Trump to decide on US role in Israel-Iran conflict within 2 weeks
Trump to decide on US role in Israel-Iran conflict within 2 weeks | The Excerpt
On Friday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: President Donald Trump will decide on the U.S. role in the Israel-Iran conflict within two weeks. USA TODAY White House Reporter Davis Winkie discusses how the Trump administration's National Guard immigration enforcement could divide states. Plus, a court lets Trump keep control of California's National Guard for now. The Los Angeles Dodgers say they denied federal agents access to Dodger Stadium parking lots. Trump signs an executive order delaying a ban on TikTok - again. USA TODAY National Correspondent Marco della Cava looks back on the phenomenon that was 'Jaws' on its 50th anniversary. Plus, how locals made up much of the film's cast.
Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@usatoday.com.
Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Taylor Wilson:
Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson. And today is Friday, June 20th, 2025. This is USA TODAY's The Excerpt. Today, when might we get a decision on the US approach to Iran and Israel? Plus, how Trump's National Guard immigration enforcement could divide states. And it's been 50 years since the release of Jaws.
♦
President Donald Trump will decide in the next two weeks whether the US will get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. That's what the White House said yesterday. Trump continues to keep the world guessing on his plans. He had proposed a diplomatic solution, but has also suggested the US might join the fighting on Israel's side. Iran has said it won't negotiate under duress. The conflict has killed at least 240 Iranians and 24 Israelis in a week. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to say if Trump would seek congressional authorization for strikes on Iran.
♦
The possibility of the Trump administration sending National Guard troops on immigration raids outside their own state could cause a legal clash between states and with the federal government. I spoke with USA TODAY White House reporter Davis Winkie for more.
Davis, thanks for joining me today.
Davis Winkie:
It's good to be back.
Taylor Wilson:
Davis, starting here, the Pentagon is weighing a request from the Department of Homeland Security to call up members of the National Guard under state authority. What did you find taking a closer look at this memo?
Davis Winkie:
The way that the administration wants to bring the National Guard into immigration enforcement really diverges from the ways in which the National Guard has previously been used on this front. There have been border efforts that have really sparked professionalization and even reforms of the National Guard when necessary. But each of those missions to include ones under Obama, Biden, and Trump were focused on border security rather than interior immigration enforcement. And that's what stands out, is that now the Trump administration wants 20,000 guardsmen to participate in interior immigration enforcement rather than just border security as they have in the past.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, putting just slightly a tighter lens here, Davis, what is the 287(g) program and how would it be used here?
Davis Winkie:
It's named after a section in the federal law that authorizes a lot of immigration enforcement. It's a vehicle by which local and state law enforcement agencies can enter formal partnerships with ICE and DHS. One of the ways in which this can be done is by serving warrants or by doing jailhouse cooperation, where if somebody that a local sheriff's office brings in, for example, has an ICE detainer, then they will coordinate with ICE to give that person over to them when it's appropriate to do so.
But the Trump administration has revived a old version of 287(g) called the task force model that actually involves taking law enforcement officers from local and now even state agencies and deputizing them with immigration enforcement powers that lets them go forth and detain people on suspicion of not being lawfully in the United States for example.
What it also does is it allows these individuals from participating agencies to go out and about as part of ICE-led task forces or other federal law enforcement task forces that seek to enforce immigration laws. It's basically a way for the immigration enforcement apparatus to widen its reach around the country.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, I know a big question here is what this means for crossing state lines and the differences from one state to the next. I mean, can task force participants under 287(g) operate across state lines?
Davis Winkie:
Well, Taylor, that's the big question, and it's one that, according to CNN, officials in the administration and DHS and in the Pentagon are asking. The reason why the administration is likely exploring this possibility is that National Guard troops under state authority are not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is a law that forbids active-duty US military personnel from directly enforcing civilian laws. That's a law that has limited exceptions, but the biggest one is those guard troops on state duty can enforce laws. And by bringing guard troops on state duty onto immigration task forces, you've theoretically then expanded those task forces with a lot more manpower. But the question remains, can those troops go across state lines? The experts that I talked to for this story, Taylor, just don't know.
Taylor Wilson:
And as you outlined in this piece, Davis, this could potentially mean just broader clashes between red states and blue states. Is that a fair way to look at this?
Davis Winkie:
I think so. There's been, in recent years, a increasing pattern of clashes between states and the federal government over control and use of the National Guard. The modern examples start with more recently in the first Trump administration when the news of family separations came to light. A lot of democratic governors withdrew their consent for their personnel who were on state duty at the border under a federally-organized task force. So there have been concepts like this before that haven't been doing direct interior immigration enforcement that have had political issues rend the working relationships there.
You also saw during the COVID pandemic some red state governors fight against the Biden administration trying to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for troops in their National Guard. And then what we're seeing right now out in California with the administration federalizing the 4,000 members of the California National Guard against the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom out there. It's a different legal authority than the one that would be in play for the DHS request, but it just goes to show that there are a lot of traditional limits and boundaries with this relationship over the guard between states and the federal government that's taken it from a largely cooperative one in the modern era to one where now you've got people looking to score political points on each other.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. Another great piece from you, Davis. Folks can find the full version with the link in today's show notes. Davis Winkie covers the White House for USA TODAY. Thank you, Davis.
Davis Winkie:
Thanks for having me.
Taylor Wilson:
The US appeals Court let President Trump retain control yesterday of California's National Guard, while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit, challenging Trump's use of the troops amid protests and riots in Los Angeles.
♦
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Dodgers said yesterday that immigration and customs enforcement agents were denied entry to the stadium grounds. While ICE says the agency was never there. And the Department of Homeland Security claims, the masked agents were with Customs and Border patrol. You can read more about that with a link in today's show notes.
♦
President Trump has again extended the deadline for a TikTok ban to go into effect, allowing the Chinese-owned social media platform to continue operating for the next 90 days. Trump had said earlier in the week that he planned to give TikTok a third extension and signed an executive order yesterday making it official. It was the third time that Trump authorized a delay. The social media app's parent company, ByteDance, now has until September 17th to secure a deal that satisfies a legal requirement. Lawmakers ordered TikTok to divest from its Chinese ownership or face a ban in the United States over national security concerns. Former President Joe Biden signed the bipartisan legislation into law and the Supreme Court held the ban. But since returning to office, Trump has directed the Department of Justice not to enforce it.
♦
It's been 50 years since an iconic movie and theme song kept beachgoers out of the water for a summer and even longer. I spoke with USA TODAY national correspondent Marco della Cava on the anniversary of Jaws.
Marco, I always appreciate you stopping by. How are you today?
Marco della Cava:
I am great. Thanks for having me.
Taylor Wilson:
Thanks for having on. Really fun story. I cannot believe it's the 50th anniversary of Jaws. So let's just first go back to 1975. How big of a phenomenon was Jaws that summer?
Marco della Cava:
One way to answer that is one of the gentlemen I interviewed said he finally got to see it in 1979 because he was old enough, four years later, and the line was still around the block in 1979. So you can imagine 1975.
Taylor Wilson:
Wow. And I know you hear stories about folks not wanting to go into the water for that entire summer. In some cases, years. In some cases, an entire lifetime, right Marco, after seeing this movie. How badly did it scare people?
Marco della Cava:
Yeah, I mean it terrified folks, young and old. And I was happy to learn interviewing people that I was not alone in not wanting to go in the water and being very scared for years. In fact, I was even scared of going into a pool. And apparently, that phenomenon affected other people as well. As crazy as it sounds, there's no sharks in pools, but any kind of situation where you're in water and you're not sure what's out there, your mind can get ahead of yourself quickly. And Spielberg did an amazing job because as you remember in the opening scene in the first shark attack, you don't see a shark. And that sort of stayed with people, that, here I am bobbing in the water and yet who knows what's beneath me.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, you mentioned Spielberg. He went on to have this massive career, but this was early on in his career. And you're right that Jaws was both his origin story and almost his career killer. How so?
Marco della Cava:
Absolutely. He was under pressure to deliver a blockbuster, ideally, under budget. This was a very, very popular novel at the time, and they wanted it out for summer. And he was having massive problems with the mechanical shark. Obviously, he had insisted on shooting it, as you know, in Martha's Vineyard and also with a real mechanical shark out in the ocean. And that caused all sorts of problems that he felt were just going to be his undoing. He felt he might get kicked off the project. And in the end of course it was, as he said in a documentary I watched, the movie that gave him final cut for the rest of his life. So it made him in a huge way.
Taylor Wilson:
So many of the iconic scenes were filmed off the coast of Massachusetts around the island of Martha's Vineyard, a place I know well and have spent a lot of time. Most Jaws cast members were locals from the island, Marco. Tell us about some of these folks and also their memories from the Jaws production.
Marco della Cava:
Yeah, that's quite the amazing thing. They came to Martha's Vineyard with, I think, it was eight professional actors. And everyone else was cast locally. And that is what gives the movie its real genuine flavor. And a lot of these folks have since turned up at Jaws festivals that are happening. Different years they've happened, but they're going to happen this summer at the 50th anniversary on Martha's Vineyard. And those who are still alive, who were probably in their 20s, I think the gentleman who plays the college kid at the opening scene, he's often spotted talking to Jaws fans on the island. So that's a big part of the success of the movie, was the fact that it felt real because it really kind of was real in many ways.
Taylor Wilson:
And Martha's Vineyard local, Jeff Voorhees, played one of the Jaws victims as a kid. He spoke to the Cape Cod Times part of the USA TODAY network. Let's hear what he had to say.
Jeff Voorhees:
The third victim to get eaten by the shark in that movie back 50 years ago. Day two, we tried. Your leg came out of the water. Day three, your arm came out of the water. And then day five, Spielberg finally goes, "This is taking too long." He goes, "This time we got a different plan." He goes, "We got two guys in wetsuits. They're going to be underwater. When that thing explodes, each going to grab one of your legs, lift you in and out of the water a few times, and then pull you under and give you air."
Taylor Wilson:
It's the 50th anniversary of this summer. How are fans, how are former, you mentioned part of this, but former cast members and members of this production marking the 50th anniversary?
Marco della Cava:
In terms of how the cast is marking it, it's a good question. I mean, Richard Dreyfus famously doesn't like talking about Jaws. Spielberg rarely talks about Jaws. It was a long time ago, but I think it's mostly the fans, young and old, and therefore you're going to see Jaws on television quite often over the next few months. There's going to be a re-release of the actual movie, I believe in August. And there are lots of documentaries as well coming out. So anyone who likes the movie is going to be able to learn a lot more about it.
Taylor Wilson:
And Mark, are you still staying away from the ocean all these years after seeing Jaws?
Marco della Cava:
I don't stay away from it, but as one of the people I interviewed said, "I don't turn my back to the horizon."
Taylor Wilson:
Fair enough. Marco della Cava is a national correspondent with USA TODAY joining us here on the 50th anniversary of Jaws. Thanks, Marco.
Marco della Cava:
Thank you.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. We're produced by Shannon Rae Greene and Kelly Monahan, and our executive producer is Laura Beatty. You can get to podcast wherever you get your audio. And if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. As always, you can email us at podcasts@usatoday.com. I'm Taylor Wilson and I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How would Trump's FY 26 budget plan reshape special education?
This story was originally published on K-12 Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily K-12 Dive newsletter. A White House plan to consolidate pockets of special education funding in fiscal year 2026 has critics concerned that vital programs will be cut or loosely absorbed into remaining special education allocations. Supporters, however, see the budget restructure not just as an opportunity to maintain spending levels for federal special education grants, but to simplify and effectively distribute the money that educates and supports the nation's 8.4 million infants, toddlers, children and young adults with disabilities. Overall, the FY 26 budget proposal that was released in stages in April and May provides level funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act at $15.5 billion. However, the Trump administration said it wants to consolidate some grants that serve different purposes so states and districts have more spending flexibility. Those opposed to the plan say this design would remove guaranteed funding for certain programs because it would be each state's decision to fund those. Specifically, the budget plan would consolidate the smaller IDEA, Part B preschool grants to states and IDEA, Part D funding for technical assistance and teacher preparation into the larger Part B, school-age program. The proposed funding for the preschool grant and Part D programs equals $677.6 million, which is the exact amount of increase recommended in the budget proposal for the overall Part B program. "We're not cutting any of the IDEA funding. It is staying intact, and so the president really has a commitment to make sure that that funding does get into the states," said U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon to a Senate appropriations subcommittee on June 3 in Washington, D.C. But critics say the budget plan would reduce special education funding, not increase it. They also denounce the merging of grant programs. The Council of Administrators of Special Education, a professional organization of special education directors, said the various IDEA funding programs are designed to work together as a continuum of supports and services. "Reducing the components of the law to one block grant, without the guarantee that each part would be funded, is a serious disservice to children and youth with disabilities, their families, and the educators that serve them," CASE said in an email to K-12 Dive. Programs planned for consolidation into the overall Part B program include parent information centers, which were funded at $33 million in FY 2025. Those centers have exceeded or met performance measures for the past five fiscal years. The Part B, grants to states for school-aged children ages 3-21, as proposed, would provide an average of $1,944 per student with disabilities. That is about 10.9% of the national average per-pupil expenditure for the additional cost of providing special education and related services. Funding to educate students with disabilities also comes from other federal, state and local coffers. The budget for IDEA Part C for services to infants and toddlers with disabilities — at a proposed level funding of $540 million — would remain a separate formula grant program. The FY 26 budget proposal for special education consolidates the smaller IDEA, Part B preschool grants to states and IDEA, Part D funding for technical assistance and teacher preparation into the larger Part B, school-age program. Este contenido insertado no está disponible en tu región. Although supporters say the fiscal redesign would give states more flexibility with spending the Part D dollars, the Trump administration said states would still be required to meet key IDEA accountability and reporting requirements under Parts B and C. The administration would also phase out discretionary grant competitions previously federally funded under Part D, allowing states to decide whether to continue those activities. States would be required to at least maintain their funding of special education — or send local school districts funding that's equal to or more than what was provided the preceding school year. This is also known as state maintenance of effort. Funding for the Institute of Education Sciences, which hosts a center for special education research, would be cut by 67%. The Trump administration is planning to reform the IES to be more "meaningfully supporting and useful to practitioners," the budget justification said. The Trump administration has not waited for the annual appropriations process to reform the federal government, including at the U.S. Education Department and within the special education offices. The White House and U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon have vowed to cut what the administration calls federal waste and fraud and give local school communities and parents more decision-making authority. As part of that, the Education Department has reduced its workforce by about half, canceled more than $1 billion in grant funding, and issued an executive order to begin closing the Education Department, although legal challenges have slowed down those plans. The administration has also indicated it wants to move special education programming from the Education Department to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "We're not cutting any of the IDEA funding. It is staying intact, and so the president really has a commitment to make sure that that funding does get into the states." Linda McMahon U.S. education secretary The Education Department, in an April 28 letter to Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., said that no employees in the Office of Special Education Programs or the Rehabilitation Services Administration were subject to the March 11 layoffs at the agency. Staff at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, which is the office that oversees OSEP and RSA, who were laid off were involved in policy and administrative functions. Those roles can be reassigned or eliminated to create "a more efficient, cost effective, and accountable organizational structure," according to the letter, which was signed by Sarah Ursprung, acting assistant secretary for legislation and congressional affairs. The letter added that OSEP continues to monitor states' compliance with IDEA and has not made any changes to procedures regarding significant disproportionality, which is the IDEA requirement for determining if a school or district has racial overrepresentation or underrepresentation in special education identifications, placements or discipline. During the first Trump administration, the Education Department tried to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation but lost a court challenge to do so. Still, some disability rights advocates and special education administrative groups worry that the federal government's move to reduce its role in education will harm civil rights protections for students and families and leave schools with fewer resources. There have been no policy guidance letters issued by OSERS or OSEP since January, and the last annual congressionally mandated report about IDEA was released in March 2024, according to the Education Department's website. However, OSERS has issued several special education-specific notices for grant applications in recent months. And OSEP released state determinations for IDEA implementation as expected in June. This crossroads comes at a time when more students are qualifying for special education services, and when expanding private school choice options are putting more pressure on public schools to serve students with disabilities who may not have access to schools of their choice. One poll, however, found parents had mixed emotions about dismantling the Education Department. When a nonprofit that provides resources to people with learning and thinking differences, asked parents with school-aged children who qualify for IDEA services or services and accommodation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act about the issue, 30% said they were hopeful, 27% were excited, 30% were afraid, 31% were angry and 32% were anxious. Additionally, 90% of this same group of parents said they were concerned that dismantling the Education Department would impact the quality of their child's education. Since the beginning of the year, several Republican-leaning states have asked for more fiscal flexibility with federal education dollars through consolidated or block grants that carry fewer federal restrictions and requirements. Outside of IDEA funds, the FY 26 budget proposal for the entire Education Department budget recommends consolidating 18 current competitive formula funding grant programs into one $2 billion formula grant program. Supporters of the move have said states and local districts are in the best position to allocate the federal dollars, because they know the state and local needs and can spend the money more efficiently without onerous federal rules. The Education Department's FY 26 budget proposal 'lowers federal spending on duplicate and burdensome programs, safeguards critical programs like special education and Title I, and gives states and communities more flexibility and freedom to drive innovation," said Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform, an organization supportive of private school choice, in an email to K-12 Dive. "It also respects the role of parents and boosts parental choice programs." "I just hope that IDEA doesn't become this political football that gives the Trump administration an excuse to further cut a program that's already underfunded." Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. But the Council for Exceptional Children, an organization for professionals who work in special and gifted education, said in an email to K-12 Dive that rather than spur flexibility, the FY 26 spending plan "removes vital national support for special education," because it takes away dedicated dollars for addressing educator shortages, providing training and assisting families. The budget, "makes deep cuts that would negatively impact infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities and the professionals who support them," CEC said. During a May 6 forum held by Democratic senators in Washington, D.C., several members and witnesses spoke about their concerns on restructuring IDEA grant programs. "I just hope that IDEA doesn't become this political football that gives the Trump administration an excuse to further cut a program that's already underfunded," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who has sponsored a bill that calls for increasing IDEA funding by 40% of the average per pupil expenditure, or to $69.6 billion by fiscal year 2035. Kristen Scott, a high school paraprofessional who has worked for Elk River School District 728 in Minnesota for 20 years, worries about what federal spending cuts would mean for her school and says special education programs need more money, not less. She's not only concerned about cuts to annual appropriations but is also worried about potential reductions to Medicaid benefits. Schools that provide health services for students who qualify for IDEA services can be reimbursed for those costs under the program. Scott's job includes helping students with disabilities with their medical equipment, and with feeding and using the bathroom. If Medicaid or IDEA funding is reduced or cut, schools will still be legally bound to provide services required by a student's individualized education program, but that means budgets for other educational programs will be squeezed, said Scott, who is also a member of AFSCME Council 65, a labor organization. "That's just going to put us even further on our back foot and make it harder to provide the services that we need and to keep kids healthy and happy and safe," Scott said. Recommended Reading IDEA services for infants, toddlers brace for budget impacts Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Richest 20% Get an Average $6,055 Income Boost in Trump Tax Bill
(Bloomberg) — The Senate's version of President Donald Trump's proposed tax cut bill will cost the bottom 20% of taxpayers an average of $560 a year while giving an average boost of $6,055 to those at the top end. Struggling Downtowns Are Looking to Lure New Crowds Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sao Paulo Pushes Out Favela Residents, Drug Users to Revive Its City Center Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer That analysis from economists at the Budget Lab at Yale University bolsters Democratic critiques that the bill takes money out of the pockets of the working poor to give tax cuts to the rich. The uneven distribution of the bill's costs and benefits comes from a mix of tax and spending provisions. While the poorest taxpayers bear the brunt of cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, those at the top end of the income charts would get the biggest benefit of the tax cuts, including income rate cuts and an expanded state and local tax deduction. A proposal by Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida would cut Medicaid even further. But the Budget Lab, a nonpartisan policy research group, cites economic studies showing that a little more than half of changes to the federal-and-state-funded health insurance program fall on providers rather than enrollees. And it assumes that states will pick up part of the cost of the social safety net programs, replacing about 1% of the income that the poorest families would have lost. That proposal, if approved by the Senate during an ongoing voting session, could be added to the final bill. Senators are in the final stages of approving Trump's tax bill in a bid to get it to the president's desk by July 4. The analysis excludes the effects of tariffs, which Senate negotiators have floated as a potential way to pay for income tax cuts. The Budget Lab said the bill would be even more regressive if tariffs were included. America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House SNAP Cuts in Big Tax Bill Will Hit a Lot of Trump Voters Too Pistachios Are Everywhere Right Now, Not Just in Dubai Chocolate Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This summer will be decisive for the economy and Wall Street
The coming months will likely see several major events, datasets, progress reports, and deals that will determine the path forward for the economy and financial markets. By the fall, the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs and fiscal policies should be clearer, giving the Federal Reserve more confidence to act. If you followed the seasonal investing advice of 'sell in May and go away,' you may want to reconsider because the outlook for the economy and financial markets will likely be determined in the coming months. Several major events, datasets, progress reports, and deals are due this summer. By fall, the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs and fiscal policies should be clearer, giving the Federal Reserve enough confidence to act on interest rates. Here's a look at the factors that will tip the scales: A key piece could come as soon as this week. Trump has set a July 4 deadline for Congress to pass his so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, which contains his tax cuts and spending priorities. While the House of Representatives passed one version of the legislation and the Senate advanced a separate one, the GOP's narrow majorities in both chambers make the timing of the eventual package and its exact provisions less certain. All the congressional logrolling that's needed could push the timeline past July 4, especially now that a few Republicans have announced they will not seek reelection, making them less susceptible to Trump's arm-twisting. Wall Street expects the tax cuts to juice the economy and the stock market, while the bond market will watch the bill's impact on U.S. debt. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the Senate's version of the bill will add nearly $3.3 trillion to deficits over a decade. More fiscal sticker shock could send Treasury yields higher and add more pressure on the dollar, which is already down 10% this year, its worst first-half performance in more than 50 years. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has estimated that the U.S. will no longer be able to pay its bills by mid- to late summer, unless the debt ceiling is raised. While he has vowed that the U.S. will never default, it's up to Congress to raise the debt limit so that the Treasury Department can issue fresh bonds to service interest expenses and maturities. The Big Beautiful Bill would increase the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars. In the meantime, the Treasury Department has been using its extraordinary cash management measures to avoid default. Bessent said last week he extended his department's authority to use those extraordinary measures to July 24, in an apparent reminder for Congress to raise the debt ceiling before its typical August recess. Failure to raise the debt limit and prevent a U.S. default would spark a global financial meltdown. Trump administration officials have been saying since 'Liberation Day' in April that major trade deals are imminent. So far, the U.S. has reached agreements with the U.K. and China, while negotiations with other top trade partners continue. Meanwhile, the 90-day pause on Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs will expire on July 9, after which they would spike back to levels that triggered an epic stock market selloff. Bessent has signaled flexibility on that deadline, saying a dozen or so trade deals could be reached by Labor Day. But over the weekend, Trump reiterated his desire to dispense with any further talks and unilaterally set a tariff rate on each country. A sudden return to high tariffs would deliver another jolt to Wall Street, which had been expecting duties to eventually settle at 10% for most countries and 30% for China—manageable levels that could largely be absorbed without too much pain. Tariffs and their impact on inflation will heavily influence the central bank as it weighs whether to trim interest rates. Pricing data so far hasn't revealed a big impact from tariffs, and a few Fed officials have said that's evidence that inflation is tame enough to justify rate cuts. But Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and other policymakers have indicated they need at least a few more months of data to be confident that inflation is indeed on the right track. If the upcoming data show that any tariff-related inflation effects are only one-offs that aren't raising consumers' inflation expectations over the longer run, then rate cuts could come in the fall. While Trump has demanded the Fed lower rates immediately, he could also make it harder for policymakers to do that. They may more reluctant to cut just to prove to markets that they are independent from political pressure. Re-escalation of tariffs could muddy the inflation picture. The naming of a 'shadow' Fed chair could even stir a revolt on the Federal Open Market Committee. Starting in July, earnings reports for the second quarter will start coming out, giving Wall Street a more fulsome view of how tariffs—and the economic uncertainty they've caused—are affecting profits as well as the outlook for profits. Because companies rushed to stock up on imports earlier in the year to get ahead of tariffs, first-quarter results didn't fully reflect higher rates. But those stockpiles are being exhausted, forcing companies to hike prices on consumers or eat tariff costs and shrink profit margins. Also factoring into earnings will be how much or how little companies plan to invest and hire in an economy that is slowing amid Trump's trade war. The White House's fiscal policies will sway earnings too, as tax cuts, the end of certain tax credits, more spending on defense, and less spending on the social safety net ripple through corporate America and consumers. A tenuous ceasefire has taken hold between Israel, Iran, and the U.S., sending oil prices lower as markets worry less about a sudden supply disruption. But Trump has said he is open to bombing Iran again if it's necessary to cripple Tehran's nuclear program. That's as conflicting reports emerge over how much Iran's capabilities have actually been damaged. Renewed fighting could set off another surge in crude prices, sapping consumers of spending power, reigniting inflation, and further complicating the outlook for Fed rate cuts and the economy. Have a great summer. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
