Economy

United States President Donald Trump is set to impose 25 percent tariffs on two key US allies, Japan and South Korea, beginning on August 1 as the administration’s self-imposed deadline for trade agreements of July 9 nears without a deal in place.

On Monday, the Trump administration said this in the first of 12 letters to key US trade partners regarding the new levies they face.

In near-identically worded letters to the Japanese and South Korean leaders, the US president said the trade relationship was “unfortunately, far from Reciprocal”.

Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has said that he “won’t easily compromise” in trade talks with the Trump administration.

The US imports nearly twice as much from Japan as it exports to the country, according to US Census Bureau data.

Currently, both Japan and South Korea have a 10 percent levy in place, the same as almost all US trading partners. But Trump said he was ready to lower the new levels if the two countries changed their trade policies.

“We will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter,” he said in letters to the two Asian countries’ leaders that he posted on his Truth Social platform. “If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto the 25% that we charge.”

Trump also announced the US will impose 25 percent tariffs each on Malaysia and Kazakhstan, 30 percent on South Africa and 40 percent each on Laos and Myanmar.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier on Monday that he expected several trade announcements to be made in the next 48 hours, adding that his inbox was full of last-ditch offers from countries to clinch a tariff deal by the deadline. Bessent did not say which countries could get deals and what they might contain.

In April, the White House said it would have 90 trade and tariff deals established within 90 days. That did not happen, and since that time, the administration has solidified two agreements — one with Vietnam, and the other with the United Kingdom.

“There will be additional letters in the coming days,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, adding that “we are close” on some deals. She said Trump would sign an executive order on Monday formally delaying the July 9 deadline to August 1.

BRICS tensions 

Trump also put members of the developing nations’ BRICS group in his sights as its leaders met in Brazil, threatening an additional 10 percent tariff on any BRICS countries aligning themselves with “anti-American” policies.

The new 10 percent tariff will be imposed on individual countries if they take anti-American policy actions, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters news agency.

The BRICS group comprises Brazil, Russia, India and China and South Africa along with recent joiners Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Trump’s comments hit the South African rand, affecting its value in Monday trading.

Russia said BRICS was “a group of countries that share common approaches and a common world view on how to cooperate, based on their own interests”.

“And this cooperation within BRICS has never been and will never be directed against any third countries,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

European Union at the table

The European Union will not be receiving a letter setting out higher tariffs, EU sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Monday.

The EU still aims to reach a trade deal by July 9 after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Trump had a “good exchange”, a commission spokesperson said.

It was not clear, however, whether there had been a meaningful breakthrough in talks to stave off tariff hikes on the largest trading partner of the US.

Adding to the pressure, Trump threatened to impose a 17 percent tariff on EU food and agriculture exports, it emerged last week.

The EU has been torn over whether to push for a quick and light trade deal or back its own economic clout in trying to negotiate a better outcome. It had already dropped hopes for a comprehensive trade agreement before the July deadline.

“We want to reach a deal with the US. We want to avoid tariffs,” the spokesperson said at a daily briefing.

Without a preliminary agreement, broad US tariffs on most imports would rise from their current 10 percent to the rates set out by Trump on April 2. In the EU’s case, that would be 20 percent.

Von der Leyen also held talks with the leaders of Germany, France and Italy at the weekend, Germany said. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has repeatedly stressed the need for a quick deal to protect industries vulnerable to tariffs ranging from cars to pharmaceuticals.

Germany said the parties should allow themselves “another 24 or 48 hours to come to a decision”. And the country’s auto company Mercedes-Benz said on Monday its second-quarter unit sales of cars and vans had fallen 9 percent, blaming tariffs.

Markets respond

US markets have tumbled on Trump’s tariff announcements.

As of 3:30pm in New York (19:30 GMT), the S&P 500 fell by 1 percent, marking the biggest drop in three weeks. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index was down by a little more than 1 percent, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average also fell by more than a full percentage point.

US-listed shares of Japanese automotive companies fell, with Toyota Motor Corp down 4.1 percent in mid-afternoon trading and Honda Motor off by 3.8 percent. Meanwhile, the US dollar surged against both the Japanese yen and the South Korean won.

The global economy is on tenterhooks in the run-up to United States President Donald Trump’s July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to reach trade deals or face sharply higher tariffs.

Wednesday’s deadline comes after Trump announced in April a 90-day pause on his steepest tariffs after his “Liberation Day” plans sent markets into a tailspin.

With billions of dollars in global trade at stake, US trade partners are racing to negotiate deals to avoid damage to their economies amid continuing uncertainty over Trump’s next moves.

What will happen when the deadline expires?

The Trump administration has indicated that trade partners that fail to reach deals with the US will face higher tariffs, but there are big question marks around which countries will be hit and how hard.

On Sunday, Trump said he would begin sending letters to particular countries this week outlining new tariff rates, while also indicating that he had sealed a number of new trade deals.

Trump told reporters that he would send a letter or conclude a deal for “most countries”, without specifying any by name, by Wednesday.

In an interview with CNN on Sunday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said countries that do not reach a deal would face higher tariffs from August 1.

Bessent disputed the suggestion that the deadline had moved and said tariffs for affected countries would “boomerang back” to the levels originally announced on April 2.

On Friday, however, Trump suggested the tariffs could go as high as 70 percent, which would be higher than the 50 percent maximum rate outlined in his “Liberation Day” plan.

Adding to the uncertainty, Trump on Sunday threatened to impose an additional 10 percent tariff on countries that aligned themselves with the “anti-American policies” of BRICS, a bloc of 10 emerging economies, including Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as the founding members.

“There will be no exceptions to this policy. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“It’s getting harder to guess what might happen given conflicting information from the White House,” Deborah Elms, the head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, told Al Jazeera.

“With the lack of ‘deals’ to announce before July 9, I’m not surprised that the US is both issuing threats of new, potentially higher rates to be imposed in letters and suggesting that deadlines could be extended to some if offers are deemed to be sufficiently attractive.”

Which countries have reached trade deals with the US?

So far, only China, the United Kingdom and Vietnam have announced trade deals, which have reduced Trump’s tariffs but not eliminated them.

Under the US-China deal, tariffs on Chinese goods were reduced from 145 percent to 30 percent, while duties on US exports fell from 125 percent to 10 percent.

The deal, however, only paused the higher tariff rates for 90 days, rather than scrapping them outright, and left numerous outstanding issues between the sides unresolved.

The UK’s agreement saw it maintain a 10 percent tariff rate, while Vietnam saw its 46 percent levy replaced by a 20 percent rate on Vietnamese exports and a 40 percent tariff for “transshipping”.

A host of other key US trade partners have confirmed that negotiations are under way, including the European Union, Canada, India, Japan and South Korea.

Trump administration officials have indicated that negotiations are primarily focused on a dozen-and-a-half countries that make up the vast bulk of the US trade deficit.

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the EU, the US’s largest trading partner, was working to conclude a “skeletal” deal that would defer a resolution on their most contentious differences before the deadline to avoid Trump’s mooted 50 percent tariff.

India’s CNBC-TV18 also reported on Sunday that New Delhi expected to finalise a “mini trade deal” within the next 24-48 hours.

The CNBC-TV18 report, citing unnamed sources, said the agreement would see the average tariff rate set at about 10 percent.

Andrew K McAllister, a member of Holland & Knight’s International Trade Group in Washington, DC, said while Trump is likely to announce a small number of deals that resemble those signed with China, Vietnam and the UK, most countries are probably looking at significant across-the-board tariffs.

“My view is that tariffs are here to stay,” McAllister told Al Jazeera.

“I view the bargaining chip to be the level at which the tariff is set. For countries in which the president and administration view tariffs and other non-tariff barriers against US products as significant, he is much more likely to impose higher levels of tariffs.”

What will be the economic impact of Trump’s trade war?

Economists widely agree that steep tariffs over a sustained period would push up prices and hinder the growth of both the US and global economies.

The World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) last month downgraded their outlook for the global economy, cutting their forecasts from 2.8 percent to 2.3 percent, and from 3.3 percent to 2.9 percent, respectively.

At the same time, anticipating the impact of Trump’s trade war has been made more challenging by his administration’s repeated U-turns and conflicting signals on tariffs.

Trump’s steepest tariffs have been put on pause, though a 10 percent baseline duty has been applied to all US imports and levies on Chinese exports remain at double-digit levels.

JP Morgan Research has estimated that a 10 percent universal tariff and a 110 percent tariff on China would reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by 1 percent, with the hit to GDP falling to 0.7 percent in the case of a 60 percent duty on Chinese goods.

So far, the fallout from the tariffs introduced has been modest, though analysts have warned that inflation may still take off once businesses burn through inventory stockpiles built up in anticipation of higher costs.

Despite fears of sharp price rises in the US, annualised inflation came in at a modest 2.3 percent in May, close to the Federal Reserve’s target.

The US stock market, after suffering steep losses earlier this year, has bounced back to an all-time high, while the US economy added a stronger-than-expected 147,000 jobs in June.

Other data points to underlying jitters, however.

Consumer spending fell 0.1 percent in May, according to the US Commerce Department, the first decline since January.

“As for the economy generally, the jury’s out on whether we’re still waiting on the worst of the tariff hit,” Dutch bank ING said in a note on Friday.

“The delay in China’s tariff levels probably came just in time to avert a more serious recessionary threat. The latest jobs report certainly doesn’t point to the bottom falling out of the labour market, though if we’re talking about time lags, this is usually the last place economic damage shows up. Sentiment remains fragile, remember.”

Jennifer Geerlings-Simons to lead the impoverished Latin American country through crisis before oil wealth arrives.

Suriname has elected Jennifer Geerlings-Simons as its first female president, with parliament backing the 71-year-old physician and lawmaker to lead the crisis-hit South American nation.

Her election came after a coalition deal was struck in the National Assembly, which voted by a two-thirds majority on Sunday.

The move followed inconclusive May polls and mounting pressure to replace outgoing President Chandrikapersad Santokhi, whose tenure was marred by corruption scandals and harsh austerity.

Geerlings-Simons, leader of the National Democratic Party, ran unopposed and will take office on July 16.

“I am aware that the heavy task I have taken on is further aggravated by the fact that I am the first woman to serve the country in this position,” she said after her confirmation.

She will be joined by running mate Gregory Rusland, as the pair inherit a country struggling under the weight of economic hardship, reduced subsidies, and widespread frustration. While Santokhi’s government managed to restructure debt and restore macroeconomic stability with IMF backing, it also triggered mass protests over deep cuts.

With Suriname expected to begin producing offshore oil in 2028, Geerlings-Simons has promised to focus on stabilising state finances. She has previously pledged to boost revenues by tightening tax collection, including from small-scale gold miners.

Economists warn she faces a rocky road ahead. Winston Ramautarsingh, former head of the national economists’ association, said Suriname must repay about $400m annually in debt servicing.

“Suriname does not have that money,” he said. “The previous government rescheduled the debts, but that was only a postponement.”

Geerlings-Simons will now be tasked with steering the Dutch-speaking country of 646,000 people through a fragile period, balancing public discontent with the promise of future oil wealth.

As Suriname prepares to mark 50 years since gaining independence from the Netherlands this November, the small South American country is pinning its hopes on a new era driven by oil wealth and deepening ties with China.

In 2019, it joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative, becoming one of the first Latin American states to sign on to the vast infrastructure project.

Suriname is one of the continent’s poorest nations, despite its rich ethnic tapestry that includes descendants of Africans, Indigenous groups, Indians, Indonesians, Chinese, and Dutch settlers.

Kolkata, India — For the past several years, the United States has been a major market for Aditya Garodia to export more than 100 items of steel derivatives like fasteners from his factory in West Bengal state in eastern India.

But ever since US President Donald Trump took office and unleashed a range of tariffs – 25 percent on steel and aluminium initially, as well as standalone country tariffs – global markets have been on edge, creating significant uncertainty for businesses across sectors.

Garodia, director of Corona Steel Industry Pvt Ltd, told Al Jazeera that as a result of the tariffs, clients have slowed picking up their orders, delaying payments by a month on average, while business in general has slowed as customers adopted a wait-and-watch policy.

When Trump announced that he was doubling tariffs on steel and aluminium to 50 percent from June 4, it was “like a nail in a coffin”, Garodia said, as nearly 30 percent of orders were cancelled. “It is difficult for the market to absorb such high tariffs.”

Demand in the domestic market has also been low because of competition from cheaper Chinese products, he said, adding their future depends on India negotiating a lower tariff for its exports to the US than its competitors.

Last year, India exported $4.56bn worth of iron, steel and aluminium products to the US.

Tariffs ‘play well in politics’

During his first term, Trump in 2018 imposed tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminium under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, citing national security concerns. But certain businesses had managed to escape, as there were no tariffs on finished products.

But on February 10, 2025, he announced 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminium, including derivatives – or finished products – and removed all exemptions.

Ajay Srivastava, founder of Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), a trade research group, told Al Jazeera that higher tariffs imposed in 2018 have so far failed to revive the US steel industry.

“Since the tariffs were first implemented in 2018, [US] steel imports have increased,” rising from $98.6bn to $114bn in 2024, he said, and they “haven’t cut imports or boosted production, but they’ve mostly stuck around because they play well in politics”.

As a result, prices in the US are far higher than in Europe or China, “making cars, buildings, and machines more expensive to produce. India now needs a clear strategy to protect its trade interests, push for fair deals and strengthen domestic manufacturing,” Srivastava said.

Foundries also affected

In the so-called reciprocal tariffs that President Trump announced on April 2, he set a rate of 26 percent for goods from India. He put that on hold on April 9 for 90 days and introduced a 10 percent base tariff on all countries for the interim, giving them breathing room to strike individual trade deals with the US.

While the 10 percent is hard enough on the businesses, foundries – where metals are melted to cast into shape – say 26 percent is too high for any business to absorb.

India has approximately 5,000 foundries, of which 400 cater to both domestic and international markets and a further 100 are exclusively for exports. Several Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), in turn, supply pig iron, scrap and other items to the exporters.

Indian foundries export products worth about $4bn globally, out of which the US market is $1.2bn, Ravi Sehgal, chairman of National Centre for Export Promotion (NCEP), said. In the US, they compete not only with local foundries but also with Chinese and Turkish suppliers.

The latest set of tariffs will be a considerable blow to Indian foundries. More than 65 percent of these, and their suppliers of raw materials, are MSMEs that will “face the brunt of tariffs due to lower orders”, Sehgal said. Tariffs beyond 10-14 percent “would [make it] difficult for us to survive,” he added.

Pradeep Kumar Madhogaria, partner in Yashi Castings, which makes moulding boxes and pallet cars for foundries, said that several foundry projects have been either deferred or shelved, particularly those aligned to export-driven demand, due to the uncertainty in the US market.

Smaller units badly hit

Sumit Agarwal, 44, a Kolkata-based manufacturer of clamps, brackets and other items used in industrial goods, told Al Jazeera that his business has been hit hard by the tariffs and he is thinking of laying off some of his 15 employees.

“We are a small unit. The orders have practically dried up after the introduction of tariffs, which has made it difficult for us to continue with our existing staff. I am thinking about cutting at least 30-40 percent of my manpower. Business from the domestic market is just average, and the drop in the export market has added to our woes.”

Shyam Kumar Poddar, 70, who runs a small unit of sheet metal fabrication in Kolkata, recently invested about 800,000 rupees ($9,400) to buy a hydraulic press with an aim to expand his business. But the drop in orders has affected him badly.

“I bought the machine just four months ago to expand my business, but there have been absolutely no orders for the past two months.”

“We depend on exporters for our business as there is already an intense competition in the domestic market, but the present scenario is harming small entrepreneurs like us.”

Pankaj Chadha, chairman of Engineering Export Promotion Council of India (EEPC), an industry body, told Al Jazeera that diversification to countries like Peru and Chile, who would then export their finished products to the US, is the only way for survival as it was “not possible to do business with such high tariffs”.

Even as the 90-day pause on tariffs is set to expire soon, it’s not clear yet what the final number will be as India and the US are yet to finalise a deal. On Friday, Piyush Goyal, India’s minister of trade and industry, told reporters that while India was ready to make a trade deal, “National interest will always be supreme“, and it would not be driven by any deadlines.

For now, Garodia is hoping a solution will be found fast. “No industry can survive in isolation,” he said, listing US problems, including a manpower shortage as well as higher production and raw material costs. “India offers them a good substitute with cheap labour and low cost of production,” he said.

California is a state of contradictions. We lead the nation in environmental regulation, tout our clean energy goals with pride and champion a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Yet despite this green image, our economy — and daily life — still very much run on oil and gas.

Fossil fuels account for roughly 8% of California’s $3 trillion economy — but that’s the first 8%. “If you don’t get that first 8%,” I tell my students, “You don’t get the rest of our economy.” Oil powers everything from trucks to tractors to construction equipment. Without it, you can’t build roads or bridges or get goods to grocery stores. Without refined petroleum products, you don’t make cement, steel, plastics or even the lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles.

Despite these realities, California energy policy is leading to the dismantling of the critical infrastructure that supports this essential system. Our state has lost more than 30 refineries in the last few decades. We are now down to just nine major gasoline-producing facilities, and two more are scheduled to close in the coming months, Phillips 66 in Los Angeles and Valero in the Bay Area. Those two plants represent 284,000 barrels of daily production and account for nearly 18% of the state’s total refining capacity.

California sits atop one of the largest untapped reserves in the world, the Monterey Shale. But because of policy and regulation, we import most of our oil — including from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana and Ecuador. California has also imported oil from Russia and Venezuela. Ironically, we have among the world’s cleanest refining standards, but we import fuel from places with lower environmental and labor protections.

All of this is enabled by a supply chain that’s more vulnerable than most realize. We have no major pipelines bringing oil to California. We rely on ships — many from Asia — that take 30 to 40 days to deliver fuel. These foreign tankers pollute at staggering rates. Stunningly, because that pollution happens over international waters, it doesn’t get counted by the California Air Resources Board. Closing a refinery in California and importing more fuel causes a net increase in pollution. And adding to our reliance on foreign oil is risky when global instability is rising.

This isn’t just a self-inflicted energy crisis in the making. It’s also a national security issue.

Military bases in California, Nevada and Arizona depend heavily on in-state refineries for specialized aviation fuel and other petroleum products essential to operations. As refineries shut down, the supply chain narrows, increasing reliance on imports from Asia and elsewhere. These gaps create unacceptable logistical and strategic risks for U.S. military readiness in the western states.

And remember, there are estimated to be hundreds of millions of barrels of accessible oil under our feet. Yet we’ve built an energy model that depends on importing foreign oil and, now, a growing dependency on foreign-supplied gasoline.

This isn’t just unsustainable. It’s also borderline irresponsible.

California’s energy transition is inevitable — but how we get there matters. We can’t pretend fossil fuels are already gone. We still need them for the economy, for mobility, for national security and for the working people who can’t afford a $60,000 electric vehicle or a solar roof.

We have the tools, talent and resources to lead a responsible energy transition, one that leverages our in-state production, balances environmental stewardship with economic pragmatism and protects our most vulnerable communities along the way.

But we have to be honest about where we are. And right now, fossil fuels still power the Golden State.

Especially because of coming refinery rules and a new tax taking effect in July, Californians are set to pay the highest gas prices in the nation. Our prices are inflated by a web of taxes, fees and boutique regulations that has grown thicker and more expensive over time. Even if oil dropped to $0 per barrel and refining were free, Californians would still be paying about $1.82 a gallon at the pump — $1.64 of that from state taxes and fees, plus 18 cents in federal gas tax.

According to CalTrans, Californians drive about 1,200 miles a month. If you’re a working-class Californian and gas goes up 50 cents per gallon, that adds about $500 in annual fuel costs. And because you pay for that with after-tax dollars, you’d need to earn at least an extra $750 just to cover it.

That matters to a construction worker commuting 60 miles a day in a pickup truck. It matters to a single mom cleaning homes across the city or a physical therapist driving to house calls. Most of these people can’t easily trade in their vehicles for Teslas and dodge gasoline hikes. Consumer analysis as noted in CalMatters indicates that the majority of EVs are bought by higher-income Californians living in areas such as Atherton, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

The people hit hardest by rising gasoline prices are the ones least able to afford alternatives. For most Californians, there is no viable mass transit available. People are just stuck spending more and more of their income on the gas-powered vehicles their lives depend on. Our state’s policies punish people for not being able to adapt quickly enough to a green future that’s not yet built. It’s a regressive tax masquerading as environmental action.

Until California realistically bridges the gap between aspirational climate goals and equitable policy execution, the state’s lofty environmental vision will continue to rest uneasily on the shoulders of its most vulnerable.

The new state excise tax adding about 2 cents a gallon went into effect July 1, and CARB is pushing for a new low-carbon fuel standard that could add and potentially major costs to the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel. No one knows exactly how much — not even the board proposing the rules.

At a recent Assembly oversight hearing, CARB officials were asked if they analyzed their regulations for consumer impacts. Their answer: We don’t calculate that. The room went silent. It was a stunning admission — regulators pushing policy without running the math.

No wonder we’re seeing an exodus of working families. By layering new and unclear costs on top of an already overstretched system, CARB and other regulators are creating what could become a self-inflicted economic shock.

And for what? Not environmental progress. California will be forced to source more and more fuel from overseas — at greater environmental and economic cost. By relying on polluting sources and carbon-intensive shipping, we’ve simply outsourced our emissions to other countries. California is not reducing emissions. We are exporting them.

If this sounds reckless, it is. But more than that, it’s unjust.

These policies are not burdening the wealthy. They’re crushing the working class. They’re forcing families to choose between gas and groceries, between job access and housing stability. They’re also outsourcing jobs overseas.

And they’re being implemented by unelected bureaucrats who, by their own admission in testimony before California lawmakers, haven’t calculated the real-world impact.

The people of California deserve better than this. They deserve honesty, transparency and policy grounded in economic realism, not ideological fantasy and environmental dogma. If recent and coming changes become a tipping point, it won’t be because of some unpredictable global event. It will be because we chose not to look before we leaped.

The path forward demands a pause, a recalibration and a return to common sense. Otherwise, this summer could mark not just another price hike — but the day we began losing control of our energy future.

Michael A. Mische is an associate professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business. A former KPMG principal, he is the author of eight books on business and strategy.

United States President Donald Trump’s signature piece of budget legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, will likely raise healthcare costs, experts have said. While the Medicaid cuts will directly impact those who depend on the programme, the consequences will extend to others as well.

The 869-page bill, which includes roughly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade, passed in the House along party lines, with only two Republicans – Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania – breaking ranks. It will be signed into law by Trump on Friday.

In addition to patients, Medicaid funds also help financially strapped hospitals and other healthcare facilities, and the cuts could lead to their closures.

Apart from this, almost 12 million people could lose health insurance by 2034 due to reductions to both Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act marketplace, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis.

Experts warn the new law will drive up costs elsewhere in the system. Patients may face higher out-of-pocket expenses, while hospitals could be forced to lower the quality of care, raise prices, or close entirely due to the financial strain.

“There is the mistaken belief that cuts in Medicaid will only affect those on Medicaid. Many hospitals, clinics, and healthcare organisations depend on Medicaid funding for their operations. Therefore, cuts in Medicaid can adversely affect the types and quality of services they provide,” Bruce Y Lee, professor of health policy at the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, told Al Jazeera.

“In fact, a number of healthcare organisations depend so heavily on Medicaid funding that they could go out of business with significant cuts.”

The cuts would hit rural hospitals hard, according to an analysis from the National Rural Hospital Association (NRHA). About 20 percent of the US population lives in rural areas, where Medicaid covers one in four adults, a higher share than in urban areas, and plays a large part in financing healthcare services.

The cuts are expected to result in a 20 percent reduction in funding for rural hospitals in half of all states.

That will hurt patients like Martha Previte and her partner Jim Earl, who live in rural Maine. Both have type 1 diabetes and rely on regular hospital visits for a range of procedures, including blood tests and kidney treatment.

“I fear that these cuts are going to close hospitals that we rely on to get care, and we’re not going to have anywhere to go,” Previte told Al Jazeera.

This bill could result in as many as 338 hospitals closing around the US. There are already nearly 800 hospitals that are facing financial hardship.

“Our goal is to help ensure hospitals can remain open for their communities, and people can get the care they need when they need it. Our nation’s health and economic future depend on it,” the American Hospital Association said in a statement condemning the bill’s passage and calling it “an extremely disappointing and very difficult day for health care in America”.

Those that stay open could result in cuts to essential care like chemotherapy and behavioural health services.

The bill does include $50bn for rural hospitals to offset the additional financial strain they will face. But because of cuts to Medicaid, that funding will not make enough of a dent to keep healthcare costs from rising and healthcare facilities from shuttering.

Analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that Medicaid cuts would still lead to a drop of $155bn in federal Medicaid spending on rural hospitals over the next 10 years.

“While the President promised to lower costs for Americans, this bill is set to spike premiums and other healthcare costs,” Elizabeth Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, told Al Jazeera.

Rural hospitals in the state of Missouri will be the hardest hit and are expected to lose an average of 29 percent of Medicaid funding. While Missouri’s Senator Josh Hawley, in a May op-ed in the New York Times, said cuts to Medicaid would be “politically suicidal”, he and his fellow Missouri senator, Republican Eric Schmitt, voted in support of the bill before it moved to the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The cuts are also expected to affect nursing homes disproportionately in urban areas, according to an analysis from Brown University School of Public Health, which forecast that 579 nursing homes could shutter. Those at highest risk have a Medicaid payer share greater than 85 percent. It was found that the Medicaid cuts overwhelmingly affected nursing homes in California, Georgia, Illinois and Texas.

Looming Medicare changes

Medicaid is not the only healthcare programme seeing cuts. While Medicaid is intended for those who are low-income, Medicare covers healthcare for those 65 and older, as well as some others who have disabilities. Some patients, like Previte, receive both.

“Medicare is my primary insurer, and Medicaid picks up what Medicare does not cover. I am a type 1 insulin-dependent diabetic of 41 years with serious complications. Medicare covered my recent hospitalisation and upcoming outpatient procedures,” Previte told Al Jazeera.

The Republican bill could also indirectly lead to cuts in Medicare services because of the statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010. Under this, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget is required to keep a “scorecard” to track net increases to the deficit, with a goal to “eliminate the overage”.

Because of that, the programme may not get all of the money allocated to it, a potential $490bn loss in access to funds over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, affecting coverage for people who rely on Medicare.

“The whole thing [the tax bill] is a stark abandonment of human social responsibility,” Previte’s partner Earl said.

Affordable Care Act changes

The upcoming law also makes significant changes to the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. It shortens the annual enrollment period for healthcare coverage by about a month and drives up premium costs for those who need it.

According to analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation, insurance premium prices could increase on average by $1,296 a year.

Those who get their healthcare coverage through the exchange will also need to annually update their personal information, which includes income and immigration status, rather than being enrolled automatically.

The changes will cause a strain on the small business economy. Last year, as many as 3.3 million self-employed individuals and small business owners relied on the marketplace for health insurance.

“If you’re a young business owner, already stretched thin by housing costs, child care bills, and health premiums, this bill just made your future harder,” Richard Trent, executive director of Main Street Alliance, an advocacy group for small businesses, said in a statement.

Former President Barack Obama, in a post on X, weighed in as the bill strips parts of his signature policy, a key part of his legacy.

“It will increase costs and hurt working class families for generations to come,” the former president said in a post before the bill’s passage.

“This will be another branch of a limb of a disastrous tree. I’m concerned about what this means for our future care. The thing with diabetes, like many ailments, they’re livable if they’re treated properly. You can live a long, happy, healthy life, but when you’re deprived of healthcare, maintenance-of-health care, and things like that, then a whole Pandora’s box of disasters can happen to your health,” Earl added.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has signed his signature tax and spending bill, capping a months-long push to codify his top policy priorities into law.

The sweeping bill has prompted controversy among both Democrats and members of Trump’s own Republican Party for its deep cuts to social safety programmes and the hefty sum its tax cuts and spending are expected to add to the national debt.

Recent polls have also shown tanking public support for the legislation – which Trump calls the “One Big Beautiful Bill” – as many of its provisions come to light.

Still, Trump on Friday took nothing short of a victory lap, hosting a White House signing ceremony aligned with the Independence Day celebrations in Washington, DC.

The address began with a flyover from a B-2 Spirit bomber, the same jet used in US strikes on Iran last month.

“The last two weeks, there has never been anything like it as far as winning, winning, winning,” Trump said from the White House balcony.

“I want to tell you that I’ve never seen people so happy in our country, because so many different groups of people are being taken care of.”

He also took a moment to revisit his victory in the 2024 election and reiterate his belief that voters gave him an ironclad mandate to carry out his policy agenda. He signed the bill flanked by Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson and Representative Steve Scalise.

“The American people gave us a historic mandate in November,” Trump said. “This is a triumph of democracy on the birthday of democracy.”

Opponents, meanwhile, used the occasion to again condemn the bill, with the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, again saying that the sweeping legislation is “betraying” US citizens.

“This bill isn’t freedom. This bill isn’t independence. This bill is betrayal,” Schumer wrote on the social media platform X.

A months-long journey

The legislation represents the most substantial salvo yet in Trump’s policy blitz, in which he has mostly relied on more presidential orders than on congressional action.

The passage of his mega-bill underscores the president’s deep hold on the Republican Party, which has largely been remade in his likeness since his first term from 2017 to 2021. The party currently controls both chambers of Congress.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is set to add an estimated $3.3 trillion to the national debt, an increase that might once have been considered a sacrilege for the party’s fiscal hawks.

It also tightens eligibility for the low-income healthcare programme Medicaid and the food assistance programme SNAP, in a move that could hurt Republicans facing tough re-election campaigns.

Still, in the end, only three Republicans in the Senate and two in the House were willing to break from Trump, in both cases leaving opponents just short of the votes needed to scuttle the bill.

For their part, Democrats were unified in their opposition.

In a last-ditch and largely symbolic effort on Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries embarked on a record-breaking speech to delay any voting on the bill.

Over the next eight hours and 45 minutes, Jeffries condemned Republicans for rushing to meet Trump’s July 4 deadline, accusing them of fast-tracking a bill that many conservatives had publicly voiced discomfort towards.

“We don’t work for Donald Trump. We work for the American people,” he said at one point. “That’s why we’re right here now, on the floor of the House of Representatives, standing up for the American people.”

He maintained Republicans would be punished at the ballot box over the bill during the midterm elections in 2026.

A wide-ranging bill

The legislation covers a range of issues, from immigration to tax reforms. For example, it extends sweeping tax cuts passed in 2017 during Trump’s first term, amounting to a total of $4.5 trillion in tax reductions.

It also allows taxpayers to deduct income earned from tips and overtime, as well as interest paid on loans for buying cars made in the US, while raising exemptions on estate taxes. It also extends a child tax credit.

The administration has hailed the cuts as a victory for working-class Americans, although several analyses have found that wealthier taxpayers are most likely to benefit.

Gains for lower-income taxpayers are likely to be offset by healthcare and food assistance cuts, according to Yale University’s Budget Lab.

All told, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, about 11.8 million more Americans will be uninsured over the next 10 years due to the Medicaid cuts, with another 4.2 million to lose health insurance due to cuts to pandemic-era subsidies.

The legislation also peels back green energy and electric vehicle tax incentives, part of Trump’s wider push to pivot away from clean energy and towards the influential fossil fuel industry.

It allocates $170bn for immigration and border enforcement funding, in what the American Immigration Council calls the “largest investment in detention and deportation in US history”.

Nonpartisan analysts have said the increase in the national debt from the spending has the potential to slow economic growth, raise borrowing costs and crowd out other government spending in the years ahead.

But on Friday, Trump dismissed the criticism.

“They [Democrats] have developed a standard line: ‘We can’t let them get away with it. It’s dangerous. Everybody’s going to die,’” Trump said. “It’s actually just the opposite. Everybody’s going to live.”

“After this kicks in, our country is going to be a rocket ship, economically.”

Trade Minister Piyush Goyal’s remarks come before the deadline set by the White House for July 9 for nations to make their individual deals with the US.

India is ready to make trade deals in the national interest, but not just to meet deadlines, Piyush Goyal, minister of trade and industry, has said.

When asked if a deal could be reached by the July 9 deadline set by United States President Donald Trump for all countries to negotiate trade agreements, Goyal said on Friday that “National interest will always be supreme. Keeping that in mind, if a good deal can be made, then India is always ready to make a deal with developed countries.”

“India never does any trade deal on the basis of deadline or timeframe … we will accept it only when it is completely finalised and in the national interest,” Goyal told reporters.

On April 2, Trump threatened a range of tariffs for all US imports. For India, that was set at 26 percent. On April 9, he paused those tariffs for 90 days and set in place a rate of 10 percent in the interim while countries worked out their respective trade deals with Washington, DC. That deadline is set to expire July 9.

“Free trade agreements are possible only when there is two-way benefit; it should be a win-win agreement,” Goyal said.

Indian officials returned from Washington this week after an extended visit to iron out lingering concerns on both sides. Trade talks between India and the US have hit roadblocks over disagreements on import duties for car components, steel, and farm goods.

India is resisting opening up its agriculture and dairy sectors while asking for a favourable tariff for its goods entering the US compared with the ones available for countries like Vietnam and China.

Separately, India has proposed retaliatory duties against the US at the World Trade Organization, saying Washington’s 25 percent tariff on automobiles and some car parts would affect $2.89bn of India’s exports, according to an official notification.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has weighed in publicly for the first time since the passage of President Donald Trump’s signature piece of budget legislation, commonly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill“.

On Friday, Musk took to his social media platform X to once again float the possibility of a third party to rival the two major ones — the Democrats and the Republicans — in United States politics.

“Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system! Should we create the America Party?” Musk asked his followers, attaching an interactive poll.

Musk has maintained that both major parties have fallen out of step with what he describes as the “80 percent in the middle” – a number he estimates represents the moderates and independents who do not align with either end of the political spectrum.

His desire to form a new party, however, emerged after a public fallout with Trump over the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, a sweeping piece of legislation that passed both chambers of Congress on Thursday.

Yet again on Friday, Musk revisited his objections to the bill, albeit indirectly. He shared Senator Rand Paul’s critique that the bill “explodes the deficit in the near-term”, responding with a re-post and the “100” emoji, signifying his full agreement.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” has long been a policy priority for Trump, even before he returned to office for a second term on January 20.

His aim was to pass a single piece of legislation that included several key pillars from his agenda, allowing him to proceed with his goals without having to seek multiple approvals from Congress.

But the “One Big Beautiful Bill” has been controversial among Democrats and even some Republicans. The bill would make permanent the 2017 tax cuts from Trump’s first term, which critics argue disproportionately benefit the wealthy over middle- to low-income workers.

It also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion and is projected to add $3.3 trillion to the country’s deficit, according to a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.

Further funding is earmarked to bolster Trump’s campaign to crack down on immigration into the US. But to pay for the tax cuts and the spending, the bill includes cuts to critical social services, including Medicaid, a government health insurance programme for low-income households, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps.

Fiscal conservatives opposed the debt increase, while several other Republicans worried about how Medicaid restrictions would affect their constituents.

But in recent weeks, Trump and other Republican leaders rallied many of the holdouts, allowing the bill to pass both chambers of Congress by narrow margins.

Senator Paul of Kentucky was one of only three Republicans in the Senate to vote “no” on the bill. In the aftermath of its final passage on Thursday, he wrote on social media: “This is Washington’s MO: short-term politicking over long-term sustainability.”

Trump is slated to sign the bill into law in a White House ceremony on Friday.

The debate over the bill, however, proved to be a tipping point for Trump and Musk’s relationship. In late May, during his final days as a “special government adviser”, Musk appeared on the TV programme CBS Sunday Morning and said he was “disappointed” in the legislation, citing the proposed increase to the budget deficit.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” Musk told a CBS journalist.

By May 30, his time in the Trump administration had come to an end, though the two men appeared to part on cordial terms.

But after leaving his government role, Musk escalated his attacks on the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, warning it would be disastrous for the US economy.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote on June 3.

Musk went so far as to suggest Trump should be impeached and that he had information about the president’s relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, though he did not offer evidence. Those posts have since been deleted.

Trump, meanwhile, accused Musk on social media of going “CRAZY” and seeking to lash out because the bill would peel back government incentives for the production of electric vehicles (EVs).

On June 5, Musk began to muse about launching his own political party. “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” he wrote.

In follow-up posts, he noted that his followers appeared to agree with him, and he endorsed a commenter’s suggestion for the party’s potential name.

“‘America Party’ has a nice ring to it. The party that actually represents America!” Musk said.

As the world’s richest man and the owner of companies like the carmaker Tesla and the rocket manufacturer SpaceX, Musk has billions of dollars at his disposal: The Bloomberg Billionaires Index estimates his net worth at $361bn as of Friday.

But experts warn that third parties have historically struggled to compete in the US’s largely two-party system, and that they can even weaken movements they profess to back, by draining votes away from more viable candidates.

Musk’s estimate about the “80 percent in the middle” might also be an overstatement. Polls vary as to how many people identify as independent or centrists.

But in January, the research firm Gallup found that an average of 43 percent of American adults identified as independent, matching a record set in 2014. Gallup’s statistics also found a decline in the number of American adults saying they were “moderate”, with 34 percent embracing the label in 2024.

Still, on Friday, Musk shared his thoughts about how a potential third party could gain sway in the largely bifurcated US political sphere. He said he planned to take advantage of the weak majorities the major parties are able to obtain in Congress.

“One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,” he wrote.

“Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people.”

Dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, President Donald Trump’s signature policy bill would slash taxes, largely benefitting the wealthiest Americans.

To pay for it, federal spending would be reduced, including on Medicaid, food stamps and student loans. Supporters say the bill could jumpstart economic growth and create jobs.

Critics, including some Republicans, say millions of Americans would pay the price. And the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would actually add an estimated $3.3 trillion to debt over a decade.

Why did Canada scrap its digital tax on US tech companies?

Plus, Nigeria’s tax reform.

After nearly 29 hours of debate, the United States House of Representatives have passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, an enormous tax cut and spending package that represents a pillar of President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The lower house of the US Congress voted by a margin of 218 to 214 in favour of the bill on Thursday.

All 212 Democratic members of the House opposed the bill. They were joined by Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who broke from the Republican majority.

After the bill’s passage, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, the top Republican, applauded his fellow party members.

“I believed in this vision. I believed in the group. I believe in America,” Johnson said to applause.

The bill now heads to the White House for Trump to sign it into law. The Republican president had called on his fellow party members to pass the legislation before July 4, the country’s Independence Day.

As a result of the new legislation, the US will lift its debt ceiling — the amount the federal government is allowed to borrow — by $5 trillion.

The bill also pours tens of billions of dollars into immigration enforcement, one of Trump’s top priorities, and it will also cement the 2017 tax cuts that Trump championed during his first term as president.

To pay for those expenditures, the bill scales back social initiatives like Medicaid — government health insurance for low-income households — and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill will increase the number of people without health insurance by 17 million over the next 10 years.

It also projected that the country’s deficit — the amount of money the US owes — would climb by about $3.3 trillion over the same period.

Democratic lawmakers had slammed the bill as a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, noting that the tax cuts will mainly benefit the wealthiest earners.

Republican supporters like Trump have countered that the bill will fuel growth and cut waste and fraud in programmes like Medicaid.

Yet, not all conservatives initially backed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” as it wound its way through the chambers of Congress. There were several Republican holdouts who feared how the Medicaid cuts would impact low-income and rural communities, and some fiscal conservatives objected to the increase in the national debt.

“FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE,” Trump said in a social media post on Wednesday night. “RIDICULOUS!!!”

Even Trump’s erstwhile ally, billionaire Elon Musk, has publicly opposed the bill over provisions he described as “pork”.

A record-breaking speech

In the lead-up to Thursday’s vote, Democrats attempted to stall, with the stated aim of allowing voters more time to contact their local representatives in protest.

The face of that effort was Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who exercised a privilege known as the “magic minute” that allows party leaders to speak as long as they want from the House floor.

Jeffries stretched that privilege into an hours-long appeal to Republicans to stand up against what he described as Trump’s harmful policies. He started at around 4:53am local time (8:53 GMT) and ended past 1:39pm (17:39 GMT).

It was the longest speech ever delivered on the House floor, approximately eight hours and 44 minutes.

“I’m here to take my sweet time on behalf of the American people,” Jeffries told the House, his voice wavering at points during the speech.

He directed his remarks to the speaker of the House, a leadership role normally occupied by Johnson.

“Donald Trump’s deadline may be Independence Day. That ain’t my deadline,” Jeffries said. “You know why, Mr Speaker? We don’t work for Donald Trump. We work for the American people.”

Jeffries warned that the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which he dubbed the “One Big Ugly Bill”, “hurts everyday Americans and rewards billionaires with massive tax breaks”. The legislation, he added, was simply reckless.

He called his colleagues across the aisle to “show John McCain-level courage”, dropping a reference to the late Republican senator from Arizona, known for standing up to Trump on the question of healthcare.

McCain has often been cited as a symbol of bipartisanship in Congress, and Jeffries urged his Republican colleagues to reach across the aisle.

“We acknowledged the election of President Donald Trump, offered to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle whenever and wherever possible in order to make life better for the American people,” Jeffries said.

“But the route, Mr Speaker, that has been taken by House Republicans is to go it alone and to try to jam this One Big Ugly Bill — filled with extreme right-wing policy priorities — down the throats of the American people.”

In a poll last week from Quinnipiac University, for example, just 29 percent of respondents indicated they were in favour of the legislation, while 55 percent were against it.

Jeffries later added, “We’re not here to bend the knee to any wannabe king,” comparing resistance to Trump to the US’s revolutionary war era. When he finally said he would yield back the floor, Democrats exploded into applause, chanting his name: “Hakeem! Hakeem! Hakeem!”

Republicans rally in final stretch

In order to reach Thursday’s vote, the House had remained in session overnight, as part of a marathon session.

But in the minutes before the dramatic vote took place, Speaker Johnson himself briefly spoke to the House, rallying Republicans to show a unified front.

He also took a jab at Jeffries’s record-breaking speech, “It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the simple truth.”

“We’ve waited long enough. Some of us have literally been up for days now,” Johnson continued. “With this One Big Beautiful Bill, we are going to make this country stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before, and every American is going to benefit from that.”

He added that the “One Big Beautiful Bill” would make programmes like Medicaid “stronger with our reforms”.

Trump himself celebrated the victory as he left for an appearance in Iowa. “Biggest tax cut in history, great for security, great on the southern border, immigration is covered. We covered just about everything,” he said. “It’s the biggest bill ever signed of its kind.”

Still, at the final hurdle, two Republicans did break away from their party caucus to vote against the “One Big Beautiful Bill”.

One of the nay-votes, Representative Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, released a statement saying he had previously voted to “strengthen Medicaid”. The Senate version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, he argued, did the opposite.

“The original House language was written in a way that protected our community; the Senate amendments fell short of our standard,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

“I believe in, and will always fight for, policies that are thoughtful, compassionate, and good for our community.”

Massie, meanwhile, had been a consistent holdout from the start. His sticking point, he said on social media, was the increase to the national debt.

“I voted No on final passage because it will significantly increase U.S. budget deficits in the near term, negatively impacting all Americans through sustained inflation and high interest rates,” he wrote.

A months-long process

It has been a long road for Republicans to reach Thursday’s vote, stretching back months. The House first passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” on May 22, in another overnight vote.

In that May vote, the legislation passed by the narrowest of margins, with 215 voting in favour and 214 against. Representatives Massie and Warren Davidson of Ohio joined a unified Democratic front in voting against the bill at that time, and Maryland’s Andy Harris voted “present”. Two more Republicans missed the vote entirely.

That propelled the bill to the Senate, where it faced another uphill battle. The 100-seat chamber has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats and left-leaning independents.

To avoid facing a Democratic filibuster, Republicans subjected the “One Big Beautiful Bill” to the Byrd Rule, which allows legislation to pass with a simple majority.

But in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, Republicans had to strike provisions that had little to no budget impact or increased the deficit outside of a 10-year window.

Still, the revised Senate version of the bill faced a nail-biter of a vote. On July 1, after another all-nighter, the vote was 50 to 50, with three Republicans siding with the Democrats. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaker to advance the bill.

Democrats did, however, notch a small symbolic victory, with Senator Chuck Schumer knocking the name “One Big Beautiful Bill” off the final piece of legislation.

It was the Senate’s version of the bill that the House voted on Thursday. At least one Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has expressed distaste for the legislation since voting for its passage.

“It is the people of Alaska that I worry about the most, especially when it comes to the potential loss of social safety net programs — Medicaid coverage and SNAP benefits — that our most vulnerable populations rely on,” she wrote in a statement earlier this week.

“Let’s not kid ourselves. This has been an awful process — a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution.”

The bill is expected to be signed into law on July 4 at 5pm US Eastern time (21:00 GMT) at a White House ceremony.

The United States economy has added 147,000 jobs in June, beating analyst expectations, as the labour market remains stable despite economic uncertainty driven by President Donald Trump’s policies.

The Department of Labor released the numbers on Thursday. The data, which was released a day early because the Independence Day holiday falls on Friday, showed the unemployment rate ticked down from May by 0.1 percentage points to 4.1 percent. The average workweek was shorter last month, suggesting businesses were probably reducing hours amid rising economic headwinds.

Government jobs at the state and local levels led the gains, adding 73,000 positions in June. State governments added 47,000 jobs, led by 40,000 in education. Local government jobs grew by 23,000. A downward turn continues at the federal level with a loss of 7,000 jobs, which accounts for 69,000 jobs lost since January.

Gains in government jobs were followed by the healthcare sector, which added 39,000 jobs. Social assistance employment increased by 19,000 jobs.

“On net, it was a good report,’’ Sarah House, senior economist with Wells Fargo, told The Associated Press news agency.

“But when you dig underneath the surface, it was another jobs report that didn’t look quite as good as first meets the eye.’’

Looming uncertainty driven by Trump’s tariffs and immigration policies led to little change across much of the private sector in terms of hiring, including in construction, mining, oil and gas extraction, wholesale and retail trade, transportation, financial services, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality.

Trump’s constant changes in tariffs policy, announcing and suspending import taxes and then coming up with new ones, has left businesses bewildered and hesitant to make decisions about hiring and investment.

Layoffs have started, but they are still relatively low. The Labor Department’s weekly jobless claims report, which also came out on Thursday said claims fell by 4,000 to 233,000. The ADP private payroll report out on Wednesday showed a net loss of 33,000 jobs.

“Though layoffs continue to be rare, a hesitancy to hire and a reluctance to replace departing workers led to job losses last month,” said Nela Richardson, chief economist at ADP.

Thursday’s jobs report also showed average hourly wages came in cooler than forecasters expected, rising 0.2 percent from May and 3.7 percent from a year earlier.

The year-over-year number is inching closer to the 3.5 percent year-over-year number considered consistent with the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent inflation target.

“For the FOURTH month in a row, jobs numbers have beat market expectations with nearly 150,000 good jobs created in June,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

“The economy is booming again and it will only get better when the One, Big, Beautiful Bill is passed and implemented,” she said, referring to Republican legislation to cut taxes, food assistance and the Medicaid health insurance programme for low-income Americans.

Growth slowdown

Despite the White House’s characterisation, the US job market has cooled significantly in the past year. This year, employers have added an average of 130,000 jobs per month, down from an average of 186,000 in 2024. From 2021 to 2023, the US economy added an average of 400,000 jobs per month as it made up for jobs shed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Other data show the US economy contracting. Last week, a report from the Department of Commerce found the US economy shrank by 0.5 percent in the first quarter.

The US labour force – the count of those working and looking for work – fell by 130,000 last month after a drop of 625,000 in May. Economists expected Trump’s immigration deportations – and the fear of them – to push foreign workers out of the labour force.

The Labor Department said the number of workers who believe no jobs are available for them rose by 256,000 last month to 637,000.

Wells Fargo expected monthly job growth to fall below 100,000 in the second half of the year. “We’re bracing for a much lower pace of job growth,” House said. ”There’s still a lot of policy uncertainty.”

The US president has repeatedly called on the top central banker to step down amid disagreement over interest rates.

United States President Donald Trump has repeated his call for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to step down, the latest in a series of attacks that have raised concern about the independence of the US central bank.

Trump made the call for Powell to “resign immediately” on Wednesday after his administration’s top housing regulator urged the US Congress to launch an investigation into the central banker.

Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said in a post on X that Powell should be investigated for his “political bias” and “deceptive testimony” about renovations at the Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC.

In a Truth Social post responding to Pulte’s comments, Trump said “Too Late” – a nickname used to lambast Powell for not lowering rates faster – should resign.

Trump’s latest broadside comes days after he sent Powell a letter demanding that the central banker lower the benchmark interest rate, which is currently set at a range of 4.25 percent to 4.5 percent, by “a lot”.

The US president has repeatedly criticised Powell for not backing faster rate cuts, arguing that the central banker’s cautious stance is holding back economic growth and that concerns about inflation are overblown.

Lower interest rates reduce the cost of borrowing for businesses and consumers, helping boost economic growth.

But rate cuts also have the effect of increasing inflation, which central banks typically wish to keep low, and Trump’s sweeping tariffs are generally expected to put upward pressure on prices.

On Tuesday, Powell told a panel discussion at the European Central Bank Forum in Portugal that the central bank had taken a wait-and-see approach to rate cuts in order to gauge the impact of Trump’s tariffs, many of which are in limbo ahead of a July 9 deadline.

“In effect, we went on hold when we saw the size of the tariffs, and essentially all inflation forecasts for the United States went up materially as a consequence of the tariffs,” Powell said.

“We didn’t overreact. In fact, we didn’t react at all; we’re simply taking some time.”

Trump has repeatedly demanded that Powell, whose term does not expire until May 2026, step down or be removed since coming into office in January.

Last week, Trump told reporters that he would “love” for Powell to step down “if he wanted to”.

In April, Trump said that Powell’s “termination cannot come fast enough,” before backing off his threat after stocks and the US dollar dipped sharply.

Under US federal law, the US president is only permitted to fire the Fed chair “for cause”, a provision widely interpreted to mean specific misconduct, not policy decisions.

In May, the US Supreme Court reaffirmed precedent limiting the president’s ability to remove the top central banker in a ruling that singled out the Federal Reserve as having a distinct status compared with other independent agencies.

Trump earlier on Tuesday told reporters that he had “two or three” choices in mind to succeed Powell without elaborating on who is under consideration.

Del Monte’s losses have piled up as consumers choose healthier or cheaper alternatives.

Del Monte Foods, the 139-year-old company best known for its canned fruits and vegetables, is filing for bankruptcy protection as consumers in the United States increasingly bypass its products for healthier or cheaper options.

Del Monte announced the bankruptcy filing late Tuesday.

Del Monte, which also owns the Contadina tomato brand, College Inn and Kitchen Basics broth brands and the Joyba bubble tea brand, has secured $912.5m in debtor-in-possession financing that will allow it to operate normally as the sale progresses.

The Walnut Creek, California-based brand has assets and liabilities ranging from $1bn to $10bn, according to a filing in a New Jersey bankruptcy court.

“After a thorough evaluation of all available options, we determined a court-supervised sale process is the most effective way to accelerate our turnaround and create a stronger and enduring Del Monte Foods,” CEO Greg Longstreet said in a statement.

The company has seen sales growth of Joyba and broth in the 2024 fiscal year, but not enough to offset weaker sales of Del Monte’s signature canned products.

“Consumer preferences have shifted away from preservative-laden canned food in favour of healthier alternatives,” Sarah Foss, global head of legal and restructuring at Debtwire, a financial consultancy, told the news agency The Associated Press.

Grocery inflation also caused consumers to seek out cheaper store brands. Last month, the consumer price index report showed a 0.3 percent increase in the price of food and 2.2 percent compared with this time last year.

Another blow is expected from US President Donald Trump’s 50 percent tariff on imported steel. This went into effect in June and will also push up the price that Del Monte and others pay for cans.

Del Monte Foods, which is owned by Singapore’s Del Monte Pacific, was also hit with a lawsuit last year by a group of lenders that objected to the company’s debt restructuring plan. The case was settled in May with a loan that increased Del Monte’s interest expenses by $4m annually, according to a company statement.

Del Monte’s stock is about even from the market open, and it is up 4.62 percent over the last five days.

Bangkok, Thailand – Even at the Nana intersection, a pulsating mecca of this megacity’s seamy nightlife scene, the Wonderland cannabis shop is hard to miss.

Its sprawling, ruby-pink signboard screams across the busy crossroads, broadcasting the wares inside with the help of neon lights twisted into luminescent marijuana leaves.

It is Saturday afternoon, and business should be good. But it is not.

Just days earlier, Thailand’s government imposed new rules sharply curbing the sale of cannabis, only three years after decriminalising the plant with much fanfare and unleashing a billion-dollar business in the process.

All sales of cannabis buds must now be accompanied by a doctor’s prescription – a stipulation aimed at choking off the recreational market, the mainstay of most of the thousands of dispensaries that now dot the country.

Public Health Minister Somsak Thepsuthin has also announced his intention to place the plant back on the country’s controlled narcotics list within 45 days, putting it in the company of cocaine, heroin and meth.

Nanuephat Kittichaibawan, an assistant manager at Wonderland, said his shop used to serve 10 or more customers an hour most afternoons.

Now, even with an in-house doctor to write prescriptions on the spot, “it is just one or two”, he told Al Jazeera.

“It is more complicated than it used to be, and for some people it will be too much,” he added.

Like many in the business, he worries the new rules may even force him to shut down, putting him out of work.

“If we follow the rules, we could [have to] close,” he said. “I do worry about that. A lot of people have this as their main job, and they need it to survive.”

Faris Pitsuwan, who owns five dispensaries on some of Thailand’s most popular tourist islands, including Ko Phi Phi Don and Phuket, is worried, too.

“Yesterday, I could not sell anything,” he told Al Jazeera. “I hope my business will survive, but too soon to say.”

While announcing the policy U-turn last week, Somsak said the new rules would help contain Thailand’s cannabis industry to the medical market, as intended when a previous administration, and a different health minister, decriminalised the plant in 2022.

“The policy must return to its original goal of controlling cannabis for medical use only,” government spokesman Jirayu Houngsub said.

Since a new administration took over in 2023, the government has blamed decriminalisation for a wave of problems, including a spike in overdoses among children and adolescents and increased smuggling to countries where cannabis is still illegal.

A survey by the government’s National Institute of Development Administration last year found that three in four Thais strongly or moderately agreed with putting cannabis back on the narcotics list.

Smith Srisont, president of Thailand’s Association of Forensic Physicians, has been urging the government to relist cannabis from the beginning, mostly because of the health risks.

Smith notes that more than one study has found a fivefold to sixfold spike in cannabis-related health problems among children and adolescents since legalisation.

Although shops have been forbidden from selling to anyone below the age of 20, Smith says it has been too hard to enforce because the job falls mostly on health officers, rather than police, and Thailand does not have enough.

“So, they can’t … look at every shop,” he told Al Jazeera, but “if cannabis is [treated more] like methamphetamine … it will be … better because the police can [then get] involved” right away.

Many farmers and shop owners, though, say the blowback from legalising cannabis has been exaggerated, and scapegoated by the leading Pheu Thai Party to punish the Bhumjaithai Party, which abandoned the ruling coalition two weeks ago over Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s alleged bungling of a border dispute with Cambodia.

Somsak has denied the claim.

Bhumjaithai had led the push to decriminalise cannabis and was tussling with Pheu Thai for control of the powerful Ministry of the Interior in the weeks leading up to its split from the coalition.

“As soon as one party steps down from the coalition, this happens. The timing just could not be any more perfect,” Chokwan Chopaka, who opened a dispensary along Bangkok’s bustling Sukhumvit Boulevard soon after Thailand legalised cannabis, told Al Jazeera.

“I understand that cannabis does create issues,” she said, “[but] I feel that those issues could have been at least mitigated if the government were actually enforcing the rules that [did] exist in the first place.”

Chokwan said she had to shutter her shop a few months ago because she could no longer both follow those rules and compete with other dispensaries in the neighbourhood that were getting away with breaking them.

She expects that most dispensaries will end up closing if the new rules are enforced diligently, many of them before recouping the investments they made to get up and running.

“A lot of people are very stressed out. We’re talking about people that are borrowing money into this. This is their last breath, their last lot of savings, because our economy hasn’t been well,” Chokwan said.

The Thai government said in May that the national economy may grow by as little as 1.3 percent this year, dragged down in part by slumping tourist arrivals.

The government has blamed the freewheeling cannabis scene of the past three years for putting some tourists off Thailand – another reason, it argues, to tighten the reins.

Shah, on his second trip to Thailand from India in the past year, said the new rules could do more harm than good by pushing tourists like him and his friend away.

“One of the reasons that we do come here is so that we can smoke good weed,” Shah, who asked to be referred to by his last name only, told Al Jazeera.

Having landed in Bangkok only hours earlier, Shah and his friend were leaving a Nana neighbourhood dispensary with their purchase.

A self-avowed recreational user, Shah said the shop wrote him a prescription with few questions and no fuss.

But if the government does get serious about enforcing the new rules, he added, “maybe I’ll think twice next time and go somewhere else.”

Cannabis farmers are fretting about the new rules, too.

To keep selling their buds to local shops, every farm will soon need a Good Agriculture and Collection Practice (GACP) certificate from the government.

It certifies that the farm has met certain quality control standards.

Chokwan, who also leads the Writing Thailand’s Cannabis Future Network, a cannabis advocacy group, said only about 100 cannabis farms across the country currently have GACP certification.

Getting farms ready and tested can be expensive, she said, while forcing it on all farmers will weed out thousands of “little guys”, leaving the largest farms and the corporations backing them to dominate the market.

Coming in at less than 300 square metres (360 square yards), under banks of LED lights inside an unassuming beige building on the outskirts of Bangkok, the Thai Kush cannabis farm easily qualifies as one of the little guys.

Owner Vara Thongsiri said the farm has been supplying shops across the country since 2022. His main gripe with the new rules is how suddenly they came down.

“When you announce it and your announcement is effective immediately, how does a farm adapt that quickly? It is impossible. They didn’t even give us a chance,” he told Al Jazeera.

Vara said he would apply for the certificate nonetheless and was confident the quality of his buds would help his farm survive even in a smaller, medical-cannabis-only marketplace, depending on how long the application takes.

“My farm is a working farm. We harvest every month … If the process takes three months to six months, how am I going to last if I can’t sell the product I have?” he said.

“Because a farm can’t last if it can’t sell.”

Rattapon Sanrak, a cannabis farmer and shop owner, is crunching the numbers on the new regulations as well.

His small farm in the country’s fertile northeast supplies his two Highland Cafe dispensaries in Bangkok, including one in the heart of the city’s Khao San quarter, a warren of bars, clubs and budget accommodations catering to backpackers.

“I could stay open, but as [per] my calculation, it may not [be] worth the business. It’s not feasible any more due to the regulations, the rental and other costs,” he told Al Jazeera.

“It’s not worth the money to invest.”

Rattapon and others believe the government could have avoided the latest policy whiplash by passing a comprehensive cannabis control bill either before decriminalisation or soon after.

Like others critical of the government’s approach, he blames political brinkmanship between Bhumjaithai and Pheu Thai for failing to do so.

Proponents of such a bill say it could have set different rules for farms based on their size, helping smaller growers stay in business, and better regulations to help head off the problems the government is complaining about now.

Although a bill has been drafted, Somsak has said he has no intention of pushing it forward, insisting that placing the plant back on the narcotics list was the best way to control it.

The Writing Thailand’s Cannabis Future Network plans to hold a protest in front of the Ministry of Public Health on Monday in hopes of changing the minister’s mind.

Rattapon said he and hundreds of other farmers and shop owners also plan on filing a class action lawsuit against the government over the new rules.

In the meantime, Rattapon and others warn, the government’s attempt at confining cannabis to the medical market will not simply make the recreational supply chain vanish.

Rattapon said many producers, having poured in millions of dollars and put thousands of people to work, will go underground, where they will be even harder to control.

“Imagine you have a company, you hire 10 people, you invest 2 million baht [$61,630] for that, you’re operating your business, and then one day they say that you cannot sell it any more. And in the pipeline, you have 100 kilograms coming. What would you do?” he said.

“They will go underground.”

Faris, the dispensary owner, agreed.

He said many of the shops and farms that rely on the recreational market will close under the new rules.

“But as time goes by,” he added, “people will find a way.”

The United States will place a lower-than-promised 20 percent tariff on many Vietnamese exports, President Donald Trump has said, cooling tensions with its 10th-biggest trading partner days before he could raise levies on most imports.

Vietnamese goods will now face a 20 percent tariff, and any transshipments from third countries through Vietnam will face a 40 percent levy, Trump said, announcing the trade deal on Wednesday. Vietnam would accept US products with a zero percent tariff, he added.

“It is my Great Honor to announce that I have just made a Trade Deal with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” Trump said on Truth Social after speaking with Vietnam’s top leader, To Lam.

Trump’s announcement comes just days before a July 9 deadline he set to resolve negotiations before he ramps up tariffs on most imports, one of the Republican’s signature economic policies.

Under that plan announced in April, US importers of Vietnamese goods would have had to pay a 46 percent tariff.

The Vietnamese government said in a statement that the two countries agreed on a joint statement about a trade framework. It did not confirm the specific tariff levels mentioned by Trump.

Vietnam would commit to “providing preferential market access for US goods, including large-engine cars”, the government in Hanoi said.

A deal between the two countries would be a political boost for Trump, whose team has struggled to quickly close deals with Washington’s biggest trading partners ahead of the deadline.

While the administration has teased a forthcoming deal with India, truces reached earlier with the United Kingdom and China were limited in scope. Talks with Japan, the sixth-largest trading partner for the US and closest ally in Asia, appeared deadlocked.

“Vietnam has been very keen to get out from under this,’’ said Mary Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “This is forcing a smaller country to eat it, basically. We can do that. It’s the big countries that everybody’s keeping their eyes on.’’

She said she doubts that Trump will be able to impose such a lopsided agreement on big trading partners such as the European Union and Japan.

The US is Vietnam’s largest export market, and the two countries’ growing economic, diplomatic and military ties are a hedge against Washington’s biggest strategic rival, China. Vietnam has worked to retain close relations with both superpowers.

Shares of major US apparel and sportswear makers, including Nike, Under Armour and North Face maker VF Corp, rose on the news.

Lam also asked Trump for the US to recognise Vietnam as a market economy and remove restrictions on the exports of high-tech products to the country, Vietnam said. Those changes have long been sought by Hanoi and dismissed by Washington.

The White House and the Vietnamese Ministry of Industry and Trade did not respond to requests for additional comment.

Growing trade ties

Since Trump imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese goods in his 2017-2021 term, US trade with Vietnam has exploded.

Since 2018, Vietnam’s exports have gone up nearly threefold, from less than $50bn that year to about $137bn in 2024, Census Bureau data shows. US exports to Vietnam are up only about 30 percent in that time – to just over $13bn last year from less than $10bn in 2018.

Washington complains that Chinese goods have been dodging higher US tariffs by transiting through Vietnam.

William Reinsch, a former US trade official now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the significance of the transshipment crackdown will depend on “how the term is defined and enforced. Some transshipment is outright fraud – simply changing the label; some is a legitimate substantial transformation in Vietnam into a new product; and there is a lot in between. Enforcement is always complicated”.

Details were scarce, and it was not immediately clear how any transshipment provision aimed at products largely made in China and then finished in Vietnam would be implemented.

Trump announced a wave of tariffs for countries around the world on April 2, before pausing the implementation of most duties until July 9. More than a dozen countries are actively negotiating with the Trump administration to avoid a steep spike in tariffs on their exports.

The UK accepted a 10 percent US tariff on many goods, including autos, in exchange for special access for aircraft engines and British beef.

Like the agreement struck with the UK in May, the one with Vietnam resembles more a framework than a finalised trade pact.

China and the US also came to a truce in a tit-for-tat tariff battle in which Beijing restored American access to some rare earth minerals, but the two sides left most of their disagreements to later negotiations.

China and the European Union are marking 50 years of diplomatic relations this month. At the core of their partnership is trade.

They are the second and third biggest economies in the world after the United States.

The Chinese foreign minister is visiting EU headquarters this week as he seeks closer ties in what he has called a “volatile” world.

Under President Donald Trump, the US has increasingly turned to sweeping tariffs to get what it wants.

Although Beijing and Brussels are hoping to improve their economic ties, they have disagreements on a number of issues.

So what will that mean for global trade and the economic order?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Karel Lannoo – CEO, Centre for European Policy Studies

Victor Gao – vice president, Center for China and Globalisation

Raffaele Marchetti – director, Center for International and Strategic Studies at LUISS University in Rome

United States President Donald Trump’s big tax and spending bill has faced backlash from both Democrats and fiscal hawks in his own party. But one proposal that has received rare bipartisan support from the start — eliminating taxes on tips.

The Senate bill passed on Tuesday, which mirrors the House bill passed last month, would deliver this campaign promise from Trump and had also been proposed by his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris.

The House plan lets workers deduct all reported tips from their taxable income, while the Senate version sets limits — $18,500 for individuals or $25,000 for joint filers — and phases it out for higher earners. The tax break would expire at the end of 2028.

If this bill passes, filers could deduct some or all of those tips starting in 2026.

Economists forecast that cutting tax on tips could increase the federal deficits by $100bn over the next decade.

Many restaurant workers continue to earn the federal tipped minimum wage, or subminimum wage, of just $2.13 per hour nationally. It is slightly higher in places like New York at $3.55 per hour. The law assumes that tips will bridge the gap to reach the $7.25 federal minimum wage.

A survey cited by the White House and conducted by a fintech firm found that 83 percent of restaurant workers support a no-tax-on-tips policy. Trump’s plan has been endorsed by the National Restaurant Association.

“The inclusion of the No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Overtime provisions recognises the value of our dedicated workforce. More than two million tipped servers and bartenders stand to benefit, while the overtime measure rewards the commitment of over 13 million hourly team members across the sector,” Michelle Korsmo, president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

The bill at the surface promises to put more money in the pockets of servers, bartenders, and other tipped workers. But it has been criticised by worker-centric advocacy groups and restaurant workers themselves, who caution against embracing it too quickly because it also comes with cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, which workers in the restaurant industry disproportionately rely on.

“That is like one of like the biggest fears I have right now. I rely on SNAP myself. I rely on Medicaid. At one point, I didn’t have insurance because of the whole sub-minimum wage, ” Jessica Ordenana, a server at a Chili’s Restaurant in Queens, New York told Al Jazeera.

According to One Fair Wage, about 66 percent of tipped workers in the US don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax, so eliminating tax on tips wouldn’t help the majority of restaurant workers.

To put this in perspective, a worker earning $2.13 per hour, working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, would earn just $4,430.40 annually. Employers are legally required to make up the difference if tips don’t bring workers to $7.25/hour, totalling $15,078 per year. Federal income taxes must be paid by those who make more than $14,600 annually. Many workers still fall short due to inconsistent schedules and unreliable tipping.

Work requirements complications

Restaurant tipped workers overwhelmingly rely on services like SNAP and Medicaid, and will now face new work requirements to get them.

For instance, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” includes a Medicaid work requirement that obligates able-bodied adults aged 19 to 64 to work at least 80 hours per month to remain eligible.

For many restaurant workers, this is simply not feasible. Not because of unwillingness, but because their hours depend on consumer demand.

According to Harvard Kennedy School’s The Shift Project, which studies workplace trends, one in five service sector workers reported having not as many hours as they would like and saw a 34 percent fluctuation in the number of hours week to week.

“I’m actually having a hard time at Chili’s because they went from giving me my full like four or five days a week, to now just one day a week. It really varies week to week,” Ordenana said.

“When I ask for another day on the schedule [the manager] tells me, yeah, yeah sure. And then they don’t even put me on the schedule. So last week, I didn’t work at all,”  Ordenana said.

Demand for eating out has started to slump as Americans tighten purse strings in the face of a slowing economy and uncertainty over the impact of Trump’s tariffs.

Consumer Price Index data showed that spending on eating out was flat for three months from February to April and has started to decline heading into the middle of the year.

Consumer spending is projected to drop by 7 percent over the middle of the year, according to KPMG’s Consumer Pulse report.

As a result, One Fair Wage estimates that 45 percent of restaurant workers currently enrolled in Medicaid could lose their health insurance because of the possible downturn in hours because of slumping demand.

“More tipped restaurant workers would lose their Medicaid than would gain small tax benefits. This is not the right solution,” Saru Jayaraman, founder of the advocacy group One Fair Wage told Al Jazeera.

“Why are these workers on Medicaid to begin with? Because they earn a sub-minimum wage and can’t afford to take care of themselves.”

SNAP benefits face a similar threat. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, forecasts that the tax bill could lead to as many as 11 million people, including restaurant workers, losing access to critical benefits. The House bill would cut $300bn from SNAP over the next 10 years and the Senate bill would cut $211bn.

“Those cuts have to come out of benefits or eligibility. There is just no way that cuts to administrative costs, to streamline waste, fraud, and abuse, or whatever the talking points are about thinking. Those are benefits to eligible people. To achieve that kind of savings, you have to cut benefits to people. There’s no way around it. And that’s devastating,” Ed Bolen, director of SNAP State Strategies at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Al Jazeera.

Nationwide, 18 percent of restaurant workers rely on SNAP benefits, including Ordenana.

“How am I going to eat? How am I gonna survive? How am I going to pay rent? And then on top of that, I might lose benefits? How is this happening in America?”  Ordenana asked rhetorically.

Australia’s flagship carrier says it believes a ‘significant’ amount of personal data was stolen in a cyberattack.

Qantas is investigating a major cyberattack after hackers accessed a system holding personal data belonging to 6 million customers, Australia’s flagship airline has said.

Qantas took “immediate steps” to secure its systems after detecting “unusual activity” on a third-party platform on Monday, the airline said on Wednesday.

The airline is investigating the amount of data that was stolen, but it expects that it will be “significant”, Qantas said in a statement.

The affected data includes customers’ names, email addresses, phone numbers, birth dates and frequent flyer numbers, but not credit card details, personal financial information or passport details, according to the airline.

Qantas said it had put additional security measures in place, and notified the police, the Australian Cyber Security Centre and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

Qantas Group Chief Executive Officer Vanessa Hudson offered an apology to customers over the breach.

“Our customers trust us with their personal information and we take that responsibility seriously,” Hudson said.

“We are contacting our customers today and our focus is on providing them with the necessary support.”

The data breach comes as Qantas is working to rebuild its reputation following a series of controversies during the COVID-19 pandemic, including revelations that it sold tickets for thousands of cancelled flights and lobbied against a bid by Qatar Airways to operate more flights to Europe.

Qantas earned its lowest-ever spot in last year’s World Airline Awards by Skytrax, falling from 17th to 24th place, before climbing 10 spots in the 2025 ranking.

Hudson’s predecessor, Alan Joyce, stepped down two months ahead of his scheduled retirement in 2023, while acknowledging the need for the airline “to move ahead with its renewal as a priority”.

Last week, the FBI in the United States said that a cybercriminal group known as Scattered Spider had expanded its targets to include airlines.

The FBI said the hacking group often impersonates employees or contractors to deploy ransomware and steal sensitive data for extortion purposes.