See which local cities made U.S. News' top 250 places to live
The publication analyzed 859 cities in the U.S. based on five categories: quality of life, job market, value of living, net migration and desire to live in the area. They said they evaluated each category by using a methodology determined by Americans' preferences.
"While quality of life remains the top priority for many Americans – and has the heaviest weight in determining the Best Places to Live rankings – U.S. News slightly adjusted its weights to increase priority for a location's job market amid heightened economic uncertainty," Erika Giovanetti, consumer lending analyst at U.S. News & World Report, said in a May 20 statement.
You can read more about the methodology on U.S. News' website.
Florida doesn't see a spot on the list until 59 — Parkland. According to the methodology, the South Florida city saw a score of 6.4 out of 10.
The Villages was ranked at No. 177 and Clermont came in at 241. Here are all 17 Florida cities on the list:
Parkland - 59
Palm Harbor - 68
Weston - 74
Jupiter - 124
Ormond Beach - 162
Pensacola - 166
The Villages - 177
Naples - 179
Riverview - 198
Bonita Spring - 203
Pinellas Park - 126
Kendall - 219
Apopka - 221
Doral - 227
Clermont - 241
North Port - 242
St. Petersburg - 246
Only about a state away from Florida, Georgia's Johns Creek is the U.S. News and World Report's top place to live in.
"Just north of Atlanta, Johns Creek is the kind of place where tree-lined streets, a strong sense of community and a high quality of life come together to make it one of the nation's most desirable places to call home," the report says.
Johns Creek, Georgia
Carmel, Indiana
Pearland, Texas
Fishers, Indiana
Cary, North Carolina
League City, Texas
Apex, North Carolina
Leander, Texas
Rochester Hills, Michigan
Troy, Michigan
This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: The Villages, Clermont make U.S. News' '2025-2026 Best Places to Live'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
an hour ago
- Business Upturn
Former CIA Insider Highlights America's Buried Advantage in Online Presentation
By GlobeNewswire Published on July 28, 2025, 02:00 IST Washington, D.C., July 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Rediscovering America's Strategic Core In a released presentation , renowned former national security advisor Jim Rickards warns that the next major shift in U.S. policy may come not from Wall Street or Washington—but from beneath the surface of federally controlled lands. 'This story is not about real estate… the government retained the most valuable part'. Rickards points to a dormant but active legal provision—originally designed to encourage domestic growth—which may now hold the key to America's technological future. The Invisible Wiring of Modern Power The materials Rickards identifies are not commodities in the traditional sense—they are foundational enablers of global advancement: Application Mineral Inputs AI Chips & Data Centers Silicon, gallium, germanium, copper EV Batteries Lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, graphite Missile Systems & Drones Neodymium, dysprosium, samarium, rare earth alloys Satellite Navigation Indium, tantalum, beryllium, aluminum 'These seemingly obscure minerals… they're the building blocks of everything from NVIDIA chips to advanced military weapons'. Sources: U.S. Department of Energy CSIS Visual Capitalist A 150-Year-Old Law, Still in Effect Rickards centers the opportunity on Title 30—a little-known federal statute from the 1800s that allowed Americans to claim rights to public lands, which were often rich in mineral deposits. 'Back then, anyone could make a claim… pay $2 to $5 per acre… and do a minimal amount of work'. The framework still exists—and Rickards believes it may quietly be resurfacing to address modern strategic needs without requiring congressional debate. Technology May Be the Catalyst Rickards believes a convergence of technology and geopolitics is making this moment different: The use of AI mapping tools to identify previously unreachable mineral deposits The Pentagon's direct involvement in securing U.S. rare-earth supply chains Escalating foreign control over strategic mineral exports 'We have truly massive mineral wealth here. It's not hard to extract. We know where it is. And how to get it' About Jim Rickards Jim Rickards is a former advisor to the CIA, Pentagon, White House, and Treasury. His work has guided U.S. leadership during global crises including the Iran Hostage Situation and the 2008 financial collapse. He is the editor of Strategic Intelligence , a monthly report on national security, macroeconomics, and resource policy. Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same. Ahmedabad Plane Crash GlobeNewswire provides press release distribution services globally, with substantial operations in North America and Europe.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: What's in the agreement? Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on 'the vast majority' of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. Von der Leyen said the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, the EU side would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to replace Russian energy supplies, and Europeans would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. What's not in the deal? Trump said the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain; von der Leyen said the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate. Trump said pharmaceuticals were not included in the deal. Von der Leyen said the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. Where the $600 billion for additional investment would come from was not specified. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. What's the impact? The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. It's still much higher than the average tariff before Trump came into office of around 1%, and higher than Trump's minimum 10% baseline tariff. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. The 10% baseline applied while the deal was negotiated was already sufficiently high to make the European Union's executive commission cut its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 0.9%. Von der Leyen said the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' What is some of the reaction to the deal? German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations' and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in transatlantic trade.' The Federation of German Industries was blunter. 'Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry,' said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. While the rate is lower than threatened, 'the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet,' said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, today's agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the US-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy,' Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' What about car companies? Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3 billion euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. What were the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with some 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said the European market is not open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. And some 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank.
New York Post
9 hours ago
- New York Post
Democrats self-own bragging about inflation shows the left has learned NOTHING
Everybody makes mistakes. Not everyone makes the same mistakes over and over again. Last week, the geniuses in charge of maintaining the Democratic Party's social media picked at a fresh wound — and showed, again, exactly why it lost the 2024 election. The blue team's official X account shared a line chart showing the change in the price of various groceries — meat, dairy, produce, etc. — over time, and asserting that 'prices are higher today than they were on [sic] July 2024.' 'Trump's America,' read the caption. The problem? The last part of the line barely went up. The blue team's official X account, with the caption 'Trump's America,' shared a chart showing the change in the price of various groceries, asserting that 'prices are higher today than they were on [sic] July 2024.' Eric Daugherty, /X And what it actually showed was a massive increase in prices between 2021 and 2024. In other words: over the course of former President Joe Biden's White House tenure. 'I would just advise Democrats not to post about inflation given their track record,' suggested conservative influencer A.G. Hamilton. 'Might save them the embarrassment of having to delete their posts after getting dunked on' — which is exactly what they did. 'This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight!' marveled Fox Business host Stuart Varney. And of course Team Trump got in on the action. The problem with the chart was that it actually showed a massive increase in prices between 2021 and 2024 – when Biden was president. RapidResponse47/X What's notable about the braindead blunder, though, is not the blunder itself. It was that it represented yet another admission, eight and a half months after they surrendered the presidency to Donald Trump for the second time in three election cycles, that the Democrats still haven't made a sincere effort at diagnosing the reasons for their unpopularity — much less addressing them. A new Wall Street Journal poll found that their party continues to suffer as a result — to the point that just 33% of Americans hold a favorable view of it, and 63% view it unfavorably. Both Donald Trump (-7) and the GOP (-11) are also underwater, but may as well be polling as well as ice cream compared to the Democrats. The same holds true of the public's view of various issues; voters still trust the GOP more than the alternative when it comes to the economy, inflation, immigration and foreign policy. If that doesn't wake Democrats up to the provenance of all their political pain, nothing will. The Left has long relied on comforting fallacies to numb the discomfort that accompanies defeat. After 2016, elected Democrats and their media allies insisted that Trump's shocking victory was only possible thanks to Russian meddling. And now, they're laboring under the misimpression that return to power can be attributed to Republicans' superior, but decepting messaging — an almost supernatural ability to compel Americans to believe that which isn't so. If only they could convince the public of the truth, they'd surely prevail. But the cold, hard truth is that it's always been about the substance, stupid — as the unflattering data they so proudly shared last week demonstrates. Kamala Harris was deposited into the dustbin of history because she was the top lieutenant in an administration that had proven a miserable failure long before her boss's implosion last summer. Americans spent the entirety of the Biden years telling pollsters that their lives were demonstrably, palpably worse as a result of historic price hikes. Biden & Co. responded to these pleas for relief by denying the existence of inflation until they couldn't any longer. Then, when they finally did implicitly admit to the effects of the nearly $2 trillion boondoggle they passed in 2021, they slapped the name 'Inflation Reduction Act' on yet another profligate spending bill that every layman in America knew would only compound the problem. There are similar stories to be told about Americans' dissatisfaction with Biden's approach to foreign policy, his abdication of his duty to secure the border, and his championing of a radical social agenda that maintains up is down, left is right, and black is white. Their stubborn refusal to grapple with this incontrovertible truth is also reportedly set to be reflected in an upcoming 2024 autopsy conducted by the DNC. The New York Times reports that it will 'steer clear of the decisions made by the Biden-turned-Harris campaign,' and instead 'focus more on outside groups and super PACs that spent hundreds of millions of dollars aiding the Biden and Harris campaigns through advertising, voter registration drives and turnout efforts.' It's like watching a restaurant serving inedible food invest in new plateware. The gripe has never been with the Democrats' presentation or voters' tastes. It's with the product itself.
