billions

THE chancellor could raise tens of billions from tax reforms that don’t hit “working people”, leading economists have said.

Rachel Reeves is under pressure to fill an estimated £50billion black hole in the public finances ahead of November’s autumn statement. 

1

Westminster is awash with rumours that Labour could extend the freeze on income tax thresholds.

However, critics say this would mean breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge not to increase taxes on “working people”.

But in a new report, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) urged the Chancellor to resist “half-baked” solutions like “simply hiking rates”. 

The IFS Green Budget Chapter report instead urges the chancellor to reform the “unfair” and “inefficient” tax system.

End capital gains tax relief on death

Reeves could scrap capital gains tax relief on death, the report said.

When you sell certain assets – like houses, land or other valuable items – you have to pay a tax on the profit you made on it.

However, there are some important exceptions.

For example, if someone dies and you inherit their asset, you don’t have to pay capital gains tax they would have paid.

But the IFS said Reeves should consider scrapping the relief, raising £2.3billion in 2029-30.

However, families could oppose the measure given Labour is already skimming more revenue off inherited wealth.

The inheritance tax threshold has been frozen at £325,000 since 2009.

And last year, Reeves announced she would extend the freeze until 2030.

Hit taxpayers with a ‘one-off’ wealth tax

Economists and politicians are often divided over whether a wealth tax would work.

Supporters argue that the UK’s richest 1% are wealthier than the bottom 70% – and that a wealth tax would reduce this inequality.

But critics say it would be an administrative nightmare and lead millionaires to leave the country, taking their businesses and tax revenues with them.

But if Labour does reach for wealth in the budget – it should opt for a “one-off” wealth tax, the IFS said.

The think tank argues this is a better option than a recurring wealth tax.

It would work by the government calculating how much people’s total assets are worth and taxing them over a certain threshold.

“An unexpected and credibly one-off assessment of existing wealth could in principle be an economically efficient way to raise revenue,” the IFS wrote.

However, a wealth tax that happened on a regular basis would have “serious drawbacks,” the think tank warned.

Valuing everyone’s wealth every year would be “extremely difficult,” it said.

Moreover, a regular tax could deter the highest tax payers from residing in the UK long-term, potentially hitting overall tax revenues.

But the IFS said that even a “one-off” levy could spell trouble if people don’t trust the government not to come back for more.

The report said: “The potential efficiency of such a tax could be
undermined, however, if announcing a one-off tax created expectations of, or uncertainty about, other future taxes.”

Double the council tax rates paid by highest value homes

A new council tax surcharge could raise up to £4.4billion.

Council tax is a local tax on residential properties in the UK, with homes assigned to Bands A to H based on their value.

Bands G and H generally include the highest value homes.

The IFS said doubling the council tax paid by these households could mean a £4.4billion boost.

However, critics already say the council tax system is “unfair and arbitrary”.

As reported by The Sun, families living in modest homes sometimes pay more than those in multi-million-pound mansions.

The root of the problem is simple – council tax bills are not based on what your home is worth today.

Instead, it’s based on its value way back in 1991, when homes were categorised into bands ranging from A to H. 

Decades of uneven house price growth mean this once-simple system is now riddled with inequalities.

Moreover, councils set their own tax rates – leading to a “postcode lottery”.

The average Band D council tax in England is £2,280, but councils set their own rates.

For example, in Wandsworth, people pay just £990, while in Nottingham, they pay £2,656.

This means that millions of homeowners pay much less compared to their property’s value than those in poorer areas, according to PropertyData.

Another potential problem is that the extra cash would go to local authorities rather than central government.

Local authorities use council tax to pay for local services like schools, bin collections and libraries.

So to make sure it reaps the benefits of the change, Downing Street could reduce the grants being paid to councils, the IFS said.

The UK government gives councils more than £69billion in funding – a 6.8% increase in cash terms compared to 2024-25.

But councils would likely still fight back against any funding downgrade – with sticky 3.8% inflation already eating into their grants.

Rejig inheritance tax

The IFS admits that changes to inheritance tax could ‘provoke’ strong reactions.

But its report said that the £9billion said annually is ‘modest’ – although high by historical standards.

Reforming death duties to abolish the additional £175,000 tax-free allowance could raise around £6billion, the economists wrote.

“One obvious option would be to increase the rate of inheritance tax from its current 40%,” the economists wrote.

They said an increase of just 1% would raise £0.3billion in 2029–30.

The government could also reduce the threshold at which the tax begins to be paid.

Currently, people can pass on up to £325,000 of wealth tax-free.

Then there’s an additional £175,000 tax-free allowance that can be used only when passing on a primary residence to a direct descendant.

Abolishing the second of these allowances, for example, could raise around £6billion in 2029–30, the IFS said.

Crack down on businesses underpaying their taxes

The think tank has urged Labour to tackle tax non-compliance.

Corporation tax, a tax on company profits, has become increasingly important to the Treasury’s coffers in recent years.

Over the course of the 2010s, revenue averaged 2.4% of national income, rising to 3.3% in 2025–26.

But corporation tax dodging meant 15.8% of liabilities went unpaid in 2023-24, up from just 8.8% in 2017-18.

Small businesses are mainly to blame, the IFS said, admitting that claiming the prize of missing corporation tax “would not be straightforward in practice”.

The think tank added: “More work is needed to understand why so many small companies are submitting incorrect tax returns.

“It is likely that tackling the gap would require targeted
compliance activities from HMRC, such as auditing small businesses.”

The IFS also said “more revenue could be raised from corporation tax”.

However, it did warn that, while a 1% increase would raise £4.1billion, there could be adverse consequences.

The authors wrote that investment in the UK could become “less attractive” and reduce future tax yields.

However, critics may argue that any tax hike hitting members of the public – even if targeting inheritance or council tax – will still feel like a broken promise.

What must the chancellor avoid doing?

The personal tax allowance has been frozen at £12,570 since April 2021.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the freeze would remain until April 2026 and Labour extended it until April 2028.

Extending the freeze on personal tax thresholds including national insurance contributions would raise around £10.4billion a year from 2029-30.

But IFS economists say Reeves must not do this – and instead lift the threshold amid rising inflation.

Extending the freeze would be a breach of Labour’s manifesto pledge not to increase taxes for “working people” which includes income tax, national insurance and VAT, the IFS said.

The report’s authors also said restricting income tax relief on pension contributions would raise large sums but should be avoided.

Currently, when you put money into a pension, the income tax you’ve already paid on that money is essentially returned via a government top-up.

The IFS said restricting relief would be “unfair” to penalise pensions again when pension income is already taxed.

The Chancellor should also resist the temptation to up stamp duties, the IFS said.

The think tank fears it would cause people to avoid selling their homes when they want to – hitting the jobs market and holding back growth.

“Changing rates and thresholds is all very well, but unless the Chancellor is willing to pursue genuine reform it will be taxpayers that shoulder the cost of her neglect,” the report, which forms a chapter in the IFS’s wider budget assessment for 2025, said.

Isaac Delestre, a senior research economist at the think tank and an author of the chapter, said Ms Reeves would have “fallen short” if she reaches for quick revenue without wider reform.

“Almost any package of tax rises is likely to weigh on growth, but by tackling some of the inefficiency and unfairness in our existing tax system, the Chancellor could limit the economic damage,” he said.

Oct. 3 (UPI) — The President Donald Trump administration is withholding billions of dollars in funding from Chicago and New York transportation infrastructure funding.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought announced on X that $2.1 billion was being frozen that had been allocated to Chicago for its Red and Purple (train lines) Modernization Project “to ensure funding is not flowing via race-based contracting.”

The U.S. Department of Transportation Friday morning said, “This week, USDOT issued an interim final rule barring race- and sex-based contracting requirements from federal grants.”

“To continue implementation of this rule, USDOT today sent letters to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to inform them that two projects – the CTA Red Line Extension and the CTA Red and Purple Modernization Program – are also under administrative review to determine whether any unconstitutional practices are occurring,” the DOT said. “The remaining federal funding for both projects total $2.1 billion.”

Vought also announced Wednesday that the administration is freezing about $18 billion for infrastructure in New York City. The Hudson Tunnel Project is the main project suffering a funding freeze. The project helps connect New Jersey and New York, and the Second Avenue subway.

Later, the administration announced it was canceling $7.5 billion in funding for energy projects in states that voted for Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

On Thursday, Trump said on Truth Social that he would meet with Vought to determine which “Democrat agencies” to cut.

“I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent,” Trump wrote.

Sept. 20 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is instituting two major changes to the H-1B visa process, including the introduction of a so-called “gold card,” the U.S. Department of Labor confirmed in a media release.

Trump signed a pair of executive orders, one of which will institute a $1 million fee for high-skilled workers who pay the amount themselves, with the amount doubling to $2 million if the rate is paid by the person’s employer.

The second order will see the creation of a $100,000 fee for successful H-1B visa applicants.

Both changes were dubbed Project Firewall by the administration, which says the moves are meant to “safeguard the rights, wages, and job opportunities of highly skilled American workers.”

“This program will raise more than $100 billion, which we’ll use for cutting taxes and paying down debt,” Trump said in the Oval Office after signing the executive orders.

“They’re going to spend a lot of money to come in. We need great workers. And this pretty much ensures that this is what’s going to happen.”

Typically, there are 85,000 of the H-1B visas issued each year with a large number going to people working for tech giants such as Amazon and Microsoft, government data shows.

Employers must certify that workers looking to secure one of the visas will be paid a salary similar to what a U.S. citizen would be and that the company is unable to find an American to fill the role.

Prior to the executive order, an employer could pay a $215 registration fee to enter a lottery to claim one of the 85,000 annually issued visas.

“The Trump Administration is standing by our commitment to end practices that leave Americans in the dust. As we reestablish economic dominance, we must protect our most valuable resource: the American worker. Launching Project Firewall will help us ensure no employers are abusing H-1B visas at the expense of our workforce,” U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer said in a statement on the department’s website.

“By rooting out fraud and abuse, the Department of Labor and our federal partners will ensure that highly skilled jobs go to Americans first.”

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily kept in place the Trump administration’s decision to freeze nearly $5 billion in foreign aid.

Roberts acted on the administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in a case involving billions of dollars in congressionally approved aid. President Trump said last month that he would not spend the money, invoking disputed authority that was last used by a president roughly 50 years ago.

The high court order is temporary, though it suggests the justices will reverse a lower court ruling that withholding the funding was probably illegal. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled last week that Congress would have to approve the decision to withhold the funding.

Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a letter Aug. 28 that he would not spend $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

He used what’s known as a pocket rescission. That’s when a president submits a request to Congress toward the end of a current budget year to not spend the approved money. The late notice means Congress cannot act on the request in the required 45-day window and the money goes unspent.

The Trump administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid one of its hallmark policies, despite the relatively meager savings relative to the deficit and the possible damage to America’s reputation abroad as foreign populations lose access to food supplies and development programs. The administration turned to the high court after a panel of federal appellate judges declined to block Ali’s ruling.

Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge last month that an additional $6.5 billion in aid that had been subject to the freeze would be spent before the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30.

The case has been winding its way through the courts for months, and Ali said he understood that his ruling would not be the last word on the matter.

“This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” he wrote.

In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out an earlier injunction Ali had issued to require that the money be spent. But the three-judge panel did not shut down the lawsuit.

After Trump issued his rescission notice, the plaintiffs returned to Ali’s court and the judge issued the order that’s now being challenged.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration must release billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress, including money that President Trump said last week he would not spend, a federal judge has ordered.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington ruled Wednesday that the Republican administration’s decision to withhold the funding was likely illegal. He issued a preliminary injunction ordering the release of $11.5 billion that is set to expire at the end of the month.

“To be clear, no one disputes that Defendants have significant discretion in how to spend the funds at issue, and the Court is not directing Defendants to make payments to any particular recipients,” wrote Ali, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden. “But Defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds.”

The administration filed a notice of appeal Thursday.

“President Trump has the executive authority to ensure that all foreign aid is accountable to taxpayers and aligns with the America First priorities people voted for,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement.

Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, president and chief executive of Global Health Council, one of the groups in the case, said in a statement the decision was a victory for “the rule of law” and reaffirmed that “only Congress controls the power of the purse.”

Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a letter on Aug. 28 that he would not spend $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

He used what’s known as a pocket rescission, in which a president submits a request to Congress toward the end of the budget year to not spend the approved money. The late notice means Congress cannot act on the request in the required 45-day window and the money goes unspent. It’s the first time in nearly 50 years that a president has used the tactic. The fiscal year draws to a close at the end of September.

Ali said Congress would have to approve the rescission proposal for the administration to withhold the money.

The law is “explicit that it is congressional action — not the President’s transmission of a special message — that triggers rescission of the earlier appropriations,” he wrote.

The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the funding as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals, and in January, he issued an executive order directing the State Department and USAID to freeze spending on foreign aid.

Nonprofit organizations that sued the government said the freeze shut down funding for urgent lifesaving programs abroad.

A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled last month that the administration could suspend the money. The judges later revised that opinion, reviving the lawsuit before Ali.

In his ruling, Ali said he understood that his decision would not be the last word in the case, adding that “definitive higher court guidance now will be instructive.”

“This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” he wrote.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Thalia Beaty in New York contributed to this report.

The University of California’s top leader has raised the “distinct possibility” that financial losses due to the Trump administration’s funding cuts could amount to billions of dollars and extend beyond UCLA to the entire 10-campus system, telling state legislators Wednesday that “the stakes are high and the risks are very real.”

In a letter to dozens of lawmakers obtained by The Times, UC President James B. Milliken said the university is facing “one of the gravest threats in UC’s 157-year history” after the Trump administration cut off more than $500 million in grants to UCLA before demanding a $1.2-billion fine over allegations of campus antisemitism.

Milliken outlined the potential losses at the nation’s preeminent public university system under Trump’s higher education agenda in his strongest and most detailed public words since starting the job Aug. 1, days after funding troubles hit UCLA.

UC “receives over $17 billion per year from the federal government — $9.9 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funding, $5.7 billion in research funding, and $1.9 billion in student financial aid per year,” Milliken wrote in the letter addressed to Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. If such funds were lost, Milliken wrote, “we would need at least $4-5 billion per year to minimize the damage.”

“A substantial loss of federal funding would devastate our university and cause enormous harm to our students, our patients, and all Californians. Classes and student services would be reduced, patients would be turned away, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we would see UC’s world-renowned researchers leaving our state for other more seemingly stable opportunities in the US or abroad.”

Milliken, who met with lawmakers in Sacramento last month, penned his message in response to an Aug. 31 letter from Wiener and 33 other legislators, who urged UC leaders to “not to back down in the face of this political shakedown” from President Trump, whose actions the lawmakers said were “an extortion attempt and a page out of the authoritarian playbook.”

In a statement about the letter, a UC spokesperson said the university “is committed to working with leaders in Sacramento and across the country to ensure we have the resources we need to continue generating jobs, life-changing discoveries, and economic opportunity in the face of historic challenges.”

In addition to grant cuts and the $1.2-billion fine demand from UCLA, the Trump administration has also proposed sweeping changes at the Westwood campus. They include the release of detailed admissions data — the government accuses UCLA of illegally considering race when awarding seats — restrictions on protests, and an end to race-related scholarships and diversity hiring programs. The Department of Justice has also called for a ban on gender-affirming care for minors at UCLA healthcare systems.

The Trump administration accuses UCLA of violating civil rights law by not taking antisemitism seriously. Although there have been complaints of antisemitism on campus since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s ensuing war in Gaza, a number of influential faculty members, staff and students, including many in the Jewish campus community, have said UCLA has made progress on addressing the campus climate.

“Free speech, academic freedom, scientific research, and democracy are values that have led to Jewish flourishing. These attacks on California, on our immigrant communities, on science, and on LGBTQ people stand in stark contrast to Jewish values,” Wiener wrote in the letter whose signatories included members of California Legislative Jewish Caucus, of which Weiner is co-chair.

Wiener’s letter urged UC leaders to fight the government’s demands as the university negotiates with the DOJ.

“Acceding to these reprehensible demands won’t stabilize the UC system; it will betray our values of protecting and celebrating our most vulnerable communities. Giving in will only encourage further unconstitutional behavior by this administration,” said the letter, addressed to Milliken, the UC Board of Regents and UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk.

“Concessions by UCLA would establish a damaging precedent for extorting public schools in states with leadership that does not bow down to this President,” Wiener and others wrote, who described federal demands as “extortion,” echoing statements by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“We must resist Trump’s extortion to protect public higher education, the economy, our students and California’s values,” the lawmakers wrote.

Although the university has engaged with the Trump administration to restore UCLA funding, no settlement has been reached and there is a wide gulf between the two sides on what terms would be acceptable.

Newsom has called the government’s proposed fine “ransom,” saying he wants UC to sue the administration and not “bend the knee” to Trump.

But the decision over a lawsuit rests with the independent UC Board of Regents. The governor has appointed many but not all of the regents and sits as a voting member on the 24-person board. Newsom can exercise political sway over its moves but, aside from his vote, has no formal power over the body’s decisions.

WASHINGTON — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid.

Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money.

In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid.

After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year.

The appeal court’s majority partially vacated Ali’s order.

Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress’ spending powers.

“The parties also dispute the scope of the district court’s remedy but we need not resolve it … because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” Henderson wrote.

Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held “in no uncertain terms” that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons.

“Yet that is what the majority enables today,” Pan wrote. “The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.”

The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals.

Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

The world’s top-selling carmaker joins a growing list of companies reporting profit hits because of tariffs

Toyota expects a $9.5bn hit from United States President Donald Trump’s tariffs on cars imported to the US, the largest of any company to date, underscoring growing margin pressures.

The world’s top-selling carmaker announced the forecast impact alongside its updated annual guidance on Thursday.

Toyota also cut its forecast for full-year operating profit by 16 percent, reflecting challenges for global manufacturers grappling with rising costs from US levies on cars, parts, steel and aluminium.

“It’s honestly very difficult for us to predict what will happen regarding the market environment,” Takanori Azuma, Toyota’s head of finance, told a briefing, vowing to keep making cars for US customers, regardless of tariff impact.

Azuma said the 1.4-trillion yen ($9.50bn) estimate also includes fallout that suppliers are facing, particularly those in the US importing parts from Japan, though he declined to say how much of the total was attributable to that.

Toyota’s North American business swung to an operating loss of 63.6 billion yen ($431.3m) in the first quarter, from a profit of 100.7 billion yen ($682.9m) a year earlier, as it took a hit of 450 billion yen ($3bn) from the tariffs.

Its broad production operations, which include US, Canadian, Mexican and Japanese plants, expose it to tariffs not only on direct exports but also on vehicles and parts shipped across borders within North America.

Last week, the automaker said it turned out some 1.1 million Toyota and Lexus brand vehicles in North America in the first six months of 2025, including more than 700,000 in the US.

Forecasts tumble

Toyota cut its operating profit forecast for the financial year to the end of March 2026 to 3.2 trillion yen ($21.7bn) down from a previous outlook of 3.8 trillion yen ($25.7bn).

It had previously estimated a tariff hit of 180 billion yen ($1.2bn) for April and May, but that was solely for the impact from tariffs on Toyota’s vehicles. It had not issued a full-year projection until now.

Rivals have reported smaller tariff hits so far: Jeep maker Stellantis said tariffs were expected to add $1.7bn in expenses for the year. General Motors (GM) has projected one of $4bn to $5bn for the year, while Ford expects a $3bn gross hit to pretax adjusted profit.

On Wednesday, Ford reported that second-quarter results took an $800m hit from tariffs.

Trade deals

The first-quarter results highlight the pressure US import tariffs are putting on Japanese automakers, even as a trade pact between Tokyo and Washington offers potential relief.

Under the deal agreed last month, Japanese auto exports into the US would face a 15 percent tariff, down from levies totalling 27.5 percent previously. But a timeframe for the change has yet to be unveiled.

Last week, Toyota reported record global output and sales for the year’s first half, driven by strong demand in North America, Japan and China, including that for petrol-electric hybrid vehicles.

The carmaker also announced on Thursday a plan to build a new vehicle factory in Japan, where car sales have been falling due to a shrinking population and declining ownership.

Toyota said it planned to start operations early next decade at the new plant, but has yet to decide production models.

On Wall Street, Toyota’s stock is on the decline amid its downward revised forecast. As of 11:30am in New York City (15:30 GMT), it is down by 1.6 percent. Competitors’ stocks are mixed. Ford is down 0.5 percent, Stellantis is up 2.4 percent and GM is up by about 0.7 percent.

The White House is expected to announce the new deal as early as Wednesday.

Apple will pledge $100bn for manufacturing in the United States that will focus on building more jobs across the country, the White House has said.

The investment is expected to be announced on Wednesday.

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Apple was likely to make an investment announcement on Wednesday, as he discussed the financial pledges made by companies and countries under US President Donald Trump.

“They’re moving here in droves. This is trillions and trillions of dollars of commitments for people to build new factories here. In fact, you’re likely to see one today from Apple,” Hassett said in an interview with Fox Business Network.

Hassett did not elaborate further.

The investment will help move key parts of the Cupertino, California-based tech giant’s supply chain to the US, Bloomberg News reported, but details on the specifics were sparse.

“Today’s announcement with Apple is another win for our manufacturing industry that will simultaneously help reshore the production of critical components to protect America’s economic and national security,” Assistant White House Press Secretary Taylor Rogers said in a statement.

The president is slated to make an announcement at 4:30pm in Washington (20:30 GMT), according to the White House, which gave no specifics about the deal with the tech giant.

The latest investment

Apple said in February that it would spend $500bn in US investments in the next four years, which would include a giant factory in Texas for artificial intelligence servers and the addition of about 20,000 research and development jobs across the country.

Apple has many times pledged investments in the US in the last decade. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, the company pledged $350bn. In 2021, under former President Joe Biden, Apple announced a $430bn investment.

The investment comes after Trump warned that he would hit Apple with a 25 percent tariff if it did not move its manufacturing efforts to the US. Analysts have said such a shift is not realistic.

Dan Ives at Wedbush Securities said in a note that it would take at least five to 10 years to shift production to the US, meaning consumers would pay as much as $3,500 for an iPhone.

“We believe the concept of Apple producing iPhones in the US is a fairy tale that is not feasible,” Ives had previously said.

Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In April, Apple had announced plans to move to India the assembly of the majority of the phones it sells to the US by the end of next year in an effort to reduce its reliance on China as the trade war between the US and China heats up. But Trump’s ire has now shifted to India and he has slapped the country with a 50 percent tariff over imports of Russian oil. It’s not clear if the latest developments will impact Apple’s India plans.

Apple’s stock surged on the looming US investment announcement. The company, which is traded under the ticker symbol APPL, is up more than 3.8 percent since the market opened as of 10:15am in New York (14:15 GMT) on Wednesday.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Monday that his office has spent more than $5 million fighting the Trump administration in court over the last six months, but saved the state nearly $170 billion.

“That means that for every one dollar we’ve been given by the legislature and the governor from special session funding to do this work — and we are very grateful for that funding — we’ve returned $33,600 for the state,” Bonta said during an afternoon news conference alongside Gov. Gavin Newsom. “Just to put it in perspective, if you told a Wall Street investor they’d get a $33,000 return on every one dollar invested, they would trip over themselves to get in on that deal.”

Bonta’s calculations are based on a mountain of litigation his office has filed against the administration since President Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, including 37 lawsuits — many alongside other liberal-led states — and 47 amicus briefs backing other litigants’ lawsuits against the administration.

The vast majority of the savings Bonta claimed were the result of one particular lawsuit, in which California and other states successfully challenged a Trump administration effort to freeze trillions of dollars in federal funding to the states — including what Bonta said was $168 billion for California alone.

“In his first week in office, President Trump went after a full-third of California’s budget — and we went to court less than 24 hours later and stopped him in his tracks,” Bonta said.

Bonta also cited court orders his office has won protecting $7 billion in transportation funding to maintain roads, highways, bridges and other infrastructure; $939 million in education funding for after-school and summer learning and teacher preparation; $972 million in healthcare funding for identifying, tracking and addressing infectious diseases, ensuring immunizations and modernizing public health infrastructure; and $300 million for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. However, it has previously derided California’s efforts to block Trump’s agenda in the courts. Last month, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Times that Newsom was “destroying” the state and that Trump has been trying to “step in and save Californians from Gavin’s incompetence.”

The state legislature during a special session in February allocated Bonta’s office an extra $25 million to staff up and fight Trump in court. As part of that allocation, the legislature required that Bonta provide regular reports on how the money is spent. Bonta and Newsom’s news conference Monday followed the first of those reports being submitted to lawmakers.

Bonta said much of the $5 million his office has spent to date was used to pay for in-house attorneys and paralegals, and that none has been spent on outside counsel. He also said that, given the pace and scope of the work to date, his office will eventually need more funding.

“We’re grateful for the $25 million and the ability to draw down that $5 million so far. We do think we will need more going into the future, and I’m hopeful that through the conversations that we have — talking about what we would use it for, our success so far, what the continuing threats are down the road — that we’ll get to a place that will work for everybody,” Bonta said.

Newsom, citing Bonta’s financially consequential wins in court already, promised he’ll get the funding.

“Let me assure you, he will not be in need of resources to do his job,” Newsom said. “This report only highlights why I feel very confident in his ability to execute and to deliver results for the people of this state.”

Bonta’s report outlined 36 lawsuits his office had brought against the Trump administration through Wednesday. Those lawsuits challenged Trump’s efforts to slash the federal workforce, cut healthcare funding and research, dismantle the Department of Education and reduce education funding. They also challenged Trump administration efforts to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and restrict voting access in California, among other things.

On Friday Bonta’s office filed its 37th lawsuit, challenging the administration’s efforts to effectively ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth nationwide.

Newsom said Bonta’s work to date shows exactly why it was necessary for him and other California leaders to call a special session and allocate the additional funds. California sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, and they knew it would need to sue the second Trump administration, too.

“We were mindful that past is prologue,” Newsom said, and the added resources they provided Bonta’s office “have come to bear great fruit.”

Bonta said there is no time to slow down now, as the Trump administration continues to violate the law, and that his team is ready to keep fighting.

“We know that this work is just the beginning,” he said, “but we are not backing down.”

A compensation scheme for drivers over the mis-selling of car loans could cost as much as £18bn, the financial regulator has said.

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that hidden commissions from lenders to dealers on car loans were not unlawful, meaning millions of motorists will not be able to claim.

However, the judgement left open the possibility of compensation claims for particularly large commissions which the Supreme Court said were unfair.

Following the ruling, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has said it will consult on running a payout scheme – estimated to cost between £9bn and £18bn.

It said that “most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation”, with the first payouts expected next year if the scheme goes ahead.

Those who have already complained do not need to do anything, the FCA said, advising those who have yet to complain to contact their car loan provider rather than using a claims management company.

July 22 (UPI) — A coalition of school districts, teachers’ unions, nonprofits and parents has filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of illegally withholding nearly $7 billion in Congress-approved education funding.

In the lawsuit filed Monday, the coalition asks a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island to compel the Department of Education and the White House Office of Management and Budget to release the funding, which supports low-income students, teacher training, English learners, immigrant students and after-school programs.

According to the lawsuit, the Department of Education is required to disburse Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds on July 1. But on June 30, states were informed that the department would not be disbursing nearly $7 billion in ESEA funds and that a new policy had been adopted requiring a review to first be conducted to ensure the money is spent “in accordance with the president’s priorities,” the lawsuit states, citing the letter.

The Trump administration provided the states with neither a timeline nor assurances that the funds would be released, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has been dismantling the Department of Education, in line with President Donald Trump‘s March executive order seeking to shutter the department and return its authorities to the states.

Last week, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court approved Trump’s mass firings at the department. At the same time, 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its freezing of billions of dollars in education funds.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten described the Trump administration’s freeze on Monday as throwing a “monkey wrench” at millions of U.S. educators.

“These are long-term, school-based programs, already passed by Congress and signed into law by the president,” she said in a statement.

“Since day one, the Trump administration has attacked public education, undermining opportunity in America. Now it is trying to lawlessly defund education unilaterally through rampant government overreach. It’s not only morally repugnant: the administration lacks the legal right to sacrifice kids’ futures at the alter of ideology.”

Among the plaintiffs are Alaska’s largest school district, Anchorage School District; Cincinnati Public Schools and Fairbanks North Star Borough, among others.