Americans while sending money to the richest, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Monday.

The CBO estimates that the 10% of poorest Americans will lose roughly $1,200 a year as they experience restrictions on government programs like Medicaid and food assistance, while the richest 10% of Americans will see their income increase by $13,600 from tax cuts. Overall, American households will see more income from the tax cuts in the legislation, including middle income households, but the largest benefit will go to the top 10% of earners.

The CBO’s report comes as lawmakers are away from Washington, many taking their messages about the bill to voters. Republicans muscled the legislation — deemed “the big, beautiful bill” by Trump — through Congress in July. Democrats all vehemently opposed the legislation, warning that its tax cuts and spending priorities would come at the expense of vital government aid programs and a ballooning national debt.

“This really is a big, beautiful bill for billionaires, but for the poor and the working class in this country, you are actually poorer,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, in an MSNBC interview on Monday.

Changes to eligibility for government food assistance under the law will impact millions of Americans, the CBO found. Roughly 2.4 million people won’t be eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under new work requirements for many recipients. Low-income Americans could also see their income reduced through further restrictions on food aid and other types of assistance included in the law.

Already, more than 10 million Americans are expected to lose health insurance by 2034 due to changes to Medicaid under the law.

Following release of the report, Rep. Jason Smith, the Republican chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he took issue with CBO’s methodology, repeating criticism he has made in the past.

“CBO has a troubled track record of getting its estimates incorrect and, like Democrats, is biased in favor of more federal spending and higher taxes,” Smith said on social media. “Don’t buy it.”

Republicans have been eager to sell the upsides of the legislation — arguing that the tax cuts will spur economic growth — while they are on a monthlong summer break from Washington. But those who have held townhalls in their home districts have often been greeted by an earful from voters and activists.

“Tax the rich,” the crowd in Lincoln, Neb. chanted last week as Republican Rep. Michael Flood attempted to defend the bill.

Still, Trump has been undeterred.

“President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill is putting America First like never before, delivering huge savings for hardworking families, boosting our economy, and securing our borders,” said White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson in a statement last week.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

AOL’s dial-up internet is finally taking its last bow.

Yes, while perhaps a dinosaur by today’s digital standards, dial-up is still around. But AOL says it’s officially pulling the plug for its service on Sept. 30.

“AOL routinely evaluates its products and services and has decided to discontinue Dial-up Internet,” AOL wrote in a brief update on its support site — noting that dial-up and associated software “optimized for older operating systems” will soon be unavailable on AOL plans.

AOL, formerly America Online, introduced many households to the world wide web for the first time when its dial-up service launched decades ago, rising to prominence particularly in the 90s and early 2000s.

The creaky door to the internet was characterized by a once-ubiquitous series of beeps and buzzes heard over the phone used to connect your computer online — along with frustrations of being kicked off the web if anyone else at home needed the landline for another call, and an endless bombardment of CDs mailed out by AOL to advertise free trials.

Eventually, broadband and wireless offerings emerged and rose to dominance, doing away with dial-up’s quirks for most people accessing the internet today.

Still, a handful of consumers have continued to rely on internet services connected over telephone lines. In the U.S., according to Census Bureau data, an estimated 163,401 households were using dial-up alone to get online in 2023, representing just over 0.13% of all homes with internet subscriptions nationwide.

AOL was the largest dial-up internet provider for some time, but not the only one to emerge over the years. Some smaller internet providers continue to offer dial-up today. Regardless, the decline of dial-up has been a long time coming. And AOL shutting down its service arrives as other relics of the internet’s earlier days continue to disappear.

Microsoft retired video calling service Skype just earlier this year, for example — as well as Internet Explorer back in 2022. And in 2017, AOL discontinued its Instant Messenger — a chat platform that was once lauded as the biggest trend in online communication since email when it was founded in 1997, but later struggled to ward off rivals.

AOL itself is far from the dominant internet player it was decades ago — when, beyond dial-up and IMs, the company also became known for its “You’ve got mail” catchphrase that greeted users who checked their inboxes, as famously displayed in the 1998 film starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan by the same name.

Before it was America Online, AOL was founded as Quantum Computer Services in 1985. It soon rebranded and hit the public market in 1991. Near the height of the dot-com boom, AOL’s market value reached nearly $164 billion in 2000. But tumultuous years followed, and that valuation plummeted as the once-tech pioneer bounced between multiple owners. After a disastrous merger with Time Warner Inc., Verizon acquired AOL — which later sold AOL, along with Yahoo, to a private equity firm.

At the time Verzion announced that sale to in 2021, an anonymous source familiar with the transaction told CNBC that the number of AOL dial-up users was “in the low thousands,” down from 2.1 million when Verzion first moved to acquire AOL in 2015 — and far below peak demand seen back in the 90s and early 2000s. But beyond dial-up, AOL continues to offer its free email services, as well as subscriptions that advertise identity protection and other tech support.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File

Nvidia and AMD agreed to share 15% of their revenues from chip sales to China with the U.S. government, President Donald Trump confirmed at a press conference Monday.

The Trump administration halted the sale of advanced computer chips to China in April over national security concerns, but Nvidia and AMD revealed in July that Washington would allow them to resume sales of the H20 and MI308 chips, which are used in artificial intelligence development.

The president said he originally wanted 20% of sales in exchange for Nvidia obtaining export licenses to sell the “obsolete” H20 chip to China, but credited Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang for negotiating him down to 15%.

“So we negotiated a little deal. So he’s selling a essentially old chip,” Trump said.

Nvidia did not comment about the specific details of the agreement or its quid pro quo nature, but said they would adhere to the export rules laid out by the administration.

“We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets. While we haven’t shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide,” Nvidia wrote in a statement to the AP. “America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America’s AI tech stack can be the world’s standard if we race.”

AMD did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The top Democrat on a House panel focusing on competition with China raised concerns over the reported agreement, calling it “a dangerous misuse of export controls that undermines our national security.”

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, the ranking member of the House Select Committee on China, said he would seek answers about the legal basis for this arrangement and demand full transparency from the administration.

“Our export control regime must be based on genuine security considerations, not creative taxation schemes disguised as national security policy,” he said. “Chip export controls aren’t bargaining chips, and they’re not casino chips either. We shouldn’t be gambling with our national security to raise revenue.”

Derek Scissors, senior fellow and China expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, questioned the constitutionality of the deal and also warned against risking national security for revenue.

“There’s no precedent for this, probably because export taxes are unconstitutional,” said Derek Scissors, senior fellow and China expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “They call it a fee, but 15% of sales revenue is about a standard a tax as it comes. For this reason, I don’t think the ‘arrangement’ is at all durable. ‘’

“If it were to last, it has two possible implications. First, there’s a possible export tax that high-profile companies and goods must consider. Or the tax only applies in exceptional situations, such as changing export controls. Then we’d risk national security for the sake of tax revenue, which is effectively the same as cutting the defense budget,” Scissors said.

Back in July, Nvidia argued that tight export controls around their chip sales would cost the company an extra $5.5 billion. They’ve argued that such limits hinder U.S. competition in a sector in one of the world’s largest markets for technology, and have also warned that U.S. export controls could end up pushing other countries toward China’s AI technology.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC in July that the renewed sale of Nvidia’s chips in China was linked to a trade agreement made between the two countries on rare earth magnets.

Restrictions on sales of advanced chips to China have been central to the AI race between the world’s two largest economic powers, but such controls are also controversial. Proponents argue that these restrictions are necessary to slow China down enough to allow U.S. companies to keep their lead. Meanwhile, opponents say the export controls have loopholes — and could still spur innovation. The emergence of China’s DeepSeek AI chatbot in January particularly renewed concerns over how China might use advanced chips to help develop its own AI capabilities.

—-

Associated Press writers Josh Boak and Shawn Chen contributed to the reporting.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

Ford Motor Co. will invest nearly $2 billion retooling a Kentucky factory to produce electric vehicles that it says will be more affordable, more profitable to build, and will outcompete rival models.

The automaker’s top executive unveiled the new EV strategy Monday at Ford’s Louisville Assembly Plant which, after producing gas-powered vehicles for 70 years, will be converted to manufacture electric vehicles.

“We took a radical approach to solve a very hard challenge: Create affordable vehicles that are breakthrough in every way that matters — design, technology, performance, space and cost of ownership — and do it with American workers,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a release.

The Big Detroit automakers have continued to transition from internal combustion engines to EV technology even as President Donald Trump’s administration unwinds incentives for automakers to go electric. Trump’s massive tax and spending law targets EV incentives, including the imminent removal of a credit that saves buyers up to $7,500 on a new electric car.

Yet Farley and other top executives in the auto industry say that electric vehicles are the future and there is no going back.

The first EV to roll off the revamped Louisville assembly line will be a midsize, four-door electric pickup truck in 2027 for domestic and international markets, the company said Monday.

The new electric trucks will be powered by lower-cost batteries made at a Ford factory in Michigan. The Detroit automaker previously announced a $3 billion investment to build the battery factory.

The automaker sees this as a “Model T moment” for its EV business — a reference to the mass-produced vehicle that launched the venerable automaker more than a century ago. But Ford says it’s also a nod to the future and the vastly different way Ford says it will build electric vehicles.

The company said it will use a universal platform and production system for its EVs, essentially the underpinning of a vehicle that can be applied across a wide range of models.

The Louisville factory — one of two Ford assembly plants in Kentucky’s largest city — will be revamped to cut production costs and make assembly time faster as it’s prepared to churn out electric vehicles.

The result will be “an affordable electric vehicle that we expect to be profitable,” Farley said in an interview with The Associated Press ahead of the announcement. “This is an example of us rejuvenating our U.S. plants with the most modern manufacturing techniques.”

The new platform enables a lineup of affordable vehicles to be produced at scale, Ford said. It will reduce parts by 20% versus a typical vehicle, with 25% fewer fasteners, 40% fewer workstations dock-to-dock in the plant and a 15% faster assembly time, Ford said. The traditional assembly line will be transformed into an “assembly tree” at the Louisville plant, it said. Instead of one long conveyor, three sub-assembly lines will operate simultaneously and then join together, it said.

“Nobody wants to see another good college try by a Detroit automaker to make an affordable vehicle that ends up with idled plants, layoffs and uncertainty,” Farley said in the release. “So, this has to be a good business. From Day 1, we knew there was no incremental path to success. … We reinvented the moving assembly line.”

Other specifications for the midsize electric truck – including its reveal date, starting price, EPA-estimated battery range, battery sizes and charge times — will be announced later, the company said. Ford revealed in its release that the truck will have a targeted starting price of about $30,000.

Ford said its investment in the Louisville plant will secure 2,200 hourly jobs.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said Monday that the automaker’s plans for the Louisville plant will strengthen a more than century-old partnership between Ford and the Bluegrass State.

“This announcement not only represents one of the largest investments on record in our state, it also boosts Kentucky’s position at the center of EV-related innovation and solidifies Louisville Assembly Plant as an important part of Ford’s future,” Beshear said.

Ford said its combined investment of about $5 billion at the Kentucky assembly plant and Michigan battery plant is expected to create or secure nearly 4,000 direct jobs between the two plants while strengthening the domestic supply chain with dozens of new U.S.-based suppliers.

Ford previously forecast weaker earnings growth for this year and further losses in its electric vehicles business as it works to control costs. Model e, Ford’s electric vehicle business, posted a full-year loss of $5.08 billion for 2024 as revenue fell 35% to $3.9 billion.

Ford’s new EV strategy comes as Chinese automakers are quickly expanding across the globe, offering relatively affordable electric vehicles.

“We’re not in a race to build the most electric cars,” Farley told the AP when asked about competition from China. “We’re in a race to have a sustainable electric business that’s profitable, that customers love.

“And this new vehicle built in Louisville, Kentucky, is going to be a much better solution to anything that anyone can buy from China,” he added.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, file

More than 70 million Americans sweated through the muggiest first two months of summer on record as climate change has noticeably dialed up the Eastern United States’ humidity in recent decades, an Associated Press data analysis shows.

And that meant uncomfortably warm and potentially dangerous nights in many cities the last several weeks, the National Weather Service said.

Parts of 27 states and Washington, D.C., had a record amount of days that meteorologists call uncomfortable — with average daily dew points of 65 degrees Fahrenheit or higher — in June and July, according to data derived from the Copernicus Climate Service.

And that’s just the daily average. In much of the East, the mugginess kept rising to near tropical levels for a few humid hours. Philadelphia had 29 days, Washington had 27 days and Baltimore had 24 days where the highest dew point simmered to at least 75 degrees, which even the the weather service office in Tampa calls oppressive, according to weather service data.

Dew point is a measure of moisture in the air expressed in degrees that many meteorologists call the most accurate way to describe humidity. The summer of 2025 so far has had dew points that average at least 6 degrees higher than the 1951-2020 normals in Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Columbus and St. Louis, the AP calculations show. The average June and July humidity for the entire country east of the Rockies rose to more than 66 degrees, higher than any year since measurements started in 1950.

“This has been a very muggy summer. The humid heat has been way up,” said Bernadette Woods Placky, chief meteorologist at Climate Central.

Twice this summer climate scientist and humidity expert Cameron Lee of Kent State University measured dew points of about 82 degrees at his home weather station in Ohio. That’s off the various charts that the weather service uses to describe what dew points feel like.

“There are parts of the United States that are experiencing not only greater average humidity, especially in the spring and summer, but also more extreme humid days,” Lee said. He said super sticky days are now stretching out over more days and more land.

High humidity doesn’t allow the air to cool at night as much as it usually does, and the stickiness contributed to multiple nighttime temperature records from the Ohio Valley through the Mid-Atlantic and up and down coastal states, said Zack Taylor, forecast operations chief at the National Weather Service’s Weather Prediction Center. Raleigh, Charlotte, Nashville, Virginia Beach, Va., and Wilmington, N.C., all reached records for the hottest overnight lows. New York City, Columbus, Atlanta, Richmond, Knoxville, Tennessee and Concord, New Hampshire came close, he said.

“What really impacts the body is that nighttime temperature,” Taylor said. “So if there’s no cooling at night or if there’s a lack of cooling it doesn’t allow your body to cool off and recover from what was probably a really hot afternoon. And so when you start seeing that over several days, that can really wear out the body, especially of course if you don’t have access to cooling centers or air conditioning.”

An extra hot and rainy summer weather pattern is combining with climate change from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, Woods Placky said.

The area east of the Rockies has on average gained about 2.5 degrees in summer dew point since 1950, the AP analysis of Copernicus data shows. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and part of the 1990s, the eastern half of the country had an average dew point in the low 60s, what the weather service calls noticeable but OK. In four of the last six years that number has been near and even over the uncomfortable line of 65.

“It’s huge,” Lee said of the 75-year trend. “This is showing a massive increase over a relatively short period of time.”

That seemingly small increase in average dew points really means the worst ultra-sticky days that used to happen once a year, now happen several times a summer, which is what affects people, Lee said.

Higher humidity and heat feed on each other. A basic law of physics is that the atmosphere holds an extra 4% more water for every degree Fahrenheit (7% for every degree Celsius) warmer it gets, meteorologists said.

For most of the summer, the Midwest and East were stuck under either incredibly hot high pressure systems, which boosted temperatures, or getting heavy and persistent rain in amounts much higher than average, Taylor said. What was mostly missing was the occasional cool front that pushes out the most oppressive heat and humidity. That finally came in August and brought relief, he said.

Humidity varies by region. The West is much drier. The South gets more 65-degree dew points in the summer than the North. But that’s changing.

University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd said uncomfortable humidity is moving further north, into places where people are less used to it.

Summers now, he said, “are not your grandparents’ summers.”

___

Borenstein reported from Washington and Wildeman reported from Hartford, Connecticut.

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A group of masked thieves stole about $7,000 worth of Labubu dolls from a Los Angeles-area store this week, authorities said.

The incident took place early Wednesday morning at a store in La Puente, a city about 18 miles (29 kilometers) east of Los Angeles, the LA County Sheriff’s Department said. The department said the suspects used a stolen Toyota Tacoma in the incident, which was recovered shortly afterward. The agency said it was investigating the case and did not have additional information.

Labubu dolls, created by Hong Kong-born artist Kasing Lung, have become a popular collectible item a decade after the toothy monsters were first introduced.

Toy vendor One Stop Shop said in an Instagram post that the thieves took all of the store’s inventory and trashed the establishment. The store posted surveillance footage showing a group of people wearing hoodies and face coverings breaking in. The suspects are seen shuffling through items and carrying boxes out of the shop.

“We are still in shock,” the store said in its post, urging people to help find the thieves.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Markus Schreiber—AP Photo

A top official at the Federal Reserve said Saturday that this month’s stunning, weaker-than-expected report on the U.S. job market is strengthening her belief that interest rates should be lower.

Michelle Bowman was one of two Fed officials who voted a week and a half ago in favor of cutting interest rates. Such a move could help boost the economy by making it cheaper for people to borrow money to buy a house or a car, but it could also threaten to push inflation higher.

Bowman and a fellow dissenter lost out after nine other Fed officials voted to keep interest rates steady, as the Fed has been doing all year. The Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, has been adamant that he wants to wait for more data about how President Donald Trump’s tariffs are affecting inflation before the Fed makes its next move.

At a speech during a bankers’ conference in Colorado on Saturday, Bowman said that “the latest labor market data reinforce my view” that the Fed should cut interest rates three times this year. The Fed has only three meetings left on the schedule in 2025.

The jobs report that arrived last week, only a couple of days after the Fed voted on interest rates, showed that employers hired far fewer workers last month than economists expected. It also said that hiring in prior months was much lower than initially thought.

On inflation, meanwhile, Bowman said she is getting more confident that Trump’s tariffs “will not present a persistent shock to inflation” and sees it moving closer to the Fed’s 2% target. Inflation has come down substantially since hitting a peak above 9% after the pandemic, but it has been stubbornly remaining above 2%.

The Fed’s job is to keep the job market strong, while keeping a lid on inflation. Its challenge is that it has one main tool to affect both those areas, and helping one by moving interest rates up or down often means hurting the other.

A fear is that Trump’s tariffs could box in the Federal Reserve by sticking the economy in a worst-case scenario called “stagflation,” where the economy stagnates but inflation is high. The Fed has no good tool to fix that, and it would likely have to prioritize either the job market or inflation before helping the other.

On Wall Street, expectations are that the Fed will have to cut interest rates at its next meeting in September after the U.S. jobs report came in so much below economists’ expectations.

Trump has been calling angrily for lower interest rates, often personally insulting Powell while doing so. He has the opportunity to add another person to the Fed’s board of governors after an appointee of former President Joe Bidenstepped down recently.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Mark Schiefelbein—AP Photo

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer met privately in the Oval Office with President Donald Trump to make a case he did not want to hear: the automotive industry he said he wants to save were being hurt by his tariffs.

The Democrat came with a slide deck to make her points in a visual presentation. Just getting the meeting Tuesday with the Republican president was an achievement for someone viewed as a contender for her party’s White House nomination in 2028.

Whitmer’s strategy for dealing with Trump highlights the conundrum for her and other Democratic leaders as they try to protect the interests of their states while voicing their opposition to his agenda. It’s a dynamic that Whitmer has navigated much differently from many other Democratic governors.

The fact that Whitmer had “an opening to make direct appeals” in private to Trump was unique in this political moment, said Matt Grossman, a Michigan State University politics professor.

It was her third meeting with Trump at the White House since he took office in January. This one, however, was far less public than the time in April when Whitmer was unwittingly part of an impromptu news conference that embarrassed her so much she covered her face with a folder.

On Tuesday, she told the president that the economic damage from the tariffs could be severe in Michigan, a state that helped deliver him the White House in 2024. Whitmer also brought up federal support for recovery efforts after an ice storm and sought to delay changes to Medicaid.

Trump offered no specific commitments, according to people familiar with the private conversation who were not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke only on condition of anonymity to describe it.

Whitmer is hardly the only one sounding the warning of the potentially damaging consequences, including factory job losses, lower profits and coming price increases, of the import taxes that Trump has said will be the economic salvation for American manufacturing.

White House spokesman Kush Desai that no other president “has taken a greater interest in restoring American auto industry dominance than President Trump.” Trade frameworks negotiated by the administration would open up the Japanese, Korean and European markets for vehicles made on assembly lines in Michigan, Desai said.

But the outreach Trump has preferred tends to be splashy presentations by tech CEOs. In the Oval Office on Wednesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook gave the president a customized glass plaque with a gold base as Cook promised $600 billion in investments. Trump claims to have brought in $17 trillion in investment commitments, although none of those numbers has surfaced yet in economic data.

Under his series of executive orders and trade frameworks, U.S. automakers face import taxes of 50% on steel and aluminum, 30% on parts from China and a top rate of 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico not covered under an existing 2020 trade agreement. That puts America’s automakers and parts suppliers at a disadvantage against German, Japanese and South Korean vehicles that only face a 15% import tax negotiated by Trump last month.

On top of that, Trump this past week threatened a 100% tariff on computer chips, which are an integral part of cars and trucks, though he would exclude companies that produce chips domestically from the tax.

Whitmer’s two earlier meetings with Trump resulted in gains for Michigan. But the tariffs represent a significantly broader request of a president who has imposed them even more aggressively in the face of criticism.

Materials in the presentation brought Whitmer to the meeting and obtained by The Associated Press noted how trade with Canada and Mexico has driven $23.2 billion in investment to Michigan since 2020.

General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis operate 50 factories across the state, while more than 4,000 facilities support the auto parts supply chain. Altogether, the sector supports nearly 600,000 manufacturing jobs, forming the backbone of Michigan’s economy.

Whitmer outlined the main points of the materials to Trump and left copies with his team.

To Grossman, the Michigan State professor, a key question is whether voters who expected to be helped by tariffs would react if Trump’s import taxes failed to deliver the promised economic growth.

“Everyone’s aware that Michigan is a critical swing state and the auto industry has outsized influence, not just directly, but symbolically,” Grossman said.

AP VoteCast found that Trump won Michigan in 2024 largely because two-thirds of its voters described the economic conditions as being poor or “not so good.” Roughly 70% of the voters in the state who felt negatively about the economy backed the Republican. The state was essentially split over whether tariffs were a positive, with Trump getting 76% of those voters who viewed them favorably.

The heads of General Motors, Ford and Stellantis have repeatedly warned the administration that the tariffs would cut company profits and undermine their global competitiveness. Their efforts have resulted in little more than a temporary, monthlong pause intended to give companies time to adjust. The reprieve did little to blunt the financial fallout.

In the second quarter alone, Ford reported $800 million in tariff-related costs, while GM said the import taxes cost it $1.1 billion. Those expenses could make it harder to reinvest in new domestic factories, a goal Trump has championed.

“We expect tariffs to be a net headwind of about $2 billion this year, and we’ll continue to monitor the developments closely and engage with policymakers to ensure U.S. autoworkers and customers are not disadvantaged by policy change,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said on his company’s earning call.

Since Trump returned to the White House, Michigan has lost 7,500 manufacturing jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Smaller suppliers have felt the strain, too.

Detroit Axle, a family-run auto parts distributor, has been one of the more vocal companies in Michigan about the impact of the tariffs. The company initially announced it might have to shut down a warehouse and lay off more than 100 workers, but later said it would be able to keep the facility open, at least for now.

“Right now it’s a market of who is able to survive, it’s not a matter of who can thrive,” said Mike Musheinesh, owner of Detroit Axle.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Mark Schiefelbein—AP Photo

 Amid rising electric bills, states are under pressure to insulate regular household and business ratepayers from the costs of feeding Big Tech’s energy-hungrydata centers.

It’s not clear that any state has a solution and the actual effect of data centers on electricity bills is difficult to pin down. Some critics question whether states have the spine to take a hard line against tech behemoths like Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta.

But more than a dozen states have begun taking steps as data centers drive a rapid build-out of power plants and transmission lines.

That has meant pressuring the nation’s biggest power grid operator to clamp down on price increases, studying the effect of data centers on electricity bills or pushing data center owners to pay a larger share of local transmission costs.

Rising power bills are “something legislators have been hearing a lot about. It’s something we’ve been hearing a lot about. More people are speaking out at the public utility commission in the past year than I’ve ever seen before,” said Charlotte Shuff of the Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, a consumer advocacy group. “There’s a massive outcry.”

Not the typical electric customer

Some data centers could require more electricity than cities the size of Pittsburgh, Cleveland or New Orleans, and make huge factories look tiny by comparison. That’s pushing policymakers to rethink a system that, historically, has spread transmission costs among classes of consumers that are proportional to electricity use.

“A lot of this infrastructure, billions of dollars of it, is being built just for a few customers and a few facilities and these happen to be the wealthiest companies in the world,” said Ari Peskoe, who directs the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University. “I think some of the fundamental assumptions behind all this just kind of breaks down.”

A fix, Peskoe said, is a “can of worms” that pits ratepayer classes against one another.

Some officials downplay the role of data centers in pushing up electric bills.

Tricia Pridemore, who sits on Georgia’s Public Service Commission and is president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, pointed to an already tightened electricity supply and increasing costs for power lines, utility poles, transformers and generators as utilities replace aging equipment or harden it against extreme weather.

The data centers needed to accommodate the artificial intelligence boom are still in the regulatory planning stages, Pridemore said, and the Data Center Coalition, which represents Big Tech firms and data center developers, has said its members are committed to paying their fair share.

But growing evidence suggests that the electricity bills of some Americans are rising to subsidize the massive energy needs of Big Tech as the U.S. competes in a race against China for artificial intelligence superiority.

Data and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie published a report in recent weeks that suggested 20 proposed or effective specialized rates for data centers in 16 states it studied aren’t nearly enough to cover the cost of a new natural gas power plant.

In other words, unless utilities negotiate higher specialized rates, other ratepayer classes — residential, commercial and industrial — are likely paying for data center power needs.

Meanwhile, Monitoring Analytics, the independent market watchdog for the mid-Atlantic grid, produced research in June showing that 70% — or $9.3 billion — of last year’s increased electricity cost was the result of data center demand.

States are responding

Last year, five governors led by Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro began pushing back against power prices set by the mid-Atlantic grid operator, PJM Interconnection, after that amount spiked nearly sevenfold. They warned of customers “paying billions more than is necessary.”

PJM has yet to propose ways to guarantee that data centers pay their freight, but Monitoring Analytics is floating the idea that data centers should be required to procure their own power.

In a filing last month, it said that would avoid a “massive wealth transfer” from average people to tech companies.

At least a dozen states are eyeing ways to make data centers pay higher local transmission costs.

In Oregon, a data center hot spot, lawmakers passed legislation in June ordering state utility regulators to develop new — presumably higher — power rates for data centers.

The Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board says there is clear evidence that costs to serve data centers are being spread across all customers — at a time when some electric bills there are up 50% over the past four years and utilities are disconnecting more people than ever.

New Jersey’s governor signed legislation last month commissioning state utility regulators to study whether ratepayers are being hit with “unreasonable rate increases” to connect data centers and to develop a specialized rate to charge data centers.

In some other states, like Texas and Utah, governors and lawmakers are trying to avoid a supply-and-demand crisis that leaves ratepayers on the hook — or in the dark.

Doubts about states protecting ratepayers

In Indiana, state utility regulators approved a settlement between Indiana Michigan Power Co., Amazon, Google, Microsoft and consumer advocates that set parameters for data center payments for service.

Kerwin Olsen, of the Citizens Action Council of Indiana, a consumer advocacy group, signed the settlement and called it a “pretty good deal” that contained more consumer protections than what state lawmakers passed.

But, he said, state law doesn’t force large power users like data centers to publicly reveal their electric usage, so pinning down whether they’re paying their fair share of transmission costs “will be a challenge.”

In a March report, the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University questioned the motivation of utilities and regulators to shield ratepayers from footing the cost of electricity for data centers.

Both utilities and states have incentives to attract big customers like data centers, it said.

To do it, utilities — which must get their rates approved by regulators — can offer “special deals to favored customers” like a data center and effectively shift the costs of those discounts to regular ratepayers, the authors wrote. Many state laws can shield disclosure of those rates, they said.

In Pennsylvania, an emerging data center hot spot, the state utility commission is drafting a model rate structure for utilities to consider adopting. An overarching goal is to get data center developers to put their money where their mouth is.

“We’re talking about real transmission upgrades, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars,” commission chairman Stephen DeFrank said. “And that’s what you don’t want the ratepayer to get stuck paying for.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Jenny Kane—AP Photo

Mexican authorities are accusing sportswear company Adidas of plagiarizing artisans in southern Mexico, alleging that a new sandal design is strikingly similar to the traditional Indigenous footwear known as huaraches.

The controversy has fueled accusations of cultural appropriation by the footwear brand, with authorities saying this is not the first time traditional Mexican handicrafts have been copied. Citing these concerns, local authorities have asked Adidas to withdraw the shoe model.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Friday that Adidas was already in talks with authorities in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca to provide “compensation for the people who were plagiarized,” and that her government was preparing legal reforms to prevent the copying of Mexican handicrafts.

The design at the center of the controversy is the “Oaxaca Slip-On,” a sandal created by U.S. designer Willy Chavarría for Adidas Originals. The sandals feature thin leather straps braided in a style that is unmistakably similar to the traditional Mexican huaraches. Instead of flat leather soles, the Adidas shoes tout a more chunky, sports shoe sole.

According to Mexican authorities, Adidas’ design contains elements that are part of the cultural heritage of the Zapotec Indigenous communities in Oaxaca, particularly in the town of Villa Hidalgo de Yalálag. Handicrafts are a crucial economic lifeline in Mexico, providing jobs for around half a million people across the country. The industry accounts for around 10% of the gross domestic product of states like Oaxaca, Jalisco, Michoacán and Guerrero.

For Viridiana Jarquín García, a huaraches creator and vendor in Oaxaca’s capital, the Adidas shoes were a “cheap copy” of the kind of work that Mexican artists take time and care to craft.

“The artistry is being lost. We’re losing our tradition,” she said in front of her small booth of leather shoes.

Authorities in Oaxaca have called for the “Oaxaca Slip-On” to be withdrawn and demanded a public apology from Adidas, with officials describing the design as “cultural appropriation” that may violate Mexican law.

In a public letter to Adidas leadership, Oaxaca state Gov. Salomón Jara Cruz criticized the company’s design, saying that “creative inspiration” is not a valid justification for using cultural expressions that “provide identity to communities.”

“Culture isn’t sold, it’s respected,” he added.

Adidas responded in a letter Friday afternoon, saying that the company “deeply values the cultural wealth of Mexico’s Indigenous people and recognizes the relevance” of the criticisms. It requested to sit down with local officials and to discuss how it can “repair the damage” to Indigenous populations.

The controversy follows years of efforts by Mexico’s government and artisans to push back on major global clothing brands who they say copy traditional designs.

In 2021, the federal government asked manufacturers including Zara, Anthropologie and Patowl to provide a public explanation for why they copied clothing designs from Oaxaca’s Indigenous communities to sell in their stores.

Now, Mexican authorities say they’re trying to work out stricter regulations in an effort to protect artists. But Marina Núñez, Mexico’s undersecretary of cultural development, noted that they also want to establish guidelines to not deprive artists of “the opportunity to trade or collaborate with several of these companies that have very broad commercial reach.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

The Trump administration is seeking a $1 billion settlement from the University of California, Los Angeles, a White House official said Friday, weeks after the Department of Justice accused the school of antisemitism and other civil rights violations.

UCLA is the first public university to be targeted by a widespread funding freeze over allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action.

President Donald Trump’s administration has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against elite private colleges. In recent weeks, the administration has struck deals with Brown University for $50 million and Columbia University for $221 million but has explored larger settlements, such as with Harvard University.

The White House official did not detail any additional demands the administration has made to UCLA or elaborate on the settlement amount. The person was not authorized to speak publicly about the request and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Trump administration suspended $584 million in federal grants for UCLA, the university said this week. The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division issued a finding that UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.”

The university had drawn widespread criticism for how it handled dispersing an encampment of Israel-Hamas war protesters in 2024. Jewish students said demonstrators in the encampment blocked them from getting to class. One night, counterprotesters attacked the encampment, throwing traffic cones and firing pepper spray, with fighting that continued for hours, injuring more than a dozen people, before police stepped in. The next day, after hundreds defied orders to leave, more than 200 people were arrested.

The University of California’s president, James B. Milliken, said in a statement Friday that the university was reviewing a document it “just received” from the Department of Justice.

“Earlier this week, we offered to engage in good faith dialogue with the Department to protect the University and its critical research mission,” Milliken said. “As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians.”

This would not be the university’s first settlement over the 2024 protests. Last month, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued, arguing that the university violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters to block their access to classes and other areas on campus in 2024.

The settlement comes nearly a year after a preliminary injunction was issued, marking the first time a U.S. judge had ruled against a university over their handling of on-campus demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza.

UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students’ access to areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.

But U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi disagreed and ordered UCLA to create a plan to protect Jewish students on campus. The University of California, one of the nation’s largest public university systems, has since created systemwide campus guidelines on protests and has said it is committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations.

As part of the settlement, UCLA said it will contribute $2.3 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism and support the university’s Jewish community. It also has created an Office of Campus and Community Safety, instituting new policies to manage protests on campus.

UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk, whose Jewish father and grandparents fled Nazi Germany to Mexico and whose wife is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, launched an initiative to combat antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias.

The Trump administration has used its control of federal funding to push for reforms at elite colleges that the president decries as overrun by liberalism and antisemitism. The administration also has launched investigations into diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, saying they discriminate against white and Asian American students.

Last month Columbia University agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government’s allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants.

The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation.

___

AP reporters Jocelyn Gecker and Julie Watson contributed to this report.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File

President Donald Trump said Thursday he will nominate a top economic adviser to the Federal Reserve’s board of governors for four months, temporarily filling a vacancy while continuing his search for a longer-term appointment.

Trump said he has named Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, to fill a seat vacated by governor Adriana Kugler, a Biden appointee who is stepping down Friday. Miran, if approved by the Senate, will serve until January 31, 2026.

The appointment is Trump’s first opportunity to exert more control over the Fed, one of the few remaining independent federal agencies. Trump has relentlessly criticized the current chair, Jerome Powell, for keeping short-term interest rates unchanged, calling him “a stubborn MORON” last week on social media.

Miran has been a major defender of Trump’s income tax cuts and tariff hikes, arguing that the combination will generate enough economic growth to reduce budget deficits. He also has played down the risk of Trump’s tariffs generating higher inflation, a major source of concern for Powell.

The choice of Miran may heighten concerns about political influence over the Fed, which has traditionally been insulated from day-to-day politics. Fed independence is generally seen as key to ensuring that it can take difficult steps to combat inflation, such as raising interest rates, that politicians might be unwilling to take.

Federal Reserve governors vote on all the central bank’s interest-rate decisions, as well as its financial regulatory policies.

Miran’s nomination, if approved, would add a near-certain vote in support of lower interest rates. Kugler had echoed Powell’s view that the Fed should keep rates unchanged and further evaluate the impact of tariffs on the economy before making any moves.

Trump has said he will appoint Fed officials who will cut interest rates, which he says will reduce the borrowing costs of the federal government’s huge $36 trillion debt pile. Trump also wants lower rates to boost moribund home sales, which have been held back partly by higher mortgage costs. Yet the Fed doesn’t directly set longer-term interest rates for things like home and car purchases.

At its most recent meeting last week, Fed officials kept their key rate unchanged at 4.3%, where it has stood after three rate cuts late last year. But two Fed governors — Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman — dissented from that decision. Both were appointed by Trump in his first term.

Still, even with Miran on the board, 12 Fed officials vote on interest rate policy and many remain concerned that Trump’s sweeping tariffs could push inflation higher in the coming months.

Miran could be renominated to a longer term on the Fed once his initial appointment is concluded, or replaced by another nominee.

Powell’s term as chair ends in May 2026. Yet, Powell could remain on the board of governors until January 2028, even after he steps down as chair. That would deny, or at least delay, an opportunity for Trump to appoint an additional policymaker to the Fed’s board.

As a result, one option for Trump is to appoint Powell’s eventual replacement as chair to replace Kugler once the remaining four months of her term are completed. Leading candidates for that position include Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor from 2006 to 2011 and frequent critic of Powell’s chairmanship, and Kevin Hassett, another top Trump economic adviser.

Another option for the White House next May would be to select Waller, who is already on the board, to replace Powell, and who has been widely mentioned as a candidate.

Marco Casiraghi, senior economist at investment bank Evercore ISI, noted that the choice of Miran could be a positive sign for Waller, because Trump did not take the opportunity to nominate someone likely to become chair once Powell steps down.

After the July jobs report was released last Friday, Miran criticized the Fed chair for not cutting benchmark interest rates, saying that Trump had been proven correct on inflation during his first term and would be again. The president has pressured Powell to cut short-term interest rates under the belief that his tariffs will not fuel higher inflationary pressures.

“What we’re seeing now in real time is a repetition once again of this pattern where the president will end up having been proven right,” Miran said on MSNBC. “And the Fed will, with a lag and probably quite too late, eventually catch up to the president’s view.”

Last year, Miran expressed support for some unconventional economic views in commentaries on the Fed and international economics.

Last November, he proposed measures that would reduce the value of the dollar in order to boost exports, reduce imports and cut the U.S. trade deficit, a top priority for Trump. He also suggested tariffs could push U.S. trading partners, such as the European Union and Japan, to accept a cheaper dollar as part of a “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” an echo of the Plaza Accord reached in the 1980s that lowered the dollar’s value.

As a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, Miran in March 2024 also proposed overhauling the Fed’s governance, including by making it easier for a president to fire members of its board of governors.

“The Fed’s current governance has facilitated groupthink that has led to significant monetary-policy errors,” Miran wrote in a paper with Dan Katz, now a top official at the Treasury Department.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File

President Donald Trump said Friday that he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next Friday in Alaska to discuss ending the war in Ukraine, a potential major milestone after expressing weeks of frustration that more was not being done to quell the fighting.

Speaking to reporters at the White House after announcing a framework aimed at ending decades of conflict elsewhere in the world — between Armenia and Azerbaijan — Trump refused to say exactly when or where he would meet with Putin, but that he planned to announce a location soon. Later on social media, he announced what he called “the highly anticipated meeting” would happen Aug. 15 in Alaska. He said more details would follow. The Kremlin has not yet confirmed the details.

He suggested earlier Friday that his meeting with the Russian leader could come before any sit-down discussion involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“We’re going to have a meeting with Russia, start off with Russia. And we’ll announce a location. I think the location will be a very popular one,” Trump said.

He added: “It would have been sooner, but I guess there’s security arrangements that unfortunately people have to make. Otherwise I’d do it much quicker. He would, too. He’d like to meet as soon as possible. I agree with it. But we’ll be announcing that very shortly.”

If it happens, the meeting would be the first U.S.-Russia summit since 2021, when former President Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva. It could mean a breakthrough in Trump’s effort to end the war, although there’s no guarantee it would stop the fighting since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace.

Still, Trump said, “President Putin, I believe, wants to see peace, and Zelenskyy wants to see peace.” He said that, “In all fairness to President Zelenskyy, he’s getting everything he needs to, assuming we get something done.”

Trump also said that a peace deal would likely mean “there will be some swapping of territories” between Ukraine and Russia but didn’t provide further details.

Trump said of territory generally “we’re looking to get some back and some swapping. It’s complicated.”

“Nothing easy,” the president said. “But we’re gonna get some back. We’re gonna get some switched. There’ll be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both.”

Analysts, including some close to the Kremlin, have suggested that Russia could offer to give up territory it controls outside of the four regions it claims to have annexed.

Pressed on if this was the last chance to make a major peace deal, Trump said, “I don’t like using the term last chance,” and said that, “When those guns start going off, it’s awfully tough to get ’em to stop.”

Exasperated that Putin did not heed his calls to stop bombing Ukrainian cities, Trump almost two weeks ago moved up his ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia and introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil if the Kremlin did not move toward a settlement. The deadline was Friday.

Prior to his announcing the meeting with Putin, Trump’s efforts to pressure Russia into stopping the fighting have so far delivered no progress. The Kremlin’s bigger army is slowly advancing deeper into Ukraine at great cost in troops and armor while it relentlessly bombards Ukrainian cities. Russia and Ukraine are far apart on their terms for peace.

Ukrainian troops say they are ready to keep fighting

Ukrainian forces are locked in intense battles along the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line that snakes from northeast to southeast Ukraine. The Pokrovsk area of the eastern Donetsk region is taking the brunt of punishment as Russia seeks to break out into the neighboring Dnipropetrovsk region. Ukraine has significant manpower shortages.

Intense fighting is also taking place in Ukraine’s northern Sumy border region, where Ukrainian forces are engaging Russian soldiers to prevent reinforcements being sent from there to Donetsk.

In the Pokrovsk area of Donetsk, a commander said he believes Moscow isn’t interested in peace.

“It is impossible to negotiate with them. The only option is to defeat them,” Buda, a commander of a drone unit in the Spartan Brigade, told The Associated Press. He used only his call sign, in keeping with the rules of the Ukrainian military.

“I would like them to agree and for all this to stop, but Russia will not agree to that. It does not want to negotiate. So the only option is to defeat them,” he said.

In the southern Zaporizhzhia region, a howitzer commander using the call sign Warsaw, said troops are determined to thwart Russia’s invasion.

“We are on our land, we have no way out,” he said. “So we stand our ground, we have no choice.”

Putin makes a flurry of phone calls

The Kremlin said Friday that Putin had a phone call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, during which the Russian leader informed Xi about the results of his meeting earlier this week with Trump envoy Steve Witkoff. Kremlin officials said Xi “expressed support for the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis on a long-term basis.”

Putin is due to visit China next month. China, along with North Korea and Iran, have provided military support for Russia’s war effort, the U.S. says.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on X that he also had a call with Putin to speak about the latest Ukraine developments. Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to place an additional 25% tariff on India for its purchases of Russian oil, which the American president says is helping to finance Russia’s war.

Putin’s calls followed his phone conversations with the leaders of South Africa, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Belarus, the Kremlin said.

The calls suggested to at least one analyst that Putin perhaps wanted to brief Russia’s most important allies about a potential settlement that could be reached at a summit with Trump.

“It means that some sort of real peace agreement has been reached for the first time,” said Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin Moscow-based analyst.

Analysts say Putin is aiming to outlast the West

Trump’s Friday comments came after he said he would meet with Putin even if the Russian leader will not meet with Zelenskyy. That stoked fears in Europe that Ukraine could be sidelined in efforts to stop the continent’s biggest conflict since World War II.

Putin said in a previous statement that he hoped to meet with Trump as early as next week, possibly in the United Arab Emirates.

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, said in an assessment Thursday that “Putin remains uninterested in ending his war and is attempting to extract bilateral concessions from the United States without meaningfully engaging in a peace process.”

“Putin continues to believe that time is on Russia’s side and that Russia can outlast Ukraine and the West,” it said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Brendan Smialowski—AFP via Getty Images

Shares of Intel slumped Thursday after President Donald Trump said in a social media post that the chipmaker’s CEO needs to resign.

“The CEO of Intel is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!”

Trump made the post after Sen. Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel Chairman Frank Yeary expressing concern over CEO Lip-Bu Tan’s investments and ties to semiconductor firms that are reportedly linked to the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army, and asked the board whether Tan had divested his interests in these companies to eliminate any conflicts of interest.

Intel did not immediately respond to a request for comment, so it is not immediately clear if Tan has divested his interests in the companies.

“In March 2025, Intel appointed Lip-Bu Tan as its new CEO,” Cotton wrote in the letter. “Mr. Tan reportedly controls dozens of Chinese companies and has a stake in hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms. At least eight of these companies reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”

Tan, who took over as CEO in March, previously launched the venture capital firm Walden International in 1987 to focus on funding tech start-ups, including chip makers. China’s state media has described Tan as “actively” devoted to Chinese and Asian markets, having invested not only in the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company but also China’s state-owned enterprise SMIC, which seeks to advance China’s chipmaking capabilities.

The demands made by Trump and Cotton come as economic and political rivalries between the U.S. and China increasingly focus on the competition over chips, AI and other digital technologies that experts say will shape future economies and military conflicts.

Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has raised concerns that Chinese spies could be working at tech companies and defense contractors, using their positions to steal secrets or plant digital backdoors that give China access to classified systems and networks.

On Thursday the Arkansas Republican wrote to the Department of Defense urging Defense Secrectary Pete Hegseth to ban all non-U.S. citizens from jobs allowing them to access DoD networks. He has also demanded an investigation into Chinese citizens working for defense contractors.

“The U.S. government recognizes that China’s cyber capabilities pose one of the most aggressive and dangerous threats to the United States, as evidenced by infiltration of our critical infrastructure, telecommunications networks, and supply chains,” Cotton wrote in an earlier letter calling on the Pentagon to conduct the investigation.

National security officials have linked China’s government to hacking campaigns targeting prominent Americans and critical U.S. systems.

“U.S. companies who receive government grants should be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and adhere to strict security regulations,” Cotton wrote on the social platform X.

Intel had been a beneficiary of the Biden administration’s CHIPS Act, receiving more than $8 billion in federal funding to build computer chip plants around the country.

Shares of the California company slid 3.5%, while markets, particularly the tech-heavy Nasdaq, gained ground.

Founded in 1968 at the start of the PC revolution, Intel missed the technological shift to mobile computing triggered by Apple’s 2007 release of the iPhone, and it’s lagged more nimble chipmakers. Intel’s troubles have been magnified since the advent of artificial intelligence — a booming field where the chips made by once-smaller rival Nvidia have become tech’s hottest commodity.

Intel is shedding thousands of workers and cutting expenses — including some domestic semiconductor manufacturing capabilities — as Tan tries to revive the fortunes of the struggling chipmaker.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Chiang Ying-ying, File

Museums throughout New York City were just reopening in the wake of the COVID pandemic when Jane August launched what seemed like a straightforward plan: She would travel to every single museum in the city, producing a short video log of each one. She figured it would take three years at most.

But with 136 museums documented since 2021, she still has about 64 to go by her estimation. And with new museums opening and some old ones changing so dramatically that they deserve a revisit, the 26-year-old now says she’s realistically aiming to complete the project before she’s 30.

“At first, I started the project for myself to safely get out of my house and experience culture in the city again,” said August, who grew up in Arizona and has lived in New York for nine years. She said she wasn’t a big museum person before starting the project, and had only been to around seven at the time.

But as she began, the plan quickly evolved.

“I decided TikTok would be a cool way to document this so my friends could keep up with my journey and maybe discover something new,” August said. Her audience has since far expanded with about 40,000 followers across social platforms.

Museums big and small, Manhattan and beyond

Visiting its museums has sparked a new appreciation for New York City, she said, as well as for the sheer breadth of what’s on offer, particularly for those willing to explore smaller museums and those in the boroughs beyond Manhattan.

And yes, she has favorites.

“I love Poster House. It’s the first poster museum in the country, has great programming and is free on Fridays,” she says of the largely unsung museum at 23rd Street and Sixth Avenue, which features graphic design and advertising posters ranging from Art Nouveau to political propaganda.

Others on her list of favorites include the Tenement Museum in lower Manhattan and the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens, as well as three Brooklyn museums: the Brooklyn Seltzer Museum, the New York Sign Museum and the Red Hook Pinball Museum. She also has a soft spot for The Paley Center for Media NYC in midtown Manhattan.

“They have archives with every TV show you could possibly think of. It’s amazing,” she said of The Paley Center.

Staten Island offerings are worth the ferry ride

As for the city’s smallest borough, the ferry ride to Staten Island (free, with views of the Statue of Liberty along the way) is well worth the trip for museum-goers, she said.

The borough features the Newhouse Center of Contemporary Art, as well as the Alice Austen House, a Victorian Gothic house important to LGBTQ+ history. It was the home of one of the country’s earliest and most prolific female photographers, famous for documenting the city’s immigrant communities.

“You wouldn’t imagine that Staten Island had one of the gayest museums in New York, dedicated to a queer photographer, but it does,” August said.

Staten Island is also home to the Jacques Marchais Museum of Tibetan Art and the Chinese Scholar’s Garden, which claims to be one of only two authentic classical outdoor Chinese gardens in the United States.

“It’s so peaceful and quiet, and I love riding the ferry,” August said.

Taking advantage of free days and slow hours

While museums can be expensive, she said she makes good use of museum passes at her local library, and that many museums have days or times when they are free.

And because her “day jobs” tend to be at night — she works at different venues in ticketing and production, and also bartends — she’s able to visit museums in the middle of weekdays, when they tend to be less crowded.

August recently became a licensed New York City tour guide, and she says it’s given her a renewed appreciation both of the city and its visitors.

She’s also seen a few trends take hold, like the rise in museum programming aimed at younger audiences and the trend away from chronological exhibits, which she says make return visits less enticing.

“So many of us are desperate for third spaces,” she said, referring to a place distinct from both home and work where people can relax or socialize. “For a lot of us, we have a hunger to come back and visit again, especially when it’s free.”

Although big museums like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Modern Art can certainly be crowded, August says New York isn’t facing nearly the level of overcrowding as in European cities like Paris.

And at peak times and seasons, like summer, it’s nice to know there are plenty of smaller museums to visit.

Seeing the whole city

“I think this is especially important for the lesser-known museums that don’t often get press or social media features,” she said. “There are some small museums that get a huge bump in attendance and press after I have posted my videos so it’s exciting to be able to play a small role in that success.”

As for her motivation to continue the project, she said “it boils down to the people. I get to connect with fascinating and passionate people who are making these museums what they are and I get to connect with enthusiasts who want to find something fun to do with their weekend.”

For anyone interested in giving something like this a go for themselves, she says it takes a lot of endurance.

“Be prepared to go to corners of the city you never considered — I’m talking edges of the Bronx and middle of Staten Island,” she said. “But if you’re up for the challenge, you’ll probably gain a lot of insight on not just the museums and their content, but also the communities they serve.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Spencer Platt/Getty Images

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he will impose a 100% tariff on computer chips, raising the specter of higher prices for electronics, autos, household appliances and other essential products dependent on the processors powering the digital age.

“We’ll be putting a tariff of approximately 100% on chips and semiconductors,” Trump said in the Oval Office while meeting with Apple CEO Tim Cook. “But if you’re building in the United States of America, there’s no charge.”

The announcement came more than three months after Trump temporarily exempted most electronics from his administration’s most onerous tariffs.

The Republican president said companies that make computer chips in the U.S. would be spared the import tax. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a shortage of computer chips increased the price of autos and contributed to higher inflation.

Investors seemed to interpret the potential tariff exemptions as a positive for Apple and other major tech companies that have been making huge financial commitments to manufacture more chips and other components in the U.S..

Big Tech already has made collective commitments to invest about $1.5 trillion in the U.S. since Trump moved back into the White House in January. That figure includes a $600 billion promise from Apple after the iPhone maker boosted its commitment by tacking another $100 billion on to a previous commitment made in February.

Now the question is whether the deal brokered between Cook and Trump will be enough to insulate the millions of iPhones made in China and India from the tariffs that the administration has already imposed and reduce the pressure on the company to raise prices on the new models expected to be unveiled next month.

Wall Street certainly seems to think so. After Apple’s stock price gained 5% in Wednesday regular trading sessions, the shares rose by another 3% in extended trading after Trump announced some tech companies won’t be hit with the latest tariffs while Cook stood alongside him.

The shares of AI chipmaker Nvidia, which also has recently made big commitments to the U.S., rose slightly in extended trading to add to the $1 trillion gain in market value the Silicon Valley company has made since the start of Trump’s second administration.

The stock price of computer chip pioneer Intel, which has fallen on hard times, also climbed in extended trading.

Inquiries sent to chip makers Nvidia and Intel were not immediately answered. The chip industry’s main trade group, the Semiconductor Industry Association, declined to comment on Trump’s latest tariffs.

Demand for computer chips has been climbing worldwide, with sales increasing 19.6% in the year-ended in June, according to the World Semiconductor Trade Statistics organization.

Trump’s tariff threats mark a significant break from existing plans to revive computer chip production in the U.S. that were drawn up during the administration of President Joe Biden.

Since taking over from Biden, Trump has been deploying tariffs to incentivize more domestic production. Essentially, the president is betting that the threat of dramatically higher chip costs would force most companies to open factories domestically, despite the risk that tariffs could squeeze corporate profits and push up prices for mobile phones, TVs and refrigerators.

By contrast, the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act that Biden signed into law in 2022 provided more than $50 billion to support new computer chip plants, fund research and train workers for the industry. The mix of funding support, tax credits and other financial incentives were meant to draw in private investment, a strategy that Trump has vocally opposed.

—

Liedtke reported from San Ramon, California.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon