Economy

The United States Federal Reserve is holding interest rates steady in its first rate decision of 2026.

Rates will remain at 3.5 to 3.75 percent, the Fed said on Wednesday, defying US President Donald Trump’s calls for more aggressive interest rate cuts.

“The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated,” the central bank said in its release announcing the decision.

Wednesday’s decision was widely expected. CME FedWatch, a tool that tracks expectations for monetary policy, forecast a more than 97 percent chance that the central bank would hold rates steady.

The tracker also expects two rate cuts in 2026, with the highest probability for the first cut occurring in June at the earliest.

“Available indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Job gains have remained low, and the unemployment rate has shown some signs of stabilization,” the central bank said.

The decision comes amid signs of stabilisation in the US labour market. The US economy added 584,000 jobs in 2025, marking the lowest annual job growth since 2003. Payrolls rose by 64,000 jobs in October and 50,000 in December. While job growth remains weak, December’s figure represents a modest rebound from October, when the economy lost 105,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There are indications that the labour market may cool further in the months ahead. This week, both Amazon and UPS announced tens of thousands of job cuts, some of which were driven by a push towards increasing the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace.

Another threat to the US economy and the job market comes in the form of a looming government shutdown. That can happen as early as Saturday, and depending on its duration, it could slow spending as federal workers are temporarily left without paycheques.

Political tensions

The decision to hold interest rates steady comes despite Trump’s increased pressure on the central bank to cut rates. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has long stressed the Federal Reserve’s independence, and Wednesday’s decision is the first since Powell’s rebuke of a criminal Department of Justice investigation into him. The central bank chair, whose term expires in May, called the inquiry a “pretext” to pressure him.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said in remarks in early January in response to a subpoena.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case examining whether Trump has the legal authority to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook amid allegations of mortgage fraud.

Meanwhile, Fed Governor Stephan Miran’s term is set to expire this week. Trump picked Miran to temporarily fill the seat vacated by Adriana Kugler in August while seeking a more permanent replacement.

Miran was one of two central bank governors who voted to lower interest rates alongside Christopher Waller.

The developments come as Trump searches for a new Fed chair. He has explicitly called for further interest rate cuts and for a chairman who shares his views.

“Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social in December.

The political pressure has caught the attention of global central banks as well.

“The Federal Reserve is the biggest, most important central bank in the world, and we all need it to work well. A loss of independence of the Fed would affect us all,” Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem said on Wednesday. Canada’s central bank held rates steady ahead of the US central bank’s decision.

Macklem was one of the central bank heads who earlier this month issued a joint statement backing Powell. Last September, Macklem said Trump’s attempts to pressure the Fed were starting to hit markets.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is flat, as is the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500 is down 0.1 in midday trading.

Tehran, Iran – The Iranian government is putting into place contingency plans for basic governance as the threat of another war with the United States and Israel looms large.

President Masoud Pezeshkian gathered governors of Iran’s border provinces as well as his economy minister in Tehran on Tuesday to delegate some responsibilities to the governors if a war breaks out, state media reported. A working group was also formed, tasked with ensuring the increased flow of essential goods, particularly food.

The governors have been given authority to import goods without using foreign currency, engage in bartering and allow sailors to bring in products under simplified customs rules, according to the government-run IRNA news agency.

“In addition to importing essential goods, governors now have the authority to bring in all goods that are directly linked with the livelihoods of the people and the needs of the market in order to balance the market and prevent hoarding,” Pezeshkian was quoted as saying at the meeting.

“Through enforcing this policy, a considerable part of the pressures resulting from the cruel sanctions are neutralised,” he said in reference to harsh restrictions imposed by the US as well as United Nations sanctions reimposed in September, which the Iranian government blames for the economic crisis the country is going through.

But while the government resorts to focusing on the basics, nearly all of Iran’s 90 million people and all sectors of the country’s beleaguered economy continue to suffer from an unprecedented internet shutdown.

The digital blackout was imposed by the theocratic state on January 8 as nationwide protests reached a boiling point, followed by the killings of thousands of Iranians.

The intranet set up to offer some basic services during the state-imposed shutdown is slow and has failed to shore up online businesses. Traditional shops are also struggling to bring in customers.

Economic trouble persists

Amid a large deployment of armed security personnel, most shops are now open in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar – where the protests against the poor economic conditions started on December 28 – and other downtown business districts.

But a shopkeeper at the Grand Bazaar told Al Jazeera that business activity is a fraction of what it was several weeks ago.

“There’s not much life and energy in the markets these days,” he said on the condition of anonymity. “The worst thing is that everything is still so unpredictable. You can see that in the currency rate too.”

Iran’s rial has been in freefall after markets partially reopened this week, degrading trust in the national currency.

The rial hit a new all-time low of about 1.6 million per US dollar on Wednesday. Each greenback had changed hands for about 700,000 rials a year ago and about 900,000 in mid-2025.

However, Central Bank of Iran chief Abdolnasser Hemmati said at the meeting with the governors in Tehran that the currency market was “following its natural course”.

He said $2.25bn worth of foreign currency deals have in recent weeks been registered in a state-run market set up to manage imports and exports, which he described as an “acceptable and considerable figure”.

The comments from Hemmati – who was also the Central Bank chief from 2018 to 2021 and was impeached as economy minister in March – immediately drew fire from the ultraconservative Keyhan newspaper, whose editor-in-chief is directly appointed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The newspaper said his comments run counter to the reality in the tumultuous currency market as well as Hemmati’s promises of price stability for essential goods when he re-emerged as the Central Bank governor last month.

While dealing with foreign pressure, Pezeshkian’s government has also been hounded by hardliners at home who have demanded immediate changes to his relatively moderate cabinet.

The infighting became so serious that the supreme leader publicly intervened, telling lawmakers in parliament and other officials during a speech last week that they are “forbidden” from “insulting” the president at a time when the country must focus on providing essential goods to the people.

Subsidy scheme

For his part, Pezeshkian has kept his rhetoric focused solely on “combating corruption” through an initiative that has eliminated a subsidised currency rate used for imports of certain goods, including food.

Pezeshkian’s government argued the subsidised allocated currency was being misused by state-linked organisations. The scheme was supposed to deliver cheaper imported food, but that has not been the case.

The money freed up by the initiative has been distributed as electronic coupons among Iranians to buy food from select stores at prices set by the government.

But each citizen will get only 10 million rials per month for four months. That figure amounted to just over $7 when it was announced during the protests early this month, but it is now worth closer to $6 as the fall of the national currency further erodes purchasing power.

To add insult to injury, the announcement of the subsidy scheme contributed to an abrupt tripling or quadrupling of prices for some essential goods, including cooking oil and eggs. Iran’s annual inflation rate remains untamed at nearly 50 percent and has been on a rising trajectory in recent months.

The top two state-run carmakers, which hold a large monopoly in Iran’s auto industry, have also been positioning themselves for yet another price hike as the end of the Iranian calendar year approaches in March.

One of the firms, Iran Khodro, said on Tuesday that it would increase prices by up to 60 percent while local media reported that the other, Saipa, was expected to follow suit. The government has reportedly intervened to delay or slow the price hikes.

TEDPIX, the main index of the Tehran Stock Exchange, continued its recent decline on Wednesday, losing 30,000 points to stand at 3,980,000. The index was at an all-time high of 4,500,000 last week, having made gains in early January.

Wednesday’s cuts are the second mass layoffs in three months at the e-commerce giant.

Amazon is slashing 16,000 jobs in a second wave of layoffs at the e-commerce giant in three months, as the company restructures and leans on artificial intelligence.

Wednesday’s cuts follow the 14,000 redundancies that the Seattle, Washington–based company made in October. The layoffs are expected to affect employees working in Prime Video, Amazon Web Services, and the company’s human resources department, according to the Reuters news agency, which first reported the cuts.

Amazon confirmed to Al Jazeera that all the cuts to the company will affect corporate-level employees.

In a memo to the employees, shared with Al Jazeera, Amazon said workers in the United States impacted by the cuts will have a 90-day window to find a new role in the company.

“Teammates who are unable to find a new role at Amazon or who choose not to look for one, we’ll provide transition support including severance pay, outplacement services, health insurance benefits [as applicable], and more,” Beth Galetti, senior vice president of People Experience and Technology at Amazon, said in the note provided to Al Jazeera.

The announced reductions come amid a broader restructuring effort at the company. Earlier this week, Amazon announced it would close its brick-and-mortar Amazon Go and Amazon Fresh grocery stores, accounting for more than 70 locations across the US.

Some of those physical stores will be converted into Whole Foods Market locations. Amazon acquired the Austin, Texas–based grocery chain in 2017, and it has since grown by 40 percent.

The cuts come alongside increased investment in AI. In June, CEO Andy Jassy touted investment in generative AI and floated the possibility of redundancies.

“We expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively across the company,” Jassy said in a blog post at the time.

According to the AFL-CIO CEO PayWatch tracker, Jassy made 43 times more than the median employee at the company.

Amazon’s stock tumbled in midday trading and was down 0.7 percent. Overall, however, the stock is up 7 percent year to date.

Wave of cuts

Amazon is the latest company in a wave of redundancies hitting the tech sector at the start of the year. Earlier this week, Pinterest announced it would cut 780 jobs as the social media company reallocated resources amid increased investment in AI. Last week, Autodesk said it would cut about 1,000 jobs, also tied to AI.

Layoffs.fyi, a website that tracks redundancies in the tech sector, shows that more than 123,000 tech workers lost their jobs in 2025 as companies, including Salesforce and Duolingo, doubled down on AI investments.

But it is not just the tech sector facing redundancies. On Tuesday, UPS also announced job cuts. The shipping giant said it would eliminate 30,000 jobs and close 24 facilities as it reduces deliveries with Amazon.

UPS stock was down more than 1.2 percent in midday trading.

Dutch firm says it expects strong growth in 2026, countering fears of an investment bubble.

Tech giant ASML has reported a quarterly record in orders of its chip-making equipment, boosting hopes for the sustainability of the artificial intelligence boom and countering fears of an investment bubble.

The Dutch firm said on Wednesday that it booked orders worth 13.2 billion euros ($15.8bn) in the final quarter of 2025, more than half of which were for its most advanced extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines.

ASML logged orders worth 7 million euros during the same period the previous year.

Net sales came to 9.7 billion euros in the October-December period, ASML said, taking sales for all of 2025 to 32.7 billion euros.

Net profit for the year was 9.6 billion euros, up from 7.6 billion euros in 2024.

The Veldhoven-based company forecast net sales of between 34 billion euros and 39 billion euros in 2026.

ASML Chief Executive Officer Christophe Fouquet said the company’s chip-making customers had conveyed a “notably more positive assessment” of the market situation in the medium term based on expectations of strong AI-related demand.

“This is reflected in a marked step-up in their medium-term capacity plans and in our record order intake,” Fouquet said in a statement.

“Therefore, we expect 2026 to be another growth year for ASML’s business, largely driven by a significant increase in EUV sales and growth in our installed base business sales.”

Fouquet also said the company would cut about 1,700 jobs, most of them at the leadership level, amid concerns work processes had become “less agile”.

“Engineers in particular have expressed their desire to focus their time on engineering, without being hampered by slow process flows, and restore the fast-moving culture that has made us so successful,” Fouquet said.

The proposed cuts, which would affect positions in the Netherlands and the United States, represent about 4 percent of ASML’s 44,000-strong global workforce.

ASML holds an effective monopoly on the production of machinery used by TSMC, Samsung Electronics, and Intel to make the most advanced AI chips.

The company sells only about 50 of its extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines each year, with each unit costing about 250 million euros.

ASML’s share price surged on Wednesday, with its stock up nearly 6 percent as of 9.30am local time.

“ASML’s latest results suggest the AI boom is still in full swing, with strong orders and a bullish outlook,” said Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell.

“However, job cuts in the business would suggest it is not getting carried away with the strength of current trading.”

ASML’s restructuring “looks like a sharper focus on efficiencies and different ways of working, rather than saying there isn’t enough work for existing staff to do,” Mould added.

“Nonetheless, it’s a sign that the AI craze might be trying to catch its breath.”

Tech giants such as Meta, OpenAI, Nvidia and Oracle have poured billions of dollars into AI in the expectation that the technology will deliver dramatic changes to how people work and live.

Global AI-related spending is forecast to hit $2.53 trillion in 2026 and $3.33 trillion in 2027, according to projections by technology insights firm Gartner.

The investment boom has propelled the US stock market to record highs, stoking concerns about the sustainability of huge spending on a technology whose promise remains largely unrealised.

Package-delivery giant targets savings of $3bn in 2026 amid push to slash deliveries for Amazon.

United Parcel Service, one of the world’s largest package-delivery companies, has announced plans to slash up to 30,000 jobs amid a push to cut costs and boost profits.

UPS, based in the US state of Georgia, will make the cuts as part of efforts to achieve savings of $3bn in 2026, UPS chief financial officer Brian ⁠Dykes said on an earnings call on Tuesday.

Dykes said the job cuts, part of plans to reduce UPS’s reliance on deliveries for its largest customer, Amazon, would be achieved through attrition and voluntary buyouts.

“We expect to offer a second voluntary separation programme for full-time drivers,” Dykes said.

UPS will also shut 24 buildings in the first half of the year and evaluate other buildings for closure in the second half, Dykes said.

He said the savings would be on top of $3.5bn in savings achieved in 2025 through cost-cutting measures, including the elimination of 26.9 million labour hours and the closure of 93 buildings.

Sean O’Brien, president of the Teamsters union, slammed the job cuts in a statement posted on social media.

“Corporate vultures giggled about giving their disrespectful driver buyout program another shot,” O’Brien said.

“Reminder: Teamsters overwhelmingly rejected UPS’s insulting payoff last year. We still know our worth. Drivers still endure violent winters and brutal heat to make UPS its billions. UPS must honor our contract and reward our members.”

UPS announced last year that it would reduce shipments for Amazon by half as part of plans to focus on a smaller volume of more lucrative deliveries.

The firm’s reported revenues of $24.5bn for the final three months of 2025, taking earnings for the year to $88.7bn, and projected revenues in 2026 are expected to hit $89.7bn.

UPS shares were largely unmoved on Tuesday, closing 0.22 percent higher.

United States President Donald Trump’s $5bn lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase resurfaces his accusations of debanking – the act of removing a person or organisation’s access to financial services.

The complaint, filed in a Florida court on Thursday, alleges that the bank singled him out for political reasons and closed several of his accounts following the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, which was perpetrated by his supporters.

“JPMC does not close accounts for political or religious reasons. We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so,” the bank said in a statement.

While the lawsuit was filed in his personal capacity, the concept of debanking has long been in the crosshairs of the Trump White House.

Late last year, the White House launched a high-profile effort targeting the nation’s largest financial institutions, accusing them of closing accounts based on political bias. Within days, Trump signed an executive order restricting banks from denying accounts on those grounds.

Trump has long framed “debanking” as a systemic effort targeting conservatives. But evidence for this claim is limited.

A Reuters news agency review of more than 8,000 complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found only 35 related to political or religious reasons, let alone targeting Christians or conservatives specifically.

The push by banks centres on the use of “reputational risk” as a standard that allows them to weigh the social or political fallout of doing business with a client.

Critics say this practice makes banks arbiters of morality – freezing, withholding, or closing accounts based not on financial considerations but on social and geopolitical concerns. This approach has pulled financial institutions into the middle of cultural and geopolitical debates.

While often cast as a partisan issue, data show that Trump’s core base, evangelical Christians, are not the ones typically targeted by debanking efforts.

A report from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), a research organisation that looks at the experience of the US Muslim community, found that 27 percent of Muslim Americans and 14 percent of Jewish Americans have faced trouble banking, compared with negligible rates among Christian denominations, especially with Trump’s core base, evangelicals, at 8 percent.

Overall, 93 percent of Muslim Americans reported experiencing trouble with banking access. In one situation involving Citibank, the New York Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) accused the financial institution of not opening the account of a Muslim woman because of her husband, whom she wanted to nominate as a beneficiary and who is a Palestinian Muslim. CAIR did not release the name of the woman at the centre of the complaint.

“It [debanking] is a huge barrier for actually Muslims fulfilling philanthropic goals,” Erum Ikramullah, a senior research project manager at the ISPU, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s a huge barrier for the actual Muslim-based, Muslim-led organisations who are managing relief both domestically and overseas.”

Between October 2023 and May 2024, at least 30 US nonprofits providing humanitarian aid to Gaza have had accounts closed.

“Muslim Americans and Armenian Americans have faced de-banking on account of their last names,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat from Massachusetts who founded the CFPB in 2013, said in a Senate Banking Committee hearing last year.

But Trump continues to allege that groups like Christians and conservatives are the ones discriminated against.

Among them include the National Committee for Religious Freedom, led by former Republican Senator and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. Brownback alleges that Chase closed his account on religious grounds, a claim the bank denies.

Regardless, the push to take on the problem of debanking is a rare spot of bipartisanship in Washington, with Trump and Warren both agreeing that banks should change their ways.

Industry turmoil

A US banking regulator said last month that the nine largest US banks put restrictions on industries that it deems risky, but this has been a long-term issue for several industries.

Operation Choke Point, under the administration of former Democratic President Barack Obama, targeted exploitative industries like payday lenders and arms dealers. The initiative pushed banks to consider entire categories of businesses – and the individuals who worked in them – as reputationally risky, even when that view lagged cultural sentiment.

In response, Frank Keating, the then-CEO of the American Banking Association, slammed the move in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, saying that the “Justice Department [is] telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges”.

Ultimately, that scrutiny affected people working in several industries over the last decade, most particularly in adult entertainment, cannabis, and cryptocurrency.

Within months of the new guidance from the Obama administration, hundreds of adult performers lost access to banking services from Chase Bank. The ability to keep a bank account persisted for adult performers. In 2022, adult performer Alana Evans penned an op-ed for The Daily Beast describing how Wells Fargo closed her account.

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade group, found that 63 percent of adult workers have lost access to a bank account because of their work in the legal industry, and nearly 50 percent have been rejected for a loan because of the nature of the profession.

“I think that when I talk to a lot of people about this issue, or when I’ve talked to even legislators about this, they really can’t believe it, because it’s never been anything that they’ve encountered personally. The idea that a bank could shut off your account because they disagreed with the type of work you do is sort of inconceivable to most people,” Mike Stabile, the director of public policy for the Free Speech Coalition, told Al Jazeera.

The cannabis business has faced similar problems. Over the last decade, both laws and public sentiment around marijuana use have drastically changed. Now, more people use marijuana daily than drink alcohol, and recreational use is legal in 24 states as well as Washington, DC.

Yet, legitimate businesses that cater to this growing market share and those who work for them have been subject to debanking.

Kyle Sherman, the CEO and founder of Flowhub, a cannabis payment processing company, testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee last year that his employees are routinely discriminated against in consumer banking. He alleged that one of his employees was denied a mortgage because of what he does for a living, as well as others who have had their personal accounts closed.

While state laws have shifted on marijuana’s stance, federal laws have not kept up, making it harder for banks to navigate the reputational risk.

Trump recently eased pressure on the marijuana industry by reclassifying the substance as Schedule III, which means it is less harmful, but it does not change the legality of sale and interstate commerce on the federal level.

“In some of the states that have recently gone legal with recreational and medical cannabis, the individual entrepreneurs [there] were previously considered outlaws. It is hard for a banker to get over the perception that yesterday, you were an illegal activity, and today, you’re a legal activity,” said Terry Mendez, the CEO of Safe Harbor Financial, a financial services company for the cannabis industry.

There has been a bigger about-face with regard to the cryptocurrency industry. At first, crypto was seen as a safe haven for illicit transactions because the underlying technology allowed for anonymous transfers, making it difficult for banks to determine which transactions were legitimate and legal and which ones were not.

As the industry began to move into the mainstream, the challenges were amplified. Exchanges and startups faced debanking or sudden account closures, and even major platforms like Coinbase struggled to maintain reliable banking partners.

“Historically, banks were kind of more naturally averse to crypto companies, going back to like 2018, to 2020, 2021. Crypto companies would often, when registering for accounts with banks, say that they were software development companies to try and avoid the mention of crypto because of fear of not being able to open a bank account, which, of course, then means it’s harder to make a payroll. It’s hard to take in funds from investors; you can’t pay vendors,” Sid Powell, the CEO of the asset management firm Maple Finance, told Al Jazeera.

That was not helped by the collapse of FTX, the notorious cryptocurrency exchange, pushing banks to pull back from working with the crypto industry.

Sentiment is shifting now. Under Trump, who has embraced crypto, financial regulators last year withdrew guidance that suggested that banks should be careful when working with the crypto industry. Powell says the executive order could help crypto avoid debanking in the future.

“It [the executive order] kind of signals to the FDIC and the OCC that they should act in a more balanced way when it comes to crypto companies and crypto startups, instead of taking a more hostile approach, or the approach of kind of lumping everyone in with the worst of the industry, which tended to happen post-FTX,” Powell added.

Powell was referring to the The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an independent agency created by Congress to maintain stability in the nation’s financial system, and The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, an independent bureau of the US Department of the Treasury, which charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.

Trump’s personal gripes

Trump has also accused banks of not doing business with him, the primary driver of his interest in the debanking issue.

Banks can generally refuse to create accounts for potential customers who could be deemed as high risk.

“The president’s companies have filed [for] bankruptcy repeatedly. There have been years of reporting about financial institutions’ concerns with suspicious financial activity, and the president was found civilly liable for inflating the value of his assets that served as collateral for loans from financial institutions,” Graham Steele, an academic fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, told Al Jazeera.

Reuters reported last year that banks gauged Trump as a financial risk due to his plethora of legal challenges after his first term, including the suit brought by E Jean Caroll, which found Trump liable for sexual abuse. He has declared bankruptcy six times.

He also defaulted on loans totalling hundreds of millions of dollars several times, including a loan to Deutsche Bank. In 2024, a New York court ruled that the president fraudulently inflated his financial worth by more than $2bn.

“Notwithstanding the fact that the president is an inherently political figure, a financial institution could reasonably rely on any of these concerns, grounded in financial and legal risks, not ‘political’ beliefs, as a basis for declining to do business with a customer,” Steele said.

That did not stop the president from pointing fingers at banking giants, including Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.

“I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that includes a place called Bank of America,” Trump told the executive during a Q&A session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last year.

The Trump family also sued Capital One last March. The lawsuit alleged that it debanked The Trump Organisation after Trump incited an insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, after spreading misinformation alleging that he won the 2020 presidential election even though he had lost by a significant margin.

Trump debanks ‘liberal’ causes

Trump’s rhetoric on debanking is among his latest attempts to punish entities for political bias, while actively pushing actions that punish those who have viewpoints that oppose his own.

Trump has argued that debanking disproportionately targets conservatives and conservative-leaning businesses like firearms manufacturers. His pressure has moved the needle at Citibank. In June, it lifted its ban on banking services to gun sellers and manufacturers, a policy it put in place in 2018 after the shooting in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead.

In March, his administration announced it would shut down a set of climate grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund – known as the “green bank” – a $20bn programme created through the bipartisan Inflation Reduction Act signed by his predecessor, President Joe Biden, in 2022 to channel financing for climate projects into underinvested regions.

Environment and Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin justified the decision by citing “misconduct, conflicts of interest, and potential fraud”, allegations he offered without evidence, and forced Citibank, which was holding the fund’s money for nonprofit distribution, to return the funds to the EPA.

The decision faced legal hurdles. But earlier this month, a US court of appeals allowed the Trump administration to continue axing the programme. The 2-1 ruling was decided by two judges appointed by Trump.

Last year, the White House also pressured companies seeking federal contracts to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, which it has long portrayed, without evidence, as undermining merit-based hiring.

Citigroup, historically one of the most vocal supporters of DEI in the financial services sector, scrapped its programme. Citibank holds multiple federal contracts with agencies including the Department of Defense and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Bank of America and Wells Fargo followed suit in February, scaling back their initiatives as well, as did many other companies.

As part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns, the White House has also pressured banks to cut financial services to immigrants. The administration is doing so by trying to cancel the social security numbers of migrants who have legal status in the US, which would essentially cut them off from access to basic financial services, including bank accounts and credit cards, The New York Times reported.

At the time, Leland Dudek, then the Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner and a Trump administration appointee, said the move to cut access would end their “financial lives”.

“There’s a real telling disconnect. They are saying, on the one hand, we wanna put a thumb on the scale and ensure that conservative groups are included in the financial system, while actively working to push out liberal coded groups by either freezing them out of the bank accounts when they get government grants, or trying to investigate and potentially bring criminal charges against the payment platform that serves liberal groups,” Steele said.

Steele questioned if taking on political bias would actually help communities that do not align with the Trump administration’s stated values and conservative viewpoints.

“I think one of the other concerns here is that a lot of this depends on how the executive order is going to be enforced,” Steele said.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s tax and spending pledges in advance of snap elections next month have sent jitters through global markets.

Japanese government bonds and the yen have been on a rollercoaster since Takaichi unveiled plans to pause the country’s consumption tax if her Liberal Democratic Party wins the February 8 vote.

The market turmoil reflects concerns about the long-term sustainability of Japan’s debt levels, which are the highest among advanced economies.

The volatility has extended beyond Japan, highlighting broader fiscal sustainability worries in an era in which the United States and other major economies are running huge deficits.

What has Takaichi promised on the economy?

Takaichi said last week that she would suspend the country’s 8 percent consumption tax on food and non-alcoholic beverages for two years if her government is returned to power, following her dissolution of the House of Representatives.

Based on Japanese government data, Takaichi’s plan would result in an estimated revenue shortfall of 5 trillion yen ($31.71bn) each year.

Takaichi, a proponent of predecessor Shinzo Abe’s agenda of high public spending and ultra-loose monetary policy, said the shortfall could be made up by reviewing existing expenditures and tax breaks, but did not provide specific details.

Takaichi’s tax pledge comes after her Cabinet in November approved Japan’s largest stimulus since the COVID-19 pandemic.

The package, worth 21.3 trillion yen ($137bn), included one-time cash handouts of 20,000 yen per child for families, subsidies for utility bills amounting to about 7,000 yen per household over a three-month period, and food coupons worth 3,000 yen per person.

Why have Takaichi’s pledges unnerved markets?

Japan’s long-term government bond yields soared following Takaichi’s announcement.

Yields on 40-year bonds rose above 4 percent on Tuesday, the highest on record, as investors exited from Japanese government debt en masse.

Bond markets, through which governments borrow money from investors in exchange for paying out a fixed rate of interest, are closely watched as a gauge of the health of countries’ balance sheets.

While typically offering lower returns than stocks, government bonds are seen as low-risk investments as they have the backing of the state, making them attractive to investors seeking safe places to park their money.

As confidence in a government’s ability to repay its debts declines, bond yields rise as investors seek higher interest payments for holding riskier debt.

“When Prime Minister Takaichi announced a planned reduction in consumption taxes, this made existing bond-holders of Japan’s debt uneasy, requiring a higher compensation for the risk they bear,” Anastassia Fedyk, an assistant professor of finance at the Haas School of Business of the University of California, Berkeley, told Al Jazeera.

“As a result, bond prices dropped and yields rose. And yes, this is a general pattern that applies to other countries, too, though Japan has an especially high level of debt, making its position more vulnerable.”

Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio already exceeds 230 percent, following decades of deficit spending by governments aiming to reverse the country’s long-term economic stagnation.

The East Asian country’s debt burden stands far above that of peers such as the US, UK and France, whose debt-to-GDP ratios are about 125 percent, 115 percent and 101 percent, respectively.

At the same time, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) has been scaling back bond purchases as part of its move away from decades of ultra-low interest rates, limiting its options for interventions to bring yields down.

“Bond investors reacted because her headline package looks like large, near-term fiscal loosening at exactly the moment the BOJ is trying to normalise policy,” Sayuri Shirai, a professor of economics at Keio University in Tokyo, told Al Jazeera.

How does all this affect the rest of the world?

The sell-off in Japanese bonds reverberated through markets overseas, with yields on 30-year US Treasuries rising to their highest level since September.

As Japanese bond yields rise, local investors are able to earn higher interest payments at home.

That can incentivise investors to offload other bonds, such as US Treasuries.

As of November, Japanese investors held $1.2 trillion in US Treasuries, more than any other foreign group of buyers.

In an interview with Fox News last week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed concern about the impact of Japan’s bond market on US Treasury prices and said he anticipated that his Japanese counterparts would “begin saying the things that will calm the market down.”

Japan’s long-term bond yields fell on Monday amid the expectations that Japanese and US authorities would step in to prop up the yen.

On Friday, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had inquired about the cost of exchanging the Japanese currency for US dollars.

“Japan matters globally through flows. If Japanese government bond yields rise, Japanese investors can earn more at home, potentially reducing demand for foreign bonds; that can nudge global yields and risk pricing,” Shirai said.

“This is why global-market pieces have framed Japan’s bond move as a wider rates story.”

Higher bond yields in Japan, the US and elsewhere raise the cost of borrowing and servicing the national debt.

In a worst-case scenario, a sharp escalation in interest rates can lead to a country defaulting on its debts.

Masahiko Loo, a fixed income strategist at State Street Investment Management in Tokyo, said that the reaction of international investors to Takaichi’s plans reflects growing sensitivity to fiscal credibility in highly indebted economies.

“Yes, Japan may be the spark, but the warning applies equally to the US and others with large structural deficits,” Loo told Al Jazeera.

Is Japan on the verge of a financial crisis?

Probably not.

While Japan is more indebted than its peers, its fiscal position is more sustainable than it might appear due to factors specific to the country – at least in the short to medium term – according to economists.

The vast majority of Japan’s debt is held by local institutions and denominated in yen, reducing the likelihood of a panic induced by foreign investors, while interest rates are far lower than in other economies.

“The debt situation is more manageable than a lot of people think,” Thomas Mathews, head of markets for Asia Pacific at Capital Economics, told Al Jazeera.

“Net debt-to-GDP is on a downward trajectory, and Japan’s budget deficit isn’t all that big by global standards.”

Loo of State Street Investment Management said that the turmoil surrounding Japan had more to do with a “communication gap around fiscal sustainability and policy coordination” than the country’s solvency.

“That said, markets are likely to continue testing the feasibility of the agenda, as even fiscally sanguine countries have, at times, been disciplined by market forces,” Loo said.

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s promises on affordability in 2024 helped propel him to a second term in the White House.

Since then, Trump says, the problem has been solved: He now calls affordability a hoax perpetrated by Democrats. Yet the high cost of living, especially housing, continues to weigh heavily on voters, and has dragged down the president’s approval ratings.

In a poll conducted this month by the New York Times and Siena University, 58% of respondents said they disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy.

How the economy fares in the coming months will play an outsize role in determining whether the Democrats can build on their electoral success in 2025 and seize control of one or both chambers of Congress.

With housing costs so central to voters’ perceptions about the economy, both parties have put forward proposals in recent weeks targeting affordability. Here is a closer look at their competing plans for expanding housing and reining in costs:

How bad is the affordability crisis?

Nationwide, wages have barely crept up over the last decade — rising by 21.24% between 2014 and 2024, according to the Federal Reserve. Over the same period, rent and home sale prices more than doubled, and healthcare and grocery costs rose 71.5% and 37.35%, respectively, according to the Fed.

National home price-to-income ratios are at an all-time high, and coastal states like California and Hawaii are the most extreme examples.

Housing costs in California are about twice the national average, according to the state Legislative Analyst‘s Office, which said prices have increased at “historically rapid rates” in recent years. The median California home sold for $877,285 in 2024, according to the California Assn. of Realtors, compared with about $420,000 nationwide, per Federal Reserve economic data.

California needs to add 180,000 housing units annually to keep up with demand, according to the state Department of Housing. So far, California has fallen short of those goals and has just begun to see success in reducing its homeless population, which sat at 116,000 unsheltered people in 2025.

What do the polls say?

More than two-thirds of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll last month said they felt the economy was getting worse, and 36% expressed approval for the president — the lowest total since his second term began.

The poll found that 47% of U.S. adults now describe current economic conditions as “poor,” up from 40% just a month prior and the highest since Trump took office. Just 21% said economic conditions were either “excellent” or “good,” while 31% described them as “only fair.”

An Associated Press poll found that only 16% of Republicans think Trump has helped “a lot” in fixing cost of living problems.

What have the Democrats proposed?

The party is pushing measures to expand the supply of housing, and cut down on what they call “restrictive” single-family zoning in favor of denser development.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats plan to “supercharge” construction through bills like California Sen. Adam Schiff’s Housing BOOM Act, which he introduced in December.

Schiff said the bill would lower prices by stimulating the development of “millions of affordable homes.” The proposal would expand low-income housing tax credits, set aside funds for rental assistance and homelessness, and provide $10 billion in housing subsidies for “middle-income” workers such as teachers, police officers and firefighters.

The measure has not been heard in committee, and faces long odds in the Republican-controlled body, though Schiff said inaction on the proposal could be used against opponents.

And the Republicans?

A group of 190 House Republicans this month unveiled a successor proposal to the “Big Beautiful Bill,” the sprawling tax and spending plan approved and signed into law by Trump in July.

The Republican Study Committee described the proposal as an affordability package aimed at lowering down payments, enacting mortgage reforms and creating more tax breaks.

Leaders of the group said it would reduce the budget deficit by $1 trillion and could pass with a simple majority.

“This blueprint … locks in President Trump’s deregulatory agenda through the only process Democrats can’t block: reconciliation,” said Rep. August Pfluger (R-Tex.), who chairs the group. “We have 11 months of guaranteed majorities. We’re not wasting a single day.”

Though the proposal has not yet been introduced as legislation, Republicans said it would include a mechanism to revoke funding from blue states over rent control and immigration policy, which they calculated would save $48 billion.

President Trump has endorsed a $200-billion mortgage bond stimulus, which he said would drive down mortgage rates and monthly payments. And the White House, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the two enterprises that back most U.S. mortgages — continues to push the idea of portable and assumable mortgages.

Trump said the move would allow buyers to keep their existing mortgage rate or enable new homeowners to assume a previous owner’s mortgage.

The Department of Justice, meanwhile, has launched a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over the Fed’s renovation costs, as Trump bashed him over “his never ending quest to keep interest rates high.”

The president also vowed to revoke federal funding to states over a wealth of issues such as childcare and immigration policy.

“This is not about any particular policy that they think is harmful,” Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) said. “This is about Trump’s always trying to find a way to punish blue states.”

Is there any alignment?

The two parties are cooperating on companion measures in the House and Senate.

The bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act seeks to expand housing supply by easing regulatory barriers. It passed the Senate unanimously and has support from the White House, but House Republicans have balked, and it has yet to receive a floor vote.

A bipartisan proposal — the Housing in the 21st Century Act — was approved by the House Financial Services Committee by a 50-1 vote in December. It also has yet to receive a floor vote.

The bill is similar to its twin in the Senate, with Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) working across the aisle with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). If approved, it would cut permitting times, support manufactured-housing development and expand financing tools for low-income housing developers.

There was also a recent moment of unusual alignment between the president and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who both promised to crack down on corporate home buying.

What do the experts say?

Housing experts recoiled at GOP proposals to bar housing dollars from sanctuary jurisdictions and cities that impose rent control.

“Any conditioning on HUD funding that sets up rules that explicitly carve out blue cities is going to be really catastrophic for California’s larger urban areas,” said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

More than 35 cities in California have rent control policies, according to the California Apartment Assn. The state passed its own rent stabilization law in 2019, and lawmakers approved a California sanctuary law in 2017 that prohibits state resources from aiding federal immigration enforcement.

The agenda comes on the heels of a series of HUD spending cuts, including a 30% cap on permanent housing investments and the end of a federal emergency housing voucher program that local homelessness officials estimate would put 14,500 people on the streets.

In Los Angeles County, HUD dollars make up about 28% of homelessness funding.

“It would undermine a lot of the bipartisan efforts that are happening in the House and the Senate to move evidence-backed policy to increase housing supply and stabilize rents and home prices,” Garcia said.

The president’s mortgage directives also prompted skepticism from some experts.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pressed to get into the riskier parts of the mortgage market back in the housing bubble and that was a part of the problem,” said Eric McGhee, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California.

Carney has been under pressure from the opposition to lower prices of food and other essentials for lower-income people.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced a multibillion-dollar package as part of a series of measures aimed at lowering the costs of food and other essentials for low-income families.

On Monday, Carney announced a five-year 25 percent boost to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) credit that starts this year.

The GST credit, which is being renamed the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit, will provide additional, significant support for more than 12 million Canadians, Carney said in a statement.

The government will also provide a one-time top-up equivalent to a 50 percent increase this year to eligible residents.

“We’re bringing in new measures to lower costs and make sure Canadians have the support they need now,” Carney said.

The measures would cost the government 3.1 billion Canadian dollars ($2.26bn) in the first year and between 1.3 billion Canadian dollars ($950m) and 1.8 billion Canadian dollars ($1.3bn) in each of the following four years, he told reporters at a news conference, according to the Reuters news agency.

While overall consumer price inflation in Canada has eased and came in at 2.4 percent for December, “food price inflation remains high due to global and domestic factors, including supply chain disruptions, higher US tariffs from the trade war and climate change/extreme weather”, Tony Stillo, director of Canada Economics at Oxford Economics, told Al Jazeera.

The government is also setting aside 500 million Canadian dollars ($365m) from the Strategic Response Fund to help businesses address the costs of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians, and will create a 150 million Canadian dollar ($110m) Food Security Fund under the existing Regional Tariff Response Initiative for small and medium enterprises and the organisations that support them.

Changing landscape

“The global landscape is rapidly changing, leaving economies, businesses, and workers under a cloud of uncertainty. In response, Canada’s new government is focused on what we can control: building a stronger economy to make life more affordable for Canadians,” Carney said.

The new measures were unveiled on the day Parliament resumes after its winter break.

Opposition parties have urged Carney to reduce prices of daily goods, especially as sections of the economy have come under pressure from United States President Donald Trump, who has slapped 35 percent tariffs on the country as well as separate tariffs on steel, aluminium and lumber, leading to job losses in those sectors.

Over the weekend, Trump escalated his threats and said he would impose a 100 percent tariff on Canada if it makes a trade deal with China. Carney has been working on diversifying Canada’s exports away from the US, its biggest trading partner and to which nearly 80 percent of its exports went last year, including by increasing business with other markets like China.