tax

Supporters of a new Los Angeles County half-cent sales tax rallied Wednesday to celebrate what they framed as a historic win for the region’s cash-strapped healthcare system.

After a rocky election night that showed the tax lagging, supporters claimed victory Tuesday after the latest vote tally pushed Measure ER further over the 50% margin needed to pass. The measure would impose a new half-cent sales tax countywide, with the proceeds going toward local hospitals and clinics hit by federal funding cuts.

Jim Mangia, the chief executive of St. John’s Community Health who helped craft the measure, summed up the campaign as “grueling and expensive.”

“We had to ask an already overtaxed community — in the midst of runaway inflation and [an] affordability crisis — to tax themselves yet again,” he told a crowd of supporters Wednesday.

L.A. County already has a sales tax of 9.75%, and some cities add their own on top. Measure ER passing would raise the countywide sales tax to 10.25%, with some individual cities having a sales tax of more than 11%, according to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

Despite a recent winning streak for sales taxes in L.A. County, some political observers had forecast doom for the measure, which came at a time of skyrocketing gas prices and cost-weary voters.

The largely informal opposition had consisted mainly of local cities that warned another sales tax would disproportionately burden the poorest residents and force shoppers across the county border in hopes of finding lower costs. Some city leaders had also dinged the county for misusing homelessness money generated from a previous sales tax and argued this new pot of dollars would be handled no better.

But supporters were able to eke out a narrow victory, according to the latest election returns, by emphasizing looming hospital closures and the temporary nature of the tax, which is set to sunset in five years.

“It’s a lifesaver to carry us through the storm we’re all in,” said county Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who led the push within the Board of Supervisors to get the measure on the ballot.

County leaders in February voted 4-1 to put the tax on the ballot after federal legislation threatened to pull health insurance from the poorest residents, leaving the already cash-strapped county to foot the bill for their care. Officials say cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are expected to slash more than $2 billion from the county’s budget for health services over the next three years.

“It’s disgusting what’s going to happen to our residents,” said Supervisor Hilda Solis, who championed the measure alongside Mitchell.

The tax, which begins Oct. 1, comes at a time of budget-tightening for the county amid rising labor costs and a $4-billion sex abuse settlement that is set to be paid out over the next five years.

Officials estimate the tax will bring in about $1 billion per year, which will go to clinics, hospitals and Planned Parenthood services that supporters say are at risk of closure without a new source of cash.

A similar proposed healthcare sales tax in Contra Costa County, meant to generate $150 million a year, was soundly rejected with about 57% of voters opposing the measure, according to votes tallied as of Wednesday.

Supporters of a half-cent sales tax proposed to help fund health services in Los Angeles County declared victory Tuesday after days of steadily gaining ground as more ballots were counted.

The latest results show the “yes” camp ahead by a slim margin, with just more than 50% of the vote. The measure needs a simple majority to win.

“Today, Angelenos sent a clear message: we take care of each other,” said Jim Mangia, chief executive of St. John’s Community Health and a spokesperson for the campaign, in a statement. “For months, we watched Washington make decisions that stripped healthcare away from hundreds of thousands of our neighbors — and today, Los Angeles County answered.”

The campaign said it would be organizing a news conference Wednesday to celebrate the “historic win.”

The proposal, on the ballot as Measure ER, had gained traction since election night, when results showed the tax had failed to gain a majority of support among early voters. Voters have not rejected a sales tax hike in L.A. County since 2012, when a transportation measure fell just short of a needed two-thirds majority with 66.1% support.

Approval of Measure ER would impose a new sales tax of half a penny of every dollar spent in the county, with the proceeds going to local hospitals and clinics that say they’re bleeding funding after federal cuts. Officials anticipate it will bring in $1 billion annually to patch the holes in the health services network.

The tax, which was championed by a coalition of healthcare advocates, takes effect Oct. 1 and will last for five years.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has proposed new tariffs of up to 12.5 percent on imports from 60 economies after determining they had failed to curb trade in goods made with forced labour, an assertion that was rejected by US trading partners.

The proposal from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), issued late on Tuesday, comes from a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation designed to help rebuild US President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, struck down by a US Supreme Court decision in February.

Despite laws banning them, the products of forced labour are deeply embedded in supply chains across the world. European lawmakers bristle at the accusation that the region is less effective than the US at curbing the trade in such goods, with one describing the US findings as “utterly absurd”. Business leaders said the US move created more confusion for companies.

The USTR proposed 10 percent additional duties on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain. The USTR said all had plans or partial schemes in place.

The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5 percent on the remaining 45 countries that it investigated. These include China, India, Nigeria, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.”

The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10 percent temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on February 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It also shows how determined the Trump administration is about building a wall of tariffs around the US economy, the world’s largest, despite repeated setbacks in court.

After the loss in the Supreme Court, Trump turned to another law to impose temporary 10 percent tariffs globally. But those stopgap levies expire July 24. And a specialised trade court ruled last month that they, too, were illegal – though the government can continue collecting them while that case works its way through the courts.

Unjustified tariffs

The European Commission said the tariffs were unjustified and reiterated its commitment to the trade deal sealed with Washington last year.

Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, which voted on Tuesday to accept that trade deal, said the new tariffs were expected, but said the results of the US investigation were still “utterly absurd” given a 2024 EU law to ban imports of forced labour products.

“The impression is increasingly emerging that a tariff measure is sought first, and only then is a suitable legal justification found,” he said. However, he added that the key question would be whether the additional tariffs would exceed those agreed between both sides last July.

The US’s largest trading partner, the EU, agreed last July to accept tariffs of 15 percent on a broad range of its exports. In its report, the USTR said the EU anti-forced labour measures only came into force in December 2027 and lacked key elements.

It was unclear whether the proposed tariffs – which the US release described as “additional duties” – would come on top of levies agreed in bilateral deals signed with the US.

Britain said it was in regular talks with the US and was taking action to tackle forced labour. It added that the preferential access to US markets that it had negotiated for UK businesses remained in place.

Mexico said that goods that were compliant under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) would be exempt from the new tariffs.

Taiwan said it was “hopeful and confident” that the final results would reflect agreements already reached, securing relatively preferential treatment.

Beijing, facing 12.5 percent tariffs, said that it opposed all forms of unilateral tariffs and that there was no forced labour in China. India, confronted with the same rate, said it was engaged with Washington on the Section 301 proceedings, noting the proposed tariffs were not final.

“There will be deep concerns in the international business community that the US [forced labour law could] become a global template,” said Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce.

“Anyone can make a claim, get a shipment impounded and the company has to prove no forced labour in supply chain.”

Certain exemptions

The USTR said it would exempt from tariffs products including energy, rare earths and some other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.

It also said it was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports to enter the US at a reduced tariff rate, without giving details.

The ICC’s Wilson said the list of exemptions, stretching for more than 76 pages, suggested sensitivities over the potential cost-of-living hit to food and other goods with known forced-labour risks.

“It doesn’t make sense if the object of this is to enhance controls on modern slavery,” he said.

The move will see passengers pay ’65 per cent’ less tax on a number of routes in a bid to make them more ‘affordable’

The prices of tickets for a number of flights in a holiday destination for British travellers will be lowered in a bid to make them more affordable. The move will see flights on 26 specific routes cut in price as tax is reduced on many flights in France, which gets around four million visits from UK travellers every year.

The move was introduced on June 1. Philippe Tabarot, minister at the French Ministry of Transport, confirmed the update this week, and it will affect some international flights as well as trips to some of France’s biggest cities.

Travellers in the UK heading for holidays to France from Heathrow and Gatwick could benefit. Air France, for instance, travels to Paris Charles de Gaulle, while Manchester airport and Birmingham airport also daily flights to both Paris and Lyon, and Newcastle, Edinburgh and Southampton airports also have regular Paris flights.

The move is due to a change in the so-called solidarity tax on airplane tickets (TSBA). French media website 20 Minutes reports that the TSBA had been raised in March 2025 for all flights departing from France.

Local media say the amount rose from €2.63 to €7.40 per passenger. Now passengers flying on certain routes will see the figure returne to the original rate of €2.63.

The Ministry of Transport says this represents a 65% reduction in the tax. That amounts to a saving of €4.77 per ticket.

The flights in France to be affected by the TSBA change

This discount applies to the following routes:

1. Calvi-Marseille
2. Ajaccio-Paris (Orly)
3. La Rochelle–Lyon
4. Ajaccio-Nice
5. Brive–Paris
6. Rodez–Paris
7. Strasbourg–Madrid
8. Strasbourg–Munich
9. Bastia-Nice
10. Figari-Paris (Orly)
11. Tarbes–Paris
12. Calvi-Paris (Orly)
13. Calvi-Nice
14. Brest–Ouessant
15. Bastia-Paris (Orly)
16. Limoges–Lyon
17. Figari-Nice
18. Poitiers–Lyon
19. Aurillac–Paris
20. Bastia-Marseille
21. Strasbourg-Copenhagen
22. Limoges–Paris
23. Figari-Marseille
24. Ajaccio-Marseille
25. Castres–Paris
26. Le Puy–Paris

The minister said: “By making these routes more affordable, this measure reflects the government’s commitment to supporting connectivity in the least well-served regions and to reducing the cost of air travel to and from these destinations.”

The move is designed to support routes officials believe are sometimes poorly served by other means of transport. While the flights are almost all domestic, Brits travelling around the country could benefit.

There are also international connections to Strasbourg that are included, as well as most of the links between the French island of Corsica and the mainland. These routes have a special status as ‘public service’ routes because they are in areas where other transport options are limited, or where flying represents the only fast connection, The Local reports.

The eco tax was originally added to plane tickets under Jacques Chirac’s government in 2005, French media reports say. It was doubled in 2024 in a move that Ryanair blamed for its withdrawal from some regional French airports.

The tax is added as an extra fee to each plane ticket bought. It is charged at a sliding rate based on the length of the flight and whether the ticket is standard class, business or first.

Los Angeles County’s half-cent sales tax to fund healthcare services was trailing Tuesday, with early returns showing a majority of voters rejecting the measure.

The tax — a half-penny of every dollar spent in the county — is meant to prop up local hospitals and clinics that are hemorrhaging funding after recent federal cuts.

The sales tax, which needs a simple majority to pass, would take effect Oct. 1 and last five years. Officials say it would pull in $1 billion annually to help plug the budget holes hitting local hospitals and clinics.

L.A. County health officials anticipate the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Trump last summer, will slash more than $2 billion from the county’s health services budget within the next three years. Due to eligibility changes, the county will no longer be able to get reimbursements for many Californians who have lost Medi-Cal.

The measure was championed by a coalition of healthcare advocates called Restore Healthcare for Angelenos who warned that mass layoffs and emergency room closures could be imminent if new funding didn’t come fast. The Department of Public Health recently closed seven clinics — a grim sign, supporters said, of service cuts to come.

Voters haven’t rejected a sales tax hike since 2012, when a transportation measure fell just short with 66.1% support. It needed 66.7% to pass.

A majority of county supervisors had supported the new tax proposal, voting 4 to 1 this February to put it on the ballot. But the measure faced significant opposition from local cities, with opponents arguing the sales tax hike would unfairly burden the poorest county residents and encourage people to spend their dollars across the county line.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, the board’s lone opponent of the tax, said she was concerned it was a “general” tax, meaning the money wouldn’t be earmarked for healthcare costs. Instead, she argued, politicians would have final say over how the money gets spent.

The supervisors have created a plan for spending the tax money, with the largest chunk of the money meant to cover the costs for patients without insurance. The measure also asked voters to sign off on a nine-member oversight committee.

The county currently has a base sales tax rate of 9.75%, and cities impose local taxes on top of that.

Geraldine Noel was a lawyer in the UK when she accidentally found herself relocating to Malta, a sun-drenched Mediterranean island where English is an official language

It was a complete twist of fate that led high-flying lawyer Geraldine Noel to swap her life for a Mediterranean paradise where English is spoken as a first language.

She said: “I never would have thought adopting a rescue dog and being banned from bringing it into the UK would have led me to settling in Malta, but I love my life here in the sun and wouldn’t change a thing.”

Born in south-west London, Geraldine was offered a position at a Maltese bank. This was before Brexit, she explains, when it was considerably easier for British citizens to live and work across EU nations.

She told the I newspaper how property prices on the sun-soaked island have shifted dramatically since she first arrived 16 years ago: “I’m very fortunate. I was able to purchase a property in the north of the island in St Paul’s Bay 13 years ago. So I’ve been able to avoid the year-on-year increase of property prices that we are currently dealing with.”

Soaring property prices are being driven by a significant surge in demand. Malta’s population is currently estimated to sit at around 580,000 – with much of the growth attributed to American retirees, drawn in by the Mediterranean haven’s warm climate and straightforward access to Italy, Greece, and North Africa. The single largest expat community in Malta, however, remains British – with roughly 15,000 Brits calling the island home.

Geraldine continued: “When I moved, a two-bedroom in St Paul’s Bay would have cost between £150,000 and £250,000 and now that same property would be worth between £200,000 and £350,000.”

This surge in property demand has sparked a construction boom, with new homes and extensions springing up across the island. The downside, Geraldine notes, is increased traffic and noise.

Yet it’s Malta’s tax system that proves most enticing to British expats, she explains: “Tax efficiency is one of the most appealing things about living here. Malta still has the British non-dom regime and a variety of tax breaks that include a 15% rate on income remitted to the country, and no capital gains or inheritance tax.”

Sadly, moving to Malta from the UK has become more complicated in recent years: “The curse of Brexit, though, means it’s so much harder for young people to move over – you have to have a work permit or be on a residency programme,” Geraldine said.

That said, she points out, skilled tradespeople – plumbers, carpenters or electricians – will find abundant opportunities thanks to Malta’s construction surge.

Ultimately, Malta offers an exceptional quality of life, Geraldine insists. She cultivates tropical fruit in her garden and lives just a five-minute stroll from the beach, while still enjoying familiar home comforts for nostalgic Brits: “There are so many things that make Malta appealing to British nationals,” Geraldine says.

“English is an official language, there are British pubs galore that do roasts with all the trimmings, red post boxes, Marks & Spencer. You can get Waitrose and Iceland-branded products in certain supermarkets. I actually have Greggs sausage rolls in the freezer right now.”

Malta remained under British rule until it achieved independence in 1964. As a result, English is one of the island’s two official languages, alongside Maltese.

Critics of the current system say it doesn’t reflect reality

The Government has issued an update about tax changes affecting UK air travel. The policy update could impact journeys with major airlines such as Ryanair and EasyJet. The ministerial response comes after major concerns were raised about the current system, which campaigners branded “completely unfair”.

The Treasury has issued a response to a petition to Parliament that garnered more than 10,000 signatures calling for a review of the scale rate expenses paid to employees who travel outside the UK, such as airline cabin crew. These scale rate payments are where a business provides an employee with a set amount of cash, to cover business expenses such as travel and meals, so the worker does not have to provide receipts for each item. The petition called for ministers to “review and increase” the expenses rates. The campaign said: “We feel the rates are not reflective or the real costs for people whose work takes them abroad, and that the way they are put into blocks of 5/10 or 24 hour blocks is completely unfair.

“We want these rates to be reviewed by HMRC so they are up to date with the current cost of living.” These time blocks refer to the fact there are different rates that apply depending on the length of time the expenses relate to. There are different rates for a period of more than five hours but less than 10 hours, another one for more than 10 hours but less than 24 hours, and still another rate for a period of more than 24 hours.

The petition goes on to make the case why the current system is unfair: “If a flight is delayed by an hour this can mean dropping from the 24 hour payment down to the 10 hour payment so essentially working 12 hours without a payment. This is a common occurrence in air travel, hence crew being penalised for something out of their control.

“We believe the scale rates need to provide a wider range of rates and time blocks so that if you fall between rates you are not penalised.” Just over 11,000 people have pledged their support for the petition at the time of writing. If a petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the Government is obliged to pen a response.

You can read the petition in full

Government response

The Treasury has now issued a reply. On the question of whether there could be changes to HMRC’s policies in this area, the group said: “The Government keeps all taxes under review as part of the policy making process.

“Any decisions on future changes in this area will be taken in the context of the wider public finances.” The group also set out the reasoning behind the current scale rates system.

The Treasury said: “Overseas scale rates (OSR) allow employers to reimburse overseas travel costs without receipts. Where costs exceed rates, receipts can be used. The Government keeps OSR under review. The Government recognises that employees who travel overseas for work, including cabin crew, incur additional costs and that employers need practical ways to reimburse those costs fairly.

“HMRC’s overseas scale rate system is intended to support this by providing a consistent, evidence based framework for tax free subsistence payments where employees are travelling abroad as part of their role.” The Government body went on to explain that the scale rates are not intended to reflect a person’s expenses in every case, but instead provide a “standard set of benchmark amounts” that employers and employees can use.

Bespoke rates

Further explaining the rules, the response set out: “Employers are not required to use HMRC’s published scale rates if they believe these do not reflect their employees’ circumstances. Employers can agree bespoke rates with HMRC based on evidence of actual costs, or they can reimburse the actual costs incurred where receipts are available.

“These alternatives allow employers greater flexibility where working patterns, disruption or sector specific issues mean the standard rates are not appropriate.” You can sign the petition on the website.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to tax 100% of the money Californians receive from President Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund for his political allies.

Trump’s Justice Department had announced last week that it would establish a $1.776-billion fund to compensate allies of the president who claim they have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” under the Biden administration’s Justice Department.

“Anyone from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100% of those proceeds,” the governor told reporters Thursday.

“That’s an action the state of California can take …[and] it’s an action we look forward to taking.”

Just how Newsom would do so remains unclear. He indicated that he would need action from the Democratic-led California Legislature to impose the new tax. If adopted, the measure would likely face legal challenge.

The fund has prompted outrage from Democrats and some Republicans — including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who said in a statement that the “slush fund,” which would “pay people who assault cops,” was “utterly stupid.”

Newsom’s remarks about Trump’s settlement fund came on Thursday as he signed a bill designed to prevent election interference ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

The bill, Senate Bill 73, restricts law enforcement agencies and officers — including those from federal agencies — from interfering with state and local election officials, such as confiscating ballots, voter rolls or voting machines without a warrant.

The governor said the bill is meant to address “legitimate anxiety” over threats to election integrity after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s decision to seize ballots from the county’s voter registrar as part of a fraud probe. Bianco, a long-time Trump supporter, is one of the top Republicans running to succeed Newsom after the end of his second and final term as governor.

Newsom also pointed to ICE and Border Patrol’s decision last November to stage an event near Dodger Stadium, calling it a “show of force designed to intimidate free expression and free speech.”

“That’s why we have to step up and we have to draw the line,” Newsom said. “We have to clarify the rules of engagement… there are fines associated with this, criminal fines and jail time of three years, so that’s a warning [to] the folks out there that think they can do the bidding of the Trump administration.”

Newsom said he expects Trump to interfere with the upcoming election — noting that the president has falsely claimed that he “won” California in the last election.

“Every single thing that Donald Trump is saying only suggests that he will do more, not less, to intimidate and to impact the outcome of this election,” Newsom said. “I absolutely expect the worst again, because we’ve been on the receiving end of it.”

Shakira’s long tax-fraud nightmare has ended with the government of Spain on the hook to refund nearly $70 million to the Colombian-born singer after prosecutors failed to prove she spent enough time in that country to owe it a chunk of her earnings.

Since 2018, the singer has been accused of defrauding the Spanish government in three cases, for the tax years 2011, 2012-2014 and 2018. Over the years, deals were offered, rejected and accepted; charges were dropped, other charges were filed; and an eight-year prison sentence was threatened.

Shakira maintained her innocence, saying in 2022 that “Spanish tax authorities saw that I was dating a Spanish citizen and started to salivate,” referring to her relationship with Barcelona-born footballer Gerard Piqué, the father of their sons Milan and Sasha. Piqué and the singer, who met in 2010 when she did “Waka Waka,” the official song of that year’s FIFA World Cup, separated in 2022.

A representative for the singer, whose full name is Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll, did not respond immediately to The Times’ request for comment on the court decision.

However, despite there being no fraud, Shakira told People on Monday in a statement that “for nearly a decade, I was treated as guilty. Every step of the process was leaked, distorted, and amplified, using my name and public image to send a threatening message to the rest of the taxpayers.”

She added, “Today, that narrative crumbles, and it does so with the full force of a court ruling.”

Everything revolved around how many days Shakira spent in Spain in the years in question. With her legal residence in the Bahamas before she declared Spain her fiscal home in 2014, she had to spend more than half the year outside of her beau’s home country to avoid paying taxes there.

“They knew I wasn’t in Spain the required time, that Spain wasn’t my place of work or my source of income, but they still came after me, with their eyes on the prize,” Shakira told Elle in 2022, adding that she was confident that justice would prevail in her favor at trial. “I have enough proof.”

The amount the Spanish government owes her includes fines and interest in addition to the money she handed over, despite having no legal obligation to pay it.

In other Shakira news, she and Burna Boy just released the 2026 FIFA World Cup song, titled “Dai Dai.”

Democratic lawmakers blast move, which follows the establishment of a controversial ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’.

United States President Donald Trump, his family, and his businesses have been granted immunity from any ongoing audits into their tax affairs, according to a directive by the Department of Justice.

The move on Tuesday came as an addendum to Trump’s agreement a day earlier to settle a $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the leak of his tax information to media outlets between 2018 and 2020.

In a one-page document, signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Justice Department said authorities would be “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from “prosecuting or pursuing” tax claims against Trump, members of his family, and his businesses.

The document, which was posted on the Justice Department’s website without any official announcement or press release, stipulates that the waiver applies to inquiries that are “currently pending or that could be pending,” including any related to tax returns filed by Trump before Monday’s settlement.

Democratic lawmakers immediately blasted the move.

Senator Adam Schiff of California accused the Trump administration of engaging in corruption and “self-dealing”.

“The tax-dodging President gets himself and his whole family a tax break, thanks to Todd Blanche,” Schiff said in a statement on social media.

Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer under former President George W Bush, said that exempting Trump from any tax obligations would be unconstitutional.

“If the president or his family owe the IRS money, this is a violation of the domestic emoluments clause of the US Constitution, which specifically says that the president cannot receive any profits or advantages from the US government other than his salary appropriated by Congress,” Painter told Al Jazeera.

The Justice Department and the Trump Organisation did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Justice Department’s directive marks a dramatic expansion in Trump’s settlement, which established a so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate people who claim to have been victims of politically-motivated “lawfare”.

Critics have likened the initiative to a “slush fund”, warning that it is likely to be used to reward Trump’s allies.

Decisions on distributing money from the $1.776bn fund will be made by a five-member commission, four of whom will be directly appointed by Blanche, a Trump appointee who formerly acted as his personal lawyer.

In heated exchanges with Democratic senators on Tuesday, Blanche denied that Trump had directed him to establish the fund or that it would be used in a partisan manner.

“Anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were a victim of weaponisation,” Blanche said.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government will permanently drop tax claims against President Trump, according to a settlement document that is part of a deal to resolve Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

As part of the settlement agreement, the U.S. is “forever barred and precluded” from examining or prosecuting Trump, his sons and the Trump organization’s current tax issues, according to a one-page document posted to the Justice Department’s website on Tuesday.

The settlement, which marks an extraordinary use of executive power, goes beyond resolving litigation and effectively helps shield the president from further examination of his finances and legal conduct.

The move comes after the Trump administration announced Monday the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion fund to compensate allies of the Republican president who believe they have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted, an arrangement that Democrats and government watchdogs derided as “corrupt” and unconstitutional.

The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” of $1.776 billion will allow people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes, including by the Biden administration Justice Department, to apply for payouts, creating what acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche called “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Blanche, who was grilled by lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, would not rule out the possibility that people who carried out violence during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol will be considered for payouts from the new fund.

Democratic lawmakers and ethics watchdogs slammed the creation of the fund, saying it was corrupt, opaque and had the potential to become a “slush fund” for the president and his allies.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Democrats intend to “fight every element of this self-dealing settlement.”

“Not only is this another heinously corrupt act by the most corrupt administration in history, it’s clearly a violation of the law that prohibits interference by executive branch officials in IRS audits.”

The fund was announced after Trump, his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and the Trump Organization agreed to drop their lawsuit against the IRS and the Treasury Department. The lawsuit alleged that a leak of confidential tax records caused them reputational and financial harm and negatively affected their public standing, among other allegations.

According to a separate settlement agreement posted to the Justice Department website Monday, Trump will receive a formal apology from the U.S. government but “will not receive any monetary payment or damages of any kind,” from the settlement.

Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that the fund is dedicated to “reimbursing people who were horribly treated.”

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday moved to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns after reports that his administration was poised to create a fund to compensate some of his allies.

The disclosure was made in a filing in federal court in Florida, where the lawsuit was filed last year.

ABC News first reported last week that Trump was prepared to drop his lawsuit as part of a deal that would create a $1.7 billion fund to pay allies of the president who believe they were wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

The court filing did not mention terms of any potential deal.

News that the Trump administration was contemplating a fund to pay Trump allies drew an immediate backlash from Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, who called the idea “unconstitutional.”

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and proving things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence, go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he added.

It was not immediately clear who precisely will stand to benefit from the fund but its creation reflects Trump’s long-running claims that the Biden administration Justice Department was weaponized against him.

He has cited as proof the since-dismissed criminal charges he faced between his first and second terms of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he lost and of retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Several aides of his were also prosecuted, as were hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law. His Justice Department also investigated Biden for his handling of classified information and brought separate tax and gun prosecutions against Biden’s son Hunter.

Nonetheless, Trump’s current Justice Department has actively pursued the president’s retribution campaign and grievances, bringing criminal charges against some of his perceived adversaries and initiating a wide-ranging investigation that aims to establish a years-long conspiracy between law enforcement and intelligence officials to destroy Trump’s political prospects and keep him power.

No charges have been brought in that investigation and it is not clear that any ever will be.

Trump filed a lawsuit earlier this year in a Florida federal court, alleging that a previous leak of his and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

The president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also named plaintiffs in the suit.

Hussein, Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Popular budget airline is to cancel routes in 2026 after a row with officials

Ryanair has given bad news for passengers going to 12 destinations. The airline regularly keeps customers with bookings in the loop regarding travel updates and on its website has explained that the routes are being chopped.

It said that 12 routes are being cut – with the result that 700,000 seats are effectively being lost to air gtravel. The issue has arisen around its Thessaloniki base – meaning it’s closing for the three aircraft based there. It said: “This devastating loss in off-peak winter connectivity is the direct result of the hopelessly uncompetitive costs charged at the German-run Fraport Greece monopoly and Athens Airport.

“The Greek Govt. made the wise decision to reduce the Airport Development Fee (ADF) by 75% (from €12 to €3 per passenger) from November’24, which should have directly stimulated year-round connectivity and tourism across Greece. However, most Greek airports, particularly those run by Fraport Greece, refused to pass the tax cut onto passengers and instead have pocketed the tax cut for themselves. Since then, Fraport Greece have continued to increase charges, which are now +66% above their pre-Covid levels. Likewise, Athens Airport will hike charges this Winter.

“Consequently, Greek airports are no longer competitive in the off-peak shoulder and Winter months, when the tourism industry’s reliance on low-fare connectivity is most acute. Ryanair has therefore been left with no choice but to reallocate capacity to more competitive countries like Albania, regional Italy, and Sweden where airports have passed on the savings from Govt. tax reductions. “

READ MORE: Latest paper boarding pass rules for all major UK airlines in 2026READ MORE: BBC expert says easyJet Jet2 Ryanair TUI travellers need to make key booking change ‘for protection’

Ryanair said it presented an ambitious growth plan to the Greek government in what it said would grow traffic to 12m passengers per annum, base 10 additional aircraft and launch 50 new routes over the next 5 years. It said it would carry out the plan if airport charges were frozen and the 75% Airport Development Fee reduction is passed on to passengers at all airports.

Ryanair Chief Commercial Officer, Jason McGuinness said: “Ryanair regrets to announce the closure of our Thessaloniki base and reductions in Athens for Winter ‘26, resulting in the loss of 700,000 seats and 12 routes across Greece, as well as the suspension of operations at Chania and Heraklion during the off-peak months. These preventable traffic reductions are a direct result of the airports’ failure to pass through the ADF reduction, particularly in Thessaloniki where the Fraport Greece monopoly have hiked airport charges +66% since 2019.

“The removal of 3 based aircraft, 500,000 seats (-60% vs. Winter ‘25) and 10 routes from Thessaloniki for Winter ‘26 will be devastating for the city and region, as Ryanair provided 90% of international capacity to Thessaloniki last Winter. Unfortunately, there will now be less low-cost air fares for Thessaloniki’s citizens and visitors, and year-round tourism will be harmed as a result. These aircraft will be reallocated to Albania, regional Italy and Sweden, where airports have passed on their Govt’s aviation tax savings – resulting in more connectivity, tourism and jobs this Winter in those regions.

“There is an opportunity for Greece to secure significant year-round traffic growth however, this investment can only be realised once the German-run Fraport Greece monopoly fully passes through the Greek Govt.’s sensible tax cut from November’24 – allowing airlines such as Ryanair, to deliver the connectivity required to reduce Greece’s chronic seasonality.”

The cancelled routes:

• Thessaloniki to Berlin
• Thessaloniki to Chania
• Thessaloniki to Frankfurt-H
• Thessaloniki to Gothenburg
• Thessaloniki to Heraklion
• Thessaloniki to Niederrhein
• Thessaloniki to Poznan
• Thessaloniki to Stockholm
• Thessaloniki to Venice-T
• Thessaloniki to Zagreb
• Athens to Milan-M
• Chania to Paphos

Ryanair has also pulled its aircraft from Chania and Heraklion.

Fraport, which runs 14 airports in Greece said Ryanair’s decision is “exclusively related” to the airline’s commercial strategy and profitability considerations. “Any claims linking this decision to airport charges or the airport development fee imposed by the Greek state are entirely unfounded,” it adds. Fraport Greece has invested over €100 million (£86 million) to upgrade Thessaloniki, the statement added.

Meanwhile, Ryanair has announced the closure of its Berlin operating base and a 50% reduction in its winter schedule to the German capital, citing escalating aviation taxes in the country. The Irish budget airline confirmed that relocating seven aircraft to alternative hubs would see its Berlin passenger numbers drop from 4.5 million to 2.2 million annually.

THE GREAT British break might not be so great very soon after it was announced that the overnight ‘holiday tax’ is set to be pushed forward.

Included in the King’s Speech was the dreaded new levy on staycations and one Butlin’s boss has hit back saying it will have big ‘consequences’ for families.

Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.

Plans to introduce the ‘Overnight Visitor Levy‘ for staycations in England was first announced late last year, and was spelled out again in the King’s Speech two days ago.

Essentially, the government’s plan is introduce levy overnight accommodation like hotels, B&Bs, campsites or holiday homes.

It would allow local authorities in England to charge visitors an additional fee on overnight stays which is similar to systems already used in parts of Europe.

GRUBS UP

Best pubs, fish and chip shops and cafes in Sussex – by Sun readers & locals

GO SEA IT

£9.50 holiday spot with shipwrecks, seals offshore & horseshoe-shaped waterfalls

According to UK Hospitality, the new tax could add £100 to a two-week family stay based on £2 per person per night.  

Unsurprisingly, the plans have not been met with positivity.

Matt Rake who is a resort director at Butlin’s in Bognor Regis – said the tax would have “consequences”, especially for working families.

He said: “It’s disappointing that the government is pressing ahead with the holiday tax despite how clear businesses, consumers and the hospitality sector have been about the potential consequences.

“In the Spring, the government said families being able to pay for a holiday should never be too much to ask, yet today they’ve confirmed the introduction of a measure that will hurt working families hard.

“We know how important domestic tourism is for Bognor Regis and the local businesses here. Holidays and short breaks support jobs and investment across our community throughout the year.”

He added that in a recent poll, 73 per cent of people would reduce or cut back on holidays in England if extra costs were introduced.

The ‘holiday tax’ was formally announced in the Autumn Budget in November 2025.

And two hundred bosses from firms including Butlin’s, Haven and Parkdean Resorts have written to the Chancellor hitting out at the plans.

SACRAMENTO — Severely disabled veterans in California could be getting an expanded tax break.

State lawmakers are considering legislation that would exempt from taxation 50% of the residential property owned by a fully disabled veteran, or 100% if their household income does not exceed $40,000.

“I’ve seen firsthand the financial challenges many disabled veterans face just trying to stay in their homes,” Assemblyman Jeff Gonzalez (R-Indio) said Thursday. “We always say we support our veterans, but support has to mean taking meaningful action to make life more affordable for them.”

Gonzalez, who introduced Assembly Bill 2022, is a Marine Corps veteran and vice chair of the Assembly Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs.

The legislation would apply only to veterans who became disabled as a result of their military service. It defines a fully disabled veteran as one who is blind in both eyes, has lost the use of at least two limbs, or is otherwise incapacitated due to an injury or disease. Surviving spouses would be eligible for the same exemptions, provided they do not remarry.

The exemptions would sunset in 2032 so legislators could review the bill’s effect before deciding whether to enact the policy permanently.

California is home to more than 1.8 million former service members, which is the largest veteran population of any state in the nation, according to the most recent census. The California Department of Veterans Affairs estimates there are 184, 283 veterans this year residing in Los Angeles County.

During a legislative hearing earlier this year, Gonzalez told lawmakers that about 380,000 veterans in the state live with service-related disabilities. He explained the rising cost of living in California is especially challenging for those on fixed incomes, and said reducing property tax burdens could help prevent the most vulnerable veterans from ending up on the streets.

“For a veteran who has already sacrificed so much, losing their home is not just a financial hardship, it is a failure of our commitment to them,” Gonzalez said.

The bill has passed two committees with unanimous support and was most recently referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

There are currently two property tax exemptions offered for fully disabled veterans in California, according to the State Board of Equalization.

The basic property tax exemption, or the $100,000 exemption, is available to all fully disabled veterans. The low-income exemption, or the $150,000 exemption, is available to fully disabled veterans whose annual household income does not exceed a specified amount — currently $81,131 — that is adjusted periodically for inflation. The exemption amount reduces the assessed value of the property, resulting in less property taxes due.

Patrick Murphy, an urban affairs professor at the University of San Francisco who focuses on tax policy, doubts the legislation would have a significant effect on homelessness.

“Homelessness among veterans is a big problem; that is pretty well-documented,” he said. “But I think if we were to list the reasons why veterans end up homeless, the burden of their property taxes would be pretty far down.”

Murphy also cautioned that Assembly Bill 2022 could face potential legal challenges if signed into law.

“Since Prop. 13 is written into the California Constitution, I would almost think there would need to actually be a proposed ballot initiative to change this,” Murphy said.

Proposition 13 mandates that property should be assessed and taxed uniformly based on purchase price. It caps property tax rates at 1% of a property’s value at the time of purchase, and limits annual assessment increases to a maximum of 2%.

Scott Kaufman, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., believes the legislation is on solid footing.

“I don’t see a problem,” he said. “The disabled veterans exemption already exists in the constitution, so I don’t think Prop. 13 trumps it because they both exist together.”

The California Teacher’s Assn. has raised other concerns with the legislation.

“We oppose tax exemptions that cut into the state’s ability to fully fund public schools by putting Prop. 98 funding at risk,” spokesperson Maggie Sisco wrote in an email.

Proposition 98 guarantees a minimum annual funding amount for K-12 schools and community colleges. The money comes from state funding and local property taxes.

According to the State Board of Equalization, the state does not reimburse local governments for the property tax revenue losses from the Disabled Veterans’ Exemption.

The bill is backed by several veterans organizations, including the American Legion, California State Commanders Veterans Council and Vietnam Veterans of America California State Council.

It also has support from the California Assn. of Realtors. Sanjay Wagle, the association’s senior vice president of government affairs, said property taxes are a concern for many disabled veterans looking to purchase a home.

“A lot of our members have seen them struggling, frankly, to make ends meet,” Wagle said. “This kind of property tax relief could be vital.”

A similar bill, SB 296, is being sponsored in the state Senate by Sens. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) and Suzette Martinez Valladares (R-Acton).

Another measure, Senate Bill 888, is also seeking to reduce property tax burdens for disabled veterans.
The legislation, whose author is Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta), would exclude service-related disability payments from being included in the household income used to determine eligibility for exemptions.

Counting unhoused populations is difficult due to the transient nature of homelessness, but the most recent analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development indicate veteran homelessness is on the decline nationwide. In 2024, the department’s annual count found 32,882 homeless veterans, the lowest figure since the count began in 2009.

It’s been years since Los Angeles County voters met a sales tax they didn’t like.

They agreed to pay half a cent more at the cash register to fund buses, trains and pothole fillings in 2016. The next year, they gave a quarter-cent more to fund homeless services. In 2024, voters bumped it up to a half–cent.

But with the electorate in a dour mood and reeling from rocketing gas prices, some speculate voters’ willingness to tax themselves may be dwindling as ballots arrive for the June 2 primary election.

“This is going to be a tougher year for taxes than prior years,” said former supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who pushed through a property tax ballot measure in 2002 to fund the county’s trauma care network. “There’s a limit to the tolerance people have for increasing their own taxes.”

Los Angeles County voters will soon decide whether they want to pay a temporary half-cent sales tax to shore up the region’s public healthcare system, which is facing dramatic federal funding cuts. Officials estimate the county will lose more than $2 billion in healthcare funding over the next three years.

The county currently has a base sales tax rate of 9.75%, and cities impose additional local taxes on top of that. If approved, the tax would take effect Oct. 1 and last for five years. The exact tax rate would vary depending on the city.

Voters haven’t said no to a sales tax hike since 2012, when a transportation measure fell just short with 66.1% support. It needed 66.7% to pass.

The healthcare sales tax has a lower bar to clear. The supervisors voted to put the measure on the ballot as a general tax, which gives them more leeway with how the money is spent and only requires a simple majority to pass.

But even that threshold may prove difficult. Polling from March suggested the measure was losing among L.A. city voters, who are often more generous than county voters at large. Angelenos will also find their ballot crowded with other tax hike proposals, which may leave some voters feeling picky.

“People have a very discerning instinct,” said Yaroslavsky. “They will pick and choose what they think is important.”

Despite no organized opposition, a flurry of cities, as well as the editorial board of the Los Angeles Daily News, have loudly spurned the idea, arguing it will make the region even less affordable.

“It’s just terrible timing,” said Paul Little, the head of the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce. “Costs are going through the roof for everything.”

With weeks to go until election day, healthcare workers and advocates supporting the measure have gone full steam ahead with mailers, marches and a social media campaign depicting a wallowing penny finding its lost sense of purpose with the measure. The campaign’s top funders are St. John’s Community Health and SEIU, who frame the measure as life or death for thousands of uninsured residents.

“Think about that person you know in your family who is asthmatic and relies on that inhaler, who has rheumatoid arthritis, who is diabetic,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell at a recent town hall held in support of the measure. “And think about whether or not you’re willing to spend a half a penny — 50 cents on every hundred dollars — to make sure that that family, friend or neighbor gets what they need to be healthy.”

The supervisors voted 4-1 to put the sales tax on the ballot. Supervisor Kathryn Barger was the lone no vote.

Supporters say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump last July, is an existential threat to the public health system, leaving the county without reimbursement for the medical care of many Californians who are losing Medi-Cal coverage. The looming multibillion-dollar hole in the budget raises the prospect of hospital cutbacks, staff layoffs and possible emergency room closures, they say.

PORTLAND, Ore. — Appealing to voters’ anxieties about the soaring cost of living is central to Democrats’ messaging in their hopes of big wins in this year’s midterm elections. In Oregon, a question on the primary ballot is complicating that strategy.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature raised the state gas tax and a range of fees last fall as a way to pay for road improvements and plug a hole in the state’s transportation budget. Republicans responded with a petition to repeal the increases, leading to a referendum that will land before voters just as the Iran war is causing the price of gas to skyrocket around the United States.

“It is a hell of a time to be raising gas taxes on people,” said Jeanine Holly, filling up her tank on a recent morning in Portland.

The gas tax repeal on the state’s May 19 primary ballot comes amid widespread disruptions in the oil industry from the war with Iran started by Israel and President Trump. Discontent is high among U.S. consumers across the political spectrum, with the price of gas topping $4.50 a gallon nationally on Friday and averaging about 80 cents more per gallon in Oregon.

The referendum will give voters a chance to weigh in on a hot-button issue hitting them directly in the pocketbook at a time when prices remain elevated for everything from housing to groceries. Nationally, Democrats have focused on the affordability concerns similar to those that helped propel Trump to victory in 2024. Some of their candidates have even proposed ways to cut taxes as a way to promote their agenda and counter a traditional GOP strategy.

“It’s difficult to imagine a worse situation for … a gas tax increase than right now in American politics,” said Chris Koski, professor of political science and environmental studies at Portland’s Reed College.

Republicans sense an opportunity

Republicans wasted no time in appealing to voters after the Legislature and Democratic governor signed off on the tax increase, which also included a higher payroll tax for transit projects and a boost in vehicle registration and title fees.

They needed 78,000 voter signatures to qualify the referendum for the ballot. They quickly got 250,000.

“That is a remarkable number,” Republican strategist Rebecca Tweed said.

Republicans in Oregon have countered Democrats’ affordability messaging by portraying the tax and fee increases as further fueling the high cost of living.

“Do Oregonians want to pay more? The answer is no,” said GOP state Sen. Bruce Starr, who helped lead the referendum campaign. “Everything they’re looking at is expensive.”

Under the legislation, Oregon’s gas tax would rise from 40 cents to 46 cents a gallon. That would make it tied with Maryland for the eighth-highest gas tax of any state when factoring in other state taxes and fees, according to figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

At the Portland gas station, Michael Burch said he used to spend $70 to fill three-quarters of his pickup truck’s tank, but now pays $80 for just over half a tank.

“I’m sick and tired of taxes,” the 76-year-old retiree said. “Gas is certainly dampening the spirits and the coffers of folks that aren’t as well off.”

Hannah Coe, a 30-year-old student, said she was not sure how she would vote on the primary ballot referendum.

“I think I would be in favor of it if it was going to go to the things that it was saying it was going to go to, such as fixing our roads,” she said. “I also kind of feel like that’s just a grab at trying to get more money from the people who live here.”

Democrats blame the Iran war

Oregon Democrats spent much of last year fighting to pass a transportation funding bill to help raise money for services such as road paving and snow plowing. The debate came amid projections of declining gas tax revenue as more people adopt electric, hybrid and fuel-efficient cars.

They finally passed a narrower version of their plan during a special session called by Gov. Tina Kotek.

She recently acknowledged the challenging timing of the referendum.

“Certainly, the conversation at the ballot this year … is a tough sell right now, because I think everyone is feeling a pinch on their household budgets,” she told reporters.

But she and other Democrats said the root cause of the jump in gas prices is Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran. She suggested the federal government consider reducing the federal 18-cent-a-gallon gas tax if it wants to provide relief at the pump for Americans.

Some Oregonians are receptive to the Democrats’ reason for passing the legislation last year. Kurt Borneman, 68, said he would support the gas tax increase, even though he’s now paying at least $10 more to fill up his tank.

“I realize that money’s tight and roads need to be improved,” he said at the Portland gas station. “I want less government, but I also want nice roads.”

Democratic state Rep. Paul Evans said his party lost the battle over how to frame the gas tax increase to the public. So far, there has been no organized effort from Democrats and their allies to oppose the ballot referendum.

“When anything is reduced to, ‘Do you want a tax or not?’ Most people are going to say no,” he said. “The messaging got away from us, and it became focused upon the price instead of the value.”

Rush writes for the Associated Press.

Senator Hawley plans legislative action supporting President Trump’s bid to waive the petrol tax amid rising consumer costs.

United States President Donald Trump said he will cut the 18-cent federal tax on petrol to offset surging prices that have continued to soar after his comments that the US ceasefire with Iran is on “life support”.

On Monday, Trump said he would suspend the petrol tax, but did not specify an end date.

“Yup, we’re going to take off the gas tax for a period of time, and when gas goes down, we’ll let it phase back in,” Trump told CBS News.

Trump later told reporters that he would waive the tax, which generates $2.5bn in funds used for US roadway infrastructure, “till it’s appropriate”.

The US administration hinted at the idea on Sunday, when US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the NBC News programme Meet the Press that the White House was considering suspending the tax.

While the Republican president claimed he would waive the tax, that is not within the White House’s authority. Suspending a federal tax requires an act of the US Congress.

However, key Trump ally Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said on the social media platform X that he would introduce legislation on Monday to do that.

In March, Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona, proposed suspending the tax until October.

“I anticipate it would pass, but there could be a procedural delay. It also suggests that President Trump doesn’t see a quick end to the reduced volumes and is trying to cushion the American consumer,” Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

“The impact could be greater in states that have also reduced their own petrol taxes and could reinforce differentiation between petrol prices by region.”

US states also tax petrol, with Indiana, Kentucky and Georgia moving to make cuts to give consumers some relief at the pump.

Petrol prices have continued to climb since the initial strikes of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28. The average price for a gallon (3.78 litres) of regular petrol is $4.52, according to the American Automobile Association, which tracks daily petrol prices, compared with $2.98 when the strikes first began.

However, news of the stumbling ceasefire has sent oil prices surging. Brent crude futures were up $3.17, or 3.13 percent, at $104.46 a barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate crude was at $98.32 a barrel, up $2.90, or 3.04 percent. Brent reached a session high of $105.99 and WTI hit a peak of $100.37.

On Wall Street, stocks for oil and gas giants are trending upward. Shell was up 1.6 percent in midday trading, Exxon rose 3.1 percent, BP gained 2 percent, and Chevron climbed 1.7 percent.

Airline bailout?

Trump was also asked by CBS on Monday whether a bailout was planned for the airline industry, which has taken a hit since the war on Iran began.

The president told the outlet that a bailout had not “really been presented” and that “the airlines are doing not badly”.

However, earlier this month, budget carrier Spirit Airlines ceased operations after 34 years. Court documents said the airline shut down because of “recent geopolitical events resulting in a massive and sustained increase in fuel prices”.

That comes as other major US carriers raise prices. In April, United Airlines said it would raise fares by 20 percent amid a surge in jet fuel costs.

May 10 (UPI) — Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Sunday the Trump administration is “open” to the possibility of suspending the federal tax on gasoline sales as prices spike amid the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

Wright said during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press he and Trump are “open to all ideas” to lower energy prices, including following the lead of some U.S. states in temporarily shelving taxes on gas at the pump amid the price surge.

“All measures that can be taken to lower the price at the pump and lower the prices for Americans, this administration is in support of,” he said. “We are constantly looking for different ideas.”

Citing previous measures such as releasing oil from the U.S. strategic petroleum reserves and “revising federal regulations on summer gasoline blends to make it easier for American refineries to produce more gasoline,” Wright said the suspension of the 18-cents-per-gallon federal tax on gas is also on the table.

“We are working every day to offset this rise in prices because of a critical conflict in Iran to drive prices down, and we’re open to all such ideas,” he said.

Wright’s comments came as the average national price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline stood at $4.52 per gallon as of Sunday, according to the Automobile Association of America.

U.S. drivers have seen sharp increases in pump prices in recent weeks after Iran blocked the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway connecting Persian Gulf oil and natural gas producers with world markets.

The move came in retaliation to a wave U.S.-Israeli bombing attacks on Iran beginning Feb. 28, which Washington and Tel Aviv claim were necessary to prevent the imminent development of a nuclear weapon by Iran’s rulers.

The price of regular gas last week surged 25 cents for the second consecutive week to $4.55 — $1.40 higher than they were a year ago and marking their highest level since 2022, the AAA reported.

Crude oil prices have dipped below $100 per barrel while a fragile cease-fire between the United States and Iran has been in place and negotiations to reopen the Strait have been ongoing. But with global oil supplies tightening, upwards pressure on pump prices continues.

In a separate appearance on CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday, Wright refused to predict were gas prices were heading.

“I don’t know the future of gas prices,” he said while admitting that “gasoline and diesel prices are up, and they will remain up while this conflict’s in place, and then they will come back down.

“And, ultimately, they’ll come back down lower than they were before.”