Cost

What should I wear today?

Do I want to choose between my comfort or someone else’s comfort? If I buy this shirt, it will be a bargain for me, but it risks someone else’s life. Is that worth it? Those workers need work, so I am helping by creating demand for their products. Right?

As a college student, I want to fit in: same styles, same jewelry, same colors, same brands. However, I am also in search of a job and living off savings from my high school job. I have bought clothes from Shein as well as other questionable fast fashion brands. I justified my purchase for my bank account’s comfort and to make me feel like I fit in. I pretended to know about the environmental harm and the treatment of garment workers, but it was a selfish decision.

Fast fashion is not new.

It started in the late 1970s and rose to popularity in the 1990s as companies tried to keep up with trends (Kelleher, 2026). Companies started offering lower prices to encourage consumers to continue buying more clothes. The lower prices often came at the cost of garment workers as well as the toll on the environment. Companies like Shein, Amazon, Forever 21, H&M, Primark, Uniqlo, Fashion Nova, and many other brands worldwide are accused of working with suppliers who violate international human rights.

Gender in the garment industry.

The garment industry consists of almost 100 million people, with 75% of the workforce being employed in Asia. However, with high levels of informal employment, a true number is hard to estimate, but around 60 to 80% of the workforce is female (Amnesty International, 2025). For women, the garment industry is seen as a way to enter the workforce (Tahir, 2024). These women are predominantly young women who are internal migrants without family and support networks, making them more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation by companies (Amnesty International, 2025). Common violations are wage theft, harassment, inhumane working hours and conditions, and restrictions on speaking out (Business and Human Rights Centre, 2023).

They also face discrimination from male management, reporting a lack of access to childcare, maternity pay, and other benefits. Pregnant women are also a target because they are considered “unproductive.” When workers unionize, they face threats and retaliation from management and hostility from the government, making negotiating better conditions impossible (Amnesty International, 2025).

Who is responsible?

Big-name brands are the ones who are profiting, because they get cheap labor and fast production time, and they get to blame the suppliers for the inhumane conditions. Brands demand that suppliers respect human rights in the workplace but incentivize them to do the

opposite. In Pakistan, they force suppliers to use price-bidding systems to undercut other factories to win contracts, which leads to cutting corners in terms of safety conditions for workers (Kashyap, 2023). After brands foster these conditions, they avoid responsibility by citing lack of control over international suppliers.

While the International Labor Organization (ILO) sets out freedoms for workers, it is up to member countries to supervise, enforce, and report on the implementation of standards. Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Myanmar, and Pakistan are all member states of the ILO and should be backing up workers’ rights, but these governments often lack capacity to address these issues (Helm, 2025). This is often seen as the government overlooking the abuses as the industry benefits economic development and growth (Amnesty International, 2025).

What can I do?

Not all consumers might have bought from companies like Shein, but you probably have bought from Amazon, Gap, Walmart, Target, IKEA, and other “higher quality” brands. You should not go to your closet and throw out all brands that are unethical; that would contribute to the environmental damage from the garment sector. Students can focus on creating a wardrobe of capsule essentials rather than today’s trendy clothes. By using articles like the Fashion Transparency Index and other credible sources to inform your consumption choices, you can support ethical practices and treatment of women in the garment industry. On an international level, you can follow and sign the accord by the Clean Clothes Campaign to ensure safety in the workplace and empower workers to speak up without fear (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2026).

Now, I stare at my closet, wondering what I should wear. My clothes help express my personality, keep me comfortable, and help my confidence, but is that really worth the cost of other women suffering? These trends will be over by the time my Amazon package arrives. The women making my clothes are more than just workers and should be treated first as humans. I know I vote with my dollars, so I will vote for the protection of workers’ rights over my own comfort.

WASHINGTON — Many of the groups that helped elect Donald Trump as president again are deeply unhappy with his performance, according to a new AP-NORC poll.

Trump’s return to the presidency was fueled by a wide-ranging coalition that built on his loyal base of supporters. Now that Trump has been in the White House for more than a year, the survey of more than 2,500 U.S. adults from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that many key groups — including Hispanic adults, younger adults and men — are increasingly dissatisfied with his presidency.

The poll was conducted from April 16 through Monday, as oil prices fluctuated and Americans spent more at the gas pump.

It’s a particularly bad moment for Trump, a Republican whose economic approval slumped over the past month as the Iran war drives prices higher. But AP-NORC polls show that discontent has been building among critical segments of the population over the past year.

Trump’s overall approval among Hispanic adults has fallen 16 percentage points since March 2025, and his support has declined by 9 percentage points among men.

And while Trump’s base is still largely behind him — most Republicans approve of his performance — there are signs that his second term may not be living up to their expectations.

Here’s what polling shows about Trump’s current status with four important groups:

Hispanic adults

Hispanic Americans have grown increasingly discontented with Trump over the past year.

About one-quarter of Hispanic adults approve of how he’s handling the presidency in the new poll, down from about 4 in 10 in March 2025.

That decline has been visible since late last year — suggesting that it’s not just the war in Iran or recent spikes in gas prices that are leaving this group unhappy.

Trump’s restrictive immigration approach may be playing a role. Only about one-quarter of Hispanics approve of his handling of immigration, down from 36% at the beginning of his term.

His immigration tactics appear to be particularly unpopular among younger Hispanics — a group with which he made gains in 2024. Only 18% of younger Hispanic adults approve of his performance on immigration, compared with 40% of Americans overall.

There is also broad discontent about the state of the U.S. economy among Hispanics. Only about one-quarter of Hispanic adults approve of how Trump is handling that issue, and about 2 in 10 say they approve of his approach to the cost of living. Few Hispanic adults, about 2 in 10, describe the nation’s economy as “good.”

Young adults

Trump’s overall approval with Americans under age 45 has slid over the past year, falling from 39% in March 2025 to 28% in the latest poll.

Younger women have a particularly dim view of Trump’s handling of the economy.

Only about 2 in 10 women under age 45 approve of how Trump is handling the economy, including only 7% of younger Hispanic women who approve of his economic approach. More young men, about 3 in 10, approve of him on this issue.

Trump’s struggles among young adults extend to other groups, too. Only about one-third of white adults under age 45 approve of his overall performance, compared with 45% of white adults age 45 or older.

A downtick among men

Trump made broad appeals to men throughout his 2024 campaign, and most male voters backed Trump in the presidential election over Democrat Kamala Harris. In particular, he made slight but significant gains with Black and Hispanic men, who were drawn by his vows to revitalize the economy.

Since he reentered office, though, American men have become slightly less likely to approve of his performance, declining from 47% at the start of his second term to 38% in the most recent poll.

There are signs that Black men, in particular, aren’t seeing Trump’s economic promises pan out. Black men are more likely than white or Hispanic men to disapprove of Trump’s approach to the presidency, as well as his approach to the economy, the cost of living and Iran. Only about 1 in 10 Black men say they approve of how Trump is handling the cost of living, and roughly 2 in 10 approve of how he’s handling the economy.

Hispanic men, too, have a relatively dim view of Trump’s overall performance. About 3 in 10 approve of how Trump is handling the presidency, regardless of their age. That support is stronger among white men, with about half approving of Trump.

While young Republicans are frustrated, MAGA still backs Trump

Trump has benefited from Republicans’ loyalty for years, but there are recent signs of frustration even within his base.

Roughly two-thirds of Republicans approve of Trump’s job performance. That is down slightly from 82% near the start of his second term and is generally in line with the GOP low point from his first term.

But only about half of Republicans overall approve of Trump’s approach to the cost of living, and a majority of Republicans under age 45 disapprove of him on that issue.

Trump is still buoyed by the support of his MAGA base, even as he faces backlash from conservative media figures on some of his recent actions in Iran.

About 9 in 10 MAGA Republicans — those who consider themselves supporters of the “Make America Great Again” movement — approve of Trump’s job performance, and a similar share approve of his handling of Iran.

It’s a good sign for Trump that his most robust supporters are still in his corner, but not all Republicans identify with MAGA. About half of Republicans, 54%, say they consider themselves MAGA supporters.

Among non-MAGA Republicans, Trump’s approval is much lower, at 44%.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 2,596 adults was conducted April 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

The global air travel crisis has spread further as Lufthansa and KLM became the latest airlines to announce flights axed to and from major destinations, including London Heathrow

Hundreds of flights have been cancelled by two major airlines amid warnings Europe has just a “few weeks” of jet fuel left.

Germany’s flag carrier airline Lufthansa is suspending its CityLine services from tomorrow, including flights to and from London, in response to rocketing kerosene costs and an ongoing trade union dispute. Netherlands’ KLM meanwhile confirmed it had cancelled 160 flights over the next month, as the industry grapples with an ‘unprecedented’ oil shock triggered by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

It comes after the head of the world ’s energy watchdog has warned that Europe only has six weeks’ supply of jet fuel because of the Middle East conflict.

READ MORE: TUI update for passengers worried about risk of ‘fuel shortages’READ MORE: Jet2 issues Spain warning over four popular destinations

Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), warned there could be flight cancellations “soon” if oil supplies remain restricted by the war, with Iran and the US jostling for control for the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway.

Mr Birol said the conflict is causing “the largest energy crisis” the world has “ever faced”, with Asian nations such as Japan, India and China that rely on energy from the Middle East currently on “the front line”. But he warned that the impact would then “come to Europe and the Americas”, likely as soon as late May. Tourists are encouraged to continue to check before they travel.

Lufthansa’s CityLine services, which fly to a number of destinations across Europe including London, Paris, Frankfurt, Florence, Kraków, Stockholm and Copenhagen, will be cancelled from Saturday. Multiple daily services from Heathrow have already been pulled from the schedule.

A statement from Lufthansa last night said: “In view of significantly increased kerosene prices, which have more than doubled compared to the period before the Iran war, as well as rising additional burdens from labour disputes, the implementation of the corporate strategy is being partially accelerated.

“As a first, immediately effective step, starting the day after tomorrow, the 27 operational aircraft of Lufthansa Cityline will be permanently removed from the schedule to reduce further losses at the loss-making airline.”

Ongoing strikes by pilots and cabin crew belonging to German trade unions have already grounded approximately 90% of all Lufthansa Group flights on the worst days this week, with cancellations reported at Heathrow, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Newcastle, and Glasgow.

KLM announced “a number of adjustments to its flight schedule for the coming month” on routes which are “no longer financially viable to operate”. The Dutch airline said this was due “rising kerosene costs”, adding: “There is no kerosene shortage.”

Meanwhile, schedule data published by AeroRoutes this week showed that Norse Airlines has cancelled bookings for its planned Los Angeles flights this summer from London Gatwick, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Rome Fiumicino.

Jet prices have more than doubled since the beginning of the Iran war on February 28, causing the largest wave of cancellations at many major international airports since the Covid pandemic.

WASHINGTON — An effort to ramp up U.S. weapons production and build more ships, planes and drones will require a massive upfront investment, President Trump’s budget director told a House committee Wednesday.

The testimony from Russell Vought jump-starts the White House’s push to increase defense spending to nearly $1.5 trillion in the next budget year, up from nearly $1 trillion this year, while cutting health research, heating assistance and scores of other domestic programs by about 10% overall. Such cuts do not cover mandatory spending, which includes such programs as Social Security and Medicare.

The debate over Trump’s proposal underscored the sharp divide that will shape some of the most significant policy debates going into a midterm election that will give voters the ultimate say on the direction of the country.

“For the industrial base to double or triple and build more facilities, not just add shifts, it requires multiyear agreements to purchase into the future,” Vought told lawmakers. “That cost has to be booked in this first year.”

The White House is calling for about $1.1 trillion for defense through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. An additional $350 billion would come through a separate bill that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.

Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democratic member of the committee, said he believes in a strong national defense. But he said the idea of increasing defense by more than 40% while cutting programs that people need shows that the Republican administration’s priorities are “out of whack.”

The committee chairman, Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), predicted the hearing would be more “amped up” than usual, and that proved to be true, beginning with his opening statement focused on criticizing Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency. Arrington said he did not know of any president in his lifetime who “inherited such a complete and utter mess as President Trump did in January of last year.”

Since then, Arrington said, Trump has secured the border, cut taxes and constrained nondefense spending.

It was the beginning of several back-and-forths at the hearing.

“You know how bad this economy is when we hear Joe Biden being invoked, we hear trans people being invoked. I was waiting for Jimmy Carter to be blamed next,” Boyle said in response to Arrington’s opening remarks.

Boyle said consumer confidence is plummeting under Trump and noted a gas station he passed in Philadelphia recently was selling gas at $4.11 a gallon versus less than $3 a gallon some six weeks ago because of Trump’s “war of choice in Iran.”

Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) called the proposed defense spending increase shocking.

“We’ve never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing healthcare, education and housing,” Balint said. “Mr. Vought, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans?”

“It is certainly not defunding child care. We fully fund child care in this budget,” Vought said, not directly answering the question.

Balint went on to incorporate Trump’s “America first” mantra in her questioning.

She said that $350 billion could pay for an enhanced health insurance tax credit for 10 years and that her constituents are asking how the country can continue to spend money on wars and not find a solution to helping people afford healthcare.

Vought said the president has made clear he was not going to let Iran have nuclear weapons, missiles and a navy that affect U.S. national security.

“He is doing what is necessary to keep us safe, while at the same time trying to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those costs over time,” Vought said.

Vought said it was unclear how much the administration would seek to fund the war during the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. That money would be part of an emergency supplemental spending bill and would be on top of the funds the White House is seeking to boost defense spending next year.

“Would it be more than $50 billion?” asked Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas).

“We’re still working on it,” Vought said. “I don’t have a ballpark for you.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

A NEW “holiday tax” will add £500million a year to the cost of UK breaks, business leaders warn.  

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been urged not to allow mayors the power to raise funds by slapping a levy on overnight stays at hotels, campsites and B&Bs.

The Confederation of British Industry said it will drive up inflation, hamper investment and mean more red tape. 

Two hundred bosses from firms such as Butlin’s and Haven have written to Ms Reeves hitting out at the plans.

A consultation closed in February.

CBI head of tax policy Alice Jeffries said: “The Government should be sending a clear message that Britain is open for business and tourist visitors alike — not making it harder for people to spend their time and money here.” 

TAXING TIMES

Holiday tax will ‘wipe billions from economy & threaten jobs for young people’

JOBS CULL

Iconic UK holiday chain to axe 250 jobs as boss issues warning over ‘tourist tax’

She said the policy could apply a handbrake to investment, jeopardise jobs and squeeze margins for a sector facing one of the country’s heaviest tax burdens. 

UK Hospitality say it could add £100 to a two-week family stay based on £2 per person per night.  

Its boss, Allen Simpson said: “The Government should keep holidays relaxing, not taxing.”  

A Government spokesman said: “The final design of the visitor levy has not been decided.  

“We are clear it will ensure hugely popular areas benefit even more from tourism and mayors will have more money to invest in local priorities.” 

The US president has stepped back from the brink.

After calling for the destruction of an entire civilisation, it appears Donald Trump is in the mood for peace.

He has confirmed that Israel and the United States will stop attacking Iran for two weeks.

And while it’s not clear if the agreement will lead to lasting peace, what is certain is that the US – and the world stage – have been changed.

So how has the US been shaped by Trump’s war on Iran? How has the world order?

And can any of it be walked back?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Sanam Vakil – Director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at Chatham House

Robert Pape – Professor of political science at the University of Chicago

Kim Wehle – Professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore Law School

HOLIDAYS are getting more expensive from today with a rise in Air Passenger Duty (APD).

ADP, first introduced in 1994, is the ‘tax’ that passengers have to pay when flying from the majority of UK airports, which is built into the cost of flights.

From today, the rates have increased, and how much you pay depends on the final destination and the class of travel.

Band A is any destination abroad whose capital city is 2,000 miles or less from London, which covers all of Europe and parts of North Africa.

For example, flying in economy to a short-haul destination like Spain, Greece or Portugal has some of the lowest rates from £15.

A family of four could therefore expect to pay £60 under the new rules if travelling in economy.

DIG IN

We found 20 of the cheapest all-inclusive hotels for summer… with breaks from £349pp

GET IT BOOKED

The ‘cheap luxury’ beach resorts under 4 hours from UK with breaks from £75pp

However, this can go up to £32 per passenger depending on the class they are flying in.

When flying further afield, or in a premium economy or higher, the tax goes up.

Band B is any destination whose capital city is 2,001-5,500 miles from London, so long-haul destinations such as Egypt or the Maldives.

These range from £102 to £244 – so it would be £408 for a family of four in economy flying to resort towns like Sharm El Sheikh.

Band C is for destinations whose capital city is over 5,500 miles from London.

These include Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Buenos Aires and all Australia.

The rates range from £106 to £253 – meaning it could be more than £1,000 for a family of four at the top rate.

There is an even higher rate which in line with Band C can be as high as £1,141 – but this applies to private jets.

UK domestic flights range from £8 to £16 depending on class.

The government will review the rates of APD again on April 1, 2027.

There aren’t many ways to avoid paying APD, but if you still want to go abroad and avoid the extra fee, there are a few ways to do so.

Passengers under 16 who are travelling in basic economy are exempt from paying APD – although if they fly premium economy or above, they will be charged.

One is to fly into the UK on one plane and out within 24 hours on another.

But you need to have them both included in the same ticket.

Or, fly on a route from a UK airport that is not subject to APD.

Scottish Highlands and Islands region are exempt like Inverness, Oban, Sumburgh and Stornoway.

Direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland are also exempt as long as the first part of the journey is to a destination not in the UK or in Band A.

When the departure tax was first introduced, it was just £5 European flight and £10 on long-haul services.

For how to save money on holiday, TUI expert reveals how to save hundreds on the same break – as well as the little-known money saving tool.

And from someone who has travelled to 41 countries – the simple hotel trick that saved my family of four hundreds.

The passport system is also changing soon

Families have been warned to be careful to avoid a costly mistake when heading away on holiday. The word of warning comes as key changes to the passport system are coming in soon.

Your holiday photos could cost you a lot of money and could invalidate your home insurance. Karishma Darji, from storage group Ready Steady Store, said: “Posting holiday selfies while you’re away might seem harmless, but it tells the world your home is empty. Insurers could view that as poor security.”

She said this mistake could land you a large bill if the worst happens.

Ms Darji said: ” If your property is burgled and investigators find public posts showing you were away, they may argue you didn’t take ‘reasonable care’ to protect your home.”

If your insurance is invalidated due to you posting a holiday snap while you are away from home and you are burgled, you will be responsible for covering the costs of any loss and damages yourself. Ms Darji said this could mean you end up with a four-figure bill to pay.

She explained: “The annual Crime Survey for England and Wales, published by the ONS in April 2025 shows that the average loss from burglary equates to £4,269. The average value of stolen items sits around £2,800, whereas damage from forced entry averages at £1,400.

“However, every house differs based on the value of possessions they own, so the total cost to replace items could be significantly higher.” In light of this danger, her simple word of advice is: “Save the snaps until you’re back to avoid invalidating your claim.”

Passport changes

This update comes as the cost of applying for a passport is soon to increase. Application fees are increasing by 8 per cent, with the new fees coming in from April 8.

The proposed increases, which need to be approved by Parliament, will include the following:

• The standard online application submitted from within the UK will rise from £94.50 to £102 for adults
• This will go up from £61.50 to £66.50 for children under 16
• Postal applications will increase from £107 to £115.50 for adults and £74 to £80 for children under 16
• The charge for a Premium Service (one-day) application submitted from within the UK will rise from £222 to £239.50
• The charge for a standard online application for a UK adult passport when applying from overseas will rise from £108 to £116.50
• This will also increase from £70 to £75.50 for children under 16
• Standard paper applications for overseas passports will see a rise from £120.50 to £130 for adults, and from £82.50 to £89 for children under 16.

Citing concerns about affordability, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is proposing revising the state’s 2019 climate law, asking to delay implementation by several years and to adopt a different greenhouse-gas accounting method.

The changes would effectively water down a law viewed as one of the most ambitious state climate policies in the U.S.

Hochul called the law’s current targets “costly and unattainable” in a statement released Friday. “This is solely out of necessity — to protect New Yorkers’ pocketbooks and economy,” she said.

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act targets a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 and an 85% cut by 2050. As of 2023, the state had lowered its emissions by about 14%.

Meeting the 2030 deadline would drastically drive up energy bills for New Yorkers, Hochul, a Democrat, has said. Regulations to implement the law are already delayed; Hochul wants to push them back to 2030 and create a new emissions target for 2040.

Energy bills have surged around the U.S., partly as a result of AI-driven demand. As of November, the average residential electricity price in New York was 26.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, ranking eighth highest in the country, according to Empire Center, a nonprofit think tank in Albany. The Iran war has sent oil and gas prices surging.

The proposed weakening of the law comes amid the Trump administration’s dismantling of federal climate regulations and clean energy incentives, which environmentalists have looked to Democrat-led states and cities to counter.

“Lots of people around the country — really around the world — have been looking to see how New York does in implementing this strong climate law,” said Michael Gerrard, a Columbia University law professor who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

“If a very blue state like New York moves backwards on climate change as well, that’s a negative sign for the country,” he said. “If you can’t do it here, can you do it anywhere?”

Hochul, who is running for reelection this year, is seeking to advance changes through the state’s budget, which is due April 1. The proposal is expected to meet resistance from some Democratic lawmakers.

“We will negotiate with the governor,” said State Sen. Pete Harckham, who chairs the body’s environmental conservation committee. “We’ll be able to get to, I think, a resolution of this.”

Policymakers including Harckham and State Sen. Liz Krueger, who chairs the finance committee, penned a letter to Hochul earlier this month urging her not to back a delay.

Given Washington’s war on climate policy, they wrote, “it is incumbent on states like New York to reject this new wave of climate denial and put forward bold policies that will save New Yorkers money, reduce pollution and protect a livable climate.”

Krueger said Friday the proposed changes would increase the likelihood that the climate law will never be fully enacted.

“This is a serious problem,” she said. “We need to be spending the money for the infrastructure to help meet the targets.”

Business groups and Republicans in Albany have argued that implementing the law as it stands would drive up costs and worsen the affordability crisis. State Sen. Tom O’Mara has urged changes. “It is time [to] amend the CLCPA to account for economic realities,” he said in a statement. The Business Council, representing New York companies, last month said the deadlines stipulated “are proving unachievable.”

Even some Democrats have advocated for amendments. State Assemblymembers Carrie Woerner and John T. McDonald said last week that “the reality is difficult to ignore: New York is not on track to meet the CLCPA’s targets on the timeline written into law.”

“The real question is whether New York can remain committed to deep decarbonization while adapting its strategy to today’s conditions,” they added. “The goal should not be abandoning ambition. It should be pursuing it intelligently.”

In 2025, environmental groups sued Hochul’s administration after the state failed to set up a regulatory program for the climate law.

“The main effect of these proposed changes is to allow the Hochul administration to do nothing for at least the next four years,” said Rachel Spector, deputy managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization that represents the groups. “These proposals will do nothing to benefit New Yorkers. The only beneficiaries would be Hochul along with gas utilities and corporate polluters.”

Hochul also wants to align New York’s emissions-counting standards with other U.S. states and the international community. That might mean switching from a 20-year emissions-counting methodology to a 100-year one. The shorter timeframe highlights the pollution impact of methane, a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas and the main component of natural gas. The 100-year metric essentially balances out short- with longer-lived gases like carbon dioxide.

“It’s ultimately a way to cheat on a test,” said Liz Moran, New York policy advocate at Earthjustice.

In October, a judge ruled in favor of the environmental groups, putting pressure on Hochul to enact a so-called cap-and-invest program that would help generate revenue for the state to transition to renewable energy.

However, a memo released in February by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority concluded that implementing the policy would result in rocketing energy bills for New Yorkers.

It modeled a scenario in which the law were “implemented with regulations to meet the 2030 targets” and found that upstate New York households relying on oil and natural gas “would see costs in excess of $4,000 a year.”

Many Democrats and environmental advocates have pushed back on the narrative that climate policy is spiking costs. Harckham said the solution to improving affordability and lowering emissions is clear: “It’s renewable energy.”

“We set a law for ourselves,” he added. “We should be held accountable to it.”

Raimonde writes for Bloomberg.

ANOTHER major airline is cancelling hundreds of flight routes due to ongoing fears of rising fuel costs.

The Iran conflict has seen the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important shipping routes.

This has had a knock-on effect on the cost of fuel, which has reached new highs.

And a number of airlines have since had to reduce their flight schedule to avoid spiralling costs.

United Airlines is the latest to confirm that it would be cutting five per cent of flights in the second and third quarters of 2026.

With up to 5,000 flights a month – working out to around 4,000 domestic and 800 international routes – this means it affects around 250 flights a month.

NOT SO EASY

EasyJet warns Brits to book summer holidays NOW to avoid more price hikes

GOLD STAR

World’s best airlines for 2026 revealed and one in the UK makes the list

And with this set to last until the end of summer, it means thousands of passengers will be affected.

While the affected flights haven’t been confirmed, it will mainly affect the “less profitable” routes so including midweek flights, as well as overnight and Saturday routes.

United Airlines has the world’s largest airline fleet with more than 1,075 aircraft.

United Airlines‘ Chief Executive Scott Kirby said the cancellations were due to fears of oil rising to as much as $175 (£131) a barrel, and remaining above $100 (£75) until the end of next year.

This would mean the airline’s fuel costs would rise to $11billion (£8.2billion) – double the profit of their best year which was $5billion (£3.7billion).

They warned: “There’s no point in burning cash in the near term on flying that just can’t absorb these fuel costs.”

It’s not just the cost of fuel but how much is being used by airlines as well.

The closure of airspaces and Middle East airports, particularly Dubai which is one of the world’s busiest, has forced airlines to fly alternative – and longer – routes, which burn more fuel.

Other airlines have already confirmed they would be cancelling flights due to expected fuel costs.

Air New Zealand has cancelled 1,100 fights, although said it would mainly affect domestic routes.

This works out to around 44,000 passengers.

And Scandinavian airline SAS said it would be cancelling 1,000 flights next month, also affecting domestic routes primarily.

UK airlines are less affected for now, as most have ‘hedged’ oil prices – meaning paying a fixed price for a set amount of time.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary said the rise in jet fuel costs “won’t affect our costs and it won’t affect ​our low fares.”

Major airlines like British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have also cancelled a number of flights to the Middle East as places like the UAE remain on the not-save-to-travel list.

WASHINGTON — An advocacy group hoping to expand support for child and elder care is planning to spend $50 million to back Democrats in congressional races, tying the costs of caregiving to the nation’s affordability debate.

The Campaign for a Family Friendly Economy, created a decade ago, aims to make caregiver issues more salient in elections. The announcement comes as the cost of child care continues to rise and as waiting lists for federal child-care subsidies, which support working families in poverty, continue to grow.

Sondra Goldschein, executive director of the campaign and its political action committee, said child care and elder care are important to the affordability conversation, especially as child-care costs exceed what families pay for housing. Then there is the pressure on the “sandwich generation,” composed of middle-aged people who are caring simultaneously for their own children and parents.

“When child care can cost more than your rent or a mortgage, or you have to sacrifice a paycheck in order to be able to take care of a loved one,” that can motivate how people vote, said Goldschein. “Each election cycle, we see candidates recognizing that more and more.”

She hopes the message will resonate as families face a slew of rising costs, including climbing gas prices driven by a war in Iran that is unpopular with many voters.

The campaign plans to pour support for Democrats into Senate races in North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Maine and Ohio and into House races in Iowa and Pennsylvania. It is also slated to dispatch volunteers to talk with voters about caregiving.

The National Republican Congressional Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Republicans have begun to back child care as an issue crucial to growing the workforce, but their proposals tend to be less dramatic than those offered by Democrats. Last year, through President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans made an estimated 4 million more families eligible for a child-care tax credit. The law also increased child-care aid for military families and tax credits for employers who provide child care to their workers.

Before 2020, many candidates rarely spoke about child care. But the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the child-care industry’s precarity and necessity. Preschools and child-care centers were pressed to stay open so parents in front-line jobs — such as those in healthcare — could return to work.

Then-President Biden successfully persuaded Congress in 2021 to pass $39 billion in aid for child care, allowing states to offer support to more families and subsidizing wages for child-care workers. Later that year, Biden sought to create nationwide universal pre-kindergarten and to vastly expand child-care subsidies for families so that none would pay more than 7% of their household income for care. But the proposal narrowly failed in Congress. Since then, the pandemic aid has dried up and families are feeling the pinch of rising costs.

Now, several candidates have centered their campaigns around child-care affordability. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who won election after pledging to make the city more affordable for middle-class residents, ran on universal child care. Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia won elections after pledging to expand child-care subsidies.

Candidates this election cycle are running on universal child-care pledges. They include Democrats Janeese Lewis George, who is running for mayor in Washington, D.C., and Francesca Hong, a gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is up for reelection this year, has pledged to support Mamdani’s ambitions and eventually to expand universal child care statewide.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees federal child-care programs, responded to requests for comment. In his 2024 campaign, during an address to the Economic Club of New York, Trump said increasing foreign tariffs would “take care” of the expense of child care. That plan, thus far, has not materialized.

In Trump’s current term, the administration has largely focused on cracking down on fraud, after a viral video alleged Somali-run child-care centers in Minneapolis were billing the government for children they weren’t caring for.

While there have been prosecutions stemming from child-care subsidy fraud, the Minneapolis video’s central claims were disproven by state inspectors. Nonetheless, the Trump administration attempted to freeze child-care funding for Minnesota and five other Democratic-led states until a court ordered the funding to be released.

Balingit writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — As gas prices surge in California and nationally due to the war in Iran, two Democrats running for California governor are calling for the state to temporarily suspend its fuel tax or ease refinery regulations in an effort to lower costs.

Standing in front of a gas pump in a video posted to social media, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said the costs are “becoming an emergency for working families, and I think we ought to act like it.”

The moderate Democrat called on state lawmakers to suspend California’s gas tax, which at 61 cents per gallon is the highest in the nation.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also called for an “immediate moratorium” on regulations that he blamed for “overburdening” California refineries and working families.

“These failed policies are not only hurting tens of millions of Californians, they are terrible for the environment because they have forced California to depend on imported foreign oil from the Middle East,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

The cost of living in California, including the price at the pump, remains a pivotal issue for voters in the state, and has become central to the moderate-leaning campaigns of Mahan and Villaraigosa as they attempt to distinguish themselves in the tightly contested race for governor.

According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in California on Monday was $5.52, the highest in the nation and more than 50 cents higher than any other state. The national average was $3.71, up from the previous month’s average of $2.92.

Gasoline prices in California are often among the highest in the country for a number of reasons, including environmental rules that require a unique blend of cleaner-burning fuel.

The state also relies mostly on crude oil imported from other countries including Brazil, Iraq and Guyana and processed at in-state refineries. In 2025, 61% of oil processed at California refineries was imported, compared with 23% that was produced in the state, according to data from the California Energy Commission.

A greater reliance on foreign oil has made California more susceptible to price spikes during global conflicts and other disruptions.

Republicans have long supported suspending the gas tax and cutting regulations in order to lower prices at the pump.

Steve Hilton, a GOP candidate for governor and former Fox News host, outlined a plan to lower California gas prices to $3 per gallon by slashing regulations including the low-carbon fuel standard, the rule that requires cleaner-burning gas in order to reduce tailpipe emissions.

The other major Republican in the race, Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, supports suspending the gas tax, according to his website.

The current price spike echoes 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and disrupted global oil markets.

As prices eventually fell around the rest of the country that year, they remained high for months in California, leading Gov. Gavin Newsom to wage war against oil and gas companies. He accused them of price-gouging drivers and backed laws requiring companies to report their profit margins and keep a supply of fuel on hand to prevent shortages and price spikes.

The governor backed off his battle with the oil companies last year after two refineries announced plans to close. In September, he signed legislation to permit 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County, reflecting an acknowledgement that his war on oil companies threatened to send California’s gas market spiraling.

Republican state lawmakers in 2022 pushed for a temporary suspension of California’s excise tax on gasoline, arguing that it would provide immediate relief to California drivers. That effort was rebuffed by Newsom and Democratic lawmakers, but they later approved $9.5 billion in tax refunds to Californians, providing as much as $1,050 to families as financial relief from record-high gasoline prices and other rising costs.

In 2017, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, which then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law, levying the state’s first gas tax increase in 23 years to fix California’s roads and bridges in disrepair. Under the law, the tax increases each year on July 1 based on the growth in the California Consumer Price Index.

California voters remain conflicted on the state’s regulation of the oil industry, according to an August survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. It found that more than 60% of adults support goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate electricity from renewable energy sources.

But majorities also said the costs of gasoline and utility bills is a major problem for them personally, according to the poll.

Mahan and Villaraigosa are the only two Democrats who have publicly called to roll back regulations on the state’s oil and gas market, illustrating the political murkiness at the nexus of California’s climate and affordability challenges.

Still, Democratic lawmakers – who hold supermajorities in the state Senate and Assembly – continue to shut down proposals to pause the gas tax, arguing that the state would lose out on much-needed money for roads.

“If anyone has a proposal about how to backfill (transportation) revenues, I’m up for that conversation, but so far, it’s just a bulls— political talking point,” said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine).

Petrie-Norris chairs the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee and has helped lead legislative efforts to stabilize California’s fuels market without retreating from goals to achieve carbon neutrality.

”When I ask people, ‘Do you want affordable gas, clean air or safe roads?’ they say yes. So they want us to do all three of these things,” she said. “We’ve got to be honest with Californians about trade-offs so that we can have real conversations.”

Mahan pushed back on the importance of collecting gas tax revenue.

“The truth is we have the highest taxes in the country and a $350-billion budget, and we ought to be able to pave our roads and enable working families to put food on the table,” he said in an interview. “I just reject the notion that the sky is going to fall if we provide temporary relief to working families who are being pushed to the brink by a war that they didn’t ask for.”

The San José mayor said the state should suspend the fuel tax “for the duration of the war” in Iran “or as long as gas prices are over $5 a gallon” in the state. He also called for “massive regulatory overhaul that brings down costs across the board,” including rules on refineries.

If elected governor, Villaraigosa said he would “reform and overhaul” the California Air Resources Board, which enacts many of the state’s environmental laws — including the low carbon fuel standard and cap-and-invest program.

“We can no longer allow bureaucrats who live in a bubble — with no accountability for the harm they are causing our economy and our people — to have so much power over the lives of every Californian,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

Brighton should have been awarded a penalty in their 1-0 loss at home to Arsenal on 4 March, the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel has said.

The Seagulls were trailing to Bukayo Saka’s ninth-minute goal when they pushed forward in the third minute of first-half stoppage time.

After a cross was delivered from the left, Brighton midfielder Mats Wieffer tried to run into the box towards the flight of the ball but was hauled to the ground by Gabriel Martinelli.

Referee Chris Kavanagh allowed play to continue and it was cleared by the video assistant referee (VAR), Michael Salisbury.

Fabian Hurzeler complained to fourth official David Webb and the Brighton boss ended up exchanging words with Mikel Arteta on the touchline.

The Premier League Match Centre wrote on X that the VAR “deemed there was no clear and obvious error”.

But the KMI Panel voted 4:1 that a spot-kick should have been awarded on the field, and 3:2 that it was a missed VAR intervention.

The ruling said: “Martinelli is not looking at the ball, holds Weiffer into the area and prevents the Brighton player from challenging for the ball.”

It is the second time this season Arsenal have escaped a VAR penalty in an away game they have won 1-0.

In December, Everton should have been awarded a penalty for William Saliba’s challenge on Thierno Barry. The VAR was Michael Salisbury for that match, too.

There have now been 18 VAR errors logged this season, matching the total for the entire 2024-25 campaign.

From this same gameweek, Leeds United should have been given a penalty in their 1-0 loss at home to Sunderland for Luke O’Nien’s holding offence on Pascal Struijk.

The Gunners have had no VAR mistakes against them.

Brits heading abroad have been warned the normal £94.50 fee can escalate under some circumstances

Brits planning to travel abroad this Easter have been warned not to make a crucial passport mistake which could leave them seriously out of pocket. Adult passport renewals currently cost £94.50 when applying online – in some circumstances this can soar.

Experts say people should be checking their passports immediately to make sure they are still valid, as the window for standard renewals is already beginning to tighten. With Easter Sunday falling on April 5 this year, travellers who have not yet checked their passports may already be close to the usual processing deadline for standard applications.

According to official government guidance, most UK passport applications are usually processed within three weeks or less, although travellers are advised to apply well before their trip whenever possible. A standard adult passport renewal currently costs £94.50 when applying online, while applications submitted using a paper form cost £107.

However, if you leave this too late, urgent processing services mean prices rise sharply. The government’s Premium one-day passport service, used for urgent adult renewals, now costs £222, more than twice the price of a standard online application.

Andrea Platania, travel expert at Transfeero, says the weeks leading up to Easter are a common moment when travellers suddenly realise their documents may need attention. It is then a race against time to make sure they can still travel.

He says: “Easter trips often creep up on people. Many families book their flights weeks or even months earlier, then only check their passports when they start preparing for the journey.”

According to Andrea, discovering a passport issue close to departure can quickly complicate travel plans. “Renewing a passport is normally straightforward if you give yourself enough time,” he says. “But when travellers realise just a few weeks before departure that their passport has expired or does not meet entry requirements, the situation becomes much more stressful.”

Because standard applications can take around three weeks to process, travellers who are planning to leave the UK around the Easter period may now be close to the point where urgent services become the only realistic option. Urgent passport services require travellers to attend an appointment at a passport office.

The Premium one-day service can provide a renewed passport within hours of the appointment, but the convenience comes at a significantly higher cost. Andrea says this situation is surprisingly common during busy travel periods.

“People often assume passport renewals can be sorted out quickly at the last minute,” he explains. “But if the departure date is already approaching, travellers may find themselves forced to use urgent services that cost far more than the standard application.”

He advises travellers to treat passport checks as one of the very first steps when planning any international trip. He said: ” “When you start looking at flights and accommodation, that is the moment to check your passport. If it needs renewing, doing it early keeps the process simple and affordable.”

He also notes that some countries require passports to remain valid for several months beyond the date of travel, meaning a passport that appears valid may still not meet entry rules, warning: “That is another detail people often overlook. A passport might technically still be valid, but it may not meet the entry requirements of the country you are visiting.”

With Easter travel approaching quickly, Andrea says travellers who have not yet checked their passports should do so as soon as possible. “A quick check today can prevent a lot of stress later,” he says. “If your passport needs renewing, acting early helps you avoid both the pressure and the much higher cost of urgent processing.”

A TikToker shared his experience staying at a hotel in one of the UK’s most popular cities with tourists, and people were completely flabbergasted by how much it cost

Edinburgh attracts millions of visitors from across the globe annually, so it comes as little shock that even the most modest accommodation in Scotland’s capital can leave a sizeable dent in your wallet. A couple of nights’ stay can easily run into hundreds of pounds, with costs skyrocketing exponentially during major occasions like Hogmanay or the Festival Fringe.

That’s why one TikToker left viewers gobsmacked after discovering a hotel within walking distance of the city’s premier landmarks for a mere £49.50 per night. Spencer Lyon, who has 135,000 followers on TikTok, where he routinely dishes out bargain-hunting tips, booked a room at the Edinburgh House Hotel.

Kicking off the video, Spencer approaches the hotel on Pilrig Street before walking into reception. “Oh my goodness, this is like Fawlty Towers,” he remarks. “Amazing.”

Moving along, Spencer proceeds to check in and is asked for a £100 security deposit. Locating his room, Spencer steps inside to discover not one but two beds – a double alongside a single, reports Edinburgh Live. “I feel like the three little bears for some reason,” he says.

Inspecting the all-important tea and coffee facilities, he comments: “I’m liking how close it is to the pillow so I can boil the kettle with my ear. Loads of options. No shortbread biscuits, that’s a shame.”

Spencer gazes through the window at the view – predominantly overcast skies – before shifting his focus to the telly, remarking: “Teeniest TV in the game, but I’m not paying to sit and watch TV am I?” He then inspects the bathroom, noting the toilet is tucked away round a corner, before bouncing on one of the beds – after removing his shoes, naturally.

He also draws attention to a modest clothes rail mounted on the wall, observing: “There’s no wardrobe in here, it’s just hang it on the top just there.” Wrapping up, he notes: “This was a last little minute endeavour ‘cos I’ve not been booking them on the go. But yeah, this was £49.50.”

Viewers shared mixed opinions in the comments section. One wrote: “That’s better than I expected. The deposit is a little expensive. Could have stayed at easyHotel in centre for probably same price.”

Another commented: “£100 refundable deposit for a £50 hotel is mad to me. Literally just stayed in Edinburgh end of November in a modern hotel that was like £120 a night and was only a £50 refundable deposit. Like, what in that room is costing them £100 to get it fixed or replaced besides the TV and even then they can get it cheap enough in charity shops.”

However, another responded: “I mean.. you get the £100 back and you’d be shocked at the amount of damage that inconsiderate guests can cause. This just gives the owner some peace of mind and you get the money back anyway so I don’t see the issue.”

Others were taken aback by the price. One commented: “Very cheap for Edinburgh. Looks perfectly acceptable.” Another posted: “That’s ridiculously cheap for Edinburgh rates.” Whilst someone else remarked: “Looks absolutely fine, for £50 it’s decent.”

The Edinburgh House Hotel presently holds a rating of 2.5 out of five on Tripadvisor. A quick online search reveals rooms at the establishment begin at a mere £38. The hotel’s description on Tripadvisor states it “offers a budget-friendly setting with an array of amenities designed for travellers like you.” It notes the renowned Royal Mile sits within a 1.3-mile stroll, alongside other prominent attractions in close proximity.

True to its 2.5 rating, guest feedback proves divided. One branded it “run-down and poorly maintained”. “Room was in an awful state of disrepair,” they claimed. “Happy with basic accommodation but this fell well below that standard. Endless list of faults and damages in the room we stayed.”

However, another guest countered: “Clean and tidy place, beds very comfortable had a great night sleep. Bit dated but I would stay again.”

Lawmakers express concerns as Trump officials project $50bn more may be needed for Iran war funding.

Officials from President Donald Trump’s administration have estimated during a congressional briefing this week that the first six days of the war on Iran had cost the United States at least $11.3bn, a source familiar with the matter told the Reuters news agency.

That figure, from a closed-door briefing for senators on Tuesday, did not include the entire cost of the war, but was provided to lawmakers as they have clamoured for more information about the cost.

Several congressional aides have said they expect the White House to soon submit a request to Congress for additional funding for the war. Some officials have said the request could be for $50bn, while others have said that estimate seems low.

The administration has not provided a public assessment of the cost of the conflict or a clear idea of its expected duration. Trump said during a trip to Kentucky on Wednesday that “we won” the war but that the US would stay in the fight to finish the job.

The $11.3bn figure was first reported on Wednesday by The New York Times.

The human cost

The US-Israeli war on Iran has so far killed about 2,000 people, mostly Iranians and Lebanese, as the conflict has spread across the Middle East, with Iranian retaliatory strikes on neighbouring countries hosting US assets, sending energy prices soaring.

The United Nations children’s agency (UNICEF) says the “intensifying conflict” has killed or wounded 1,100 children, creating a “catastrophic” situation for millions of children across the Middle East.

About 800,000 people have already been displaced in Lebanon by relentless Israeli bombardment.

Administration officials also have told lawmakers that $5.6bn of munitions were used during the first two days of strikes.

Members of Congress, who may soon have to approve additional funding for the war, have expressed concern that the conflict will deplete US military stocks at a time when the defence industry was already struggling to keep up with demand.

Democratic lawmakers have demanded public testimony under oath from administration officials about the Republican president’s plans for the war, including how long it might last and what his plans are for Iran once the fighting has stopped.

Trump on Wednesday said the war with Iran may end “soon” because there is “practically nothing left” for the US military to bomb. He did not provide any evidence for that claim.