Despite a brief market scare, the richest 10 Americans got $365 billion richer over the past year, according to a new analysis from Oxfam. The stunning increase in wealth amounts to a gain of roughly $1 billion per day for those billionaires. By contrast, the typical American worker made just over $50,000 in 2023. Oxfam found that it would take a staggering 726,000 years for 10 US workers at median earnings to make that much money. The findings put an exclamation point on the nation’s wealth inequality and come as Republicans debate a costly bill that could make the rich even richer and deeply cut into key safety net programs. “Billionaire wealth has increased astronomically while so many ordinary people struggle to make ends meet,” Rebecca Riddell, senior policy lead for economic and racial justice at Oxfam America, said in the report. Elon Musk alone got $186 billion richer To measure the gains of the richest, Oxfam measured the estimated wealth shifts of the top 10 on the Forbes Real Time Billionaire List between the end of April 2024 and the end of April 2025. Elon Musk, the world’s richest person and CEO of Tesla, accounts for just over half of the total wealth gains, with his net worth spiking by $186.1 billion over that span. An analysis last fall found that Musk, a pivotal figure in President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is on track to become the world’s first trillionaire. The net worths of Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg and Walmart heir Rob Walton increased by $38.7 billion apiece. Legendary investor Warren Buffett gained $34.8 billion in wealth, while Walmart heir Jim Walton gained $36.5 billion. Oxfam argues that the Republican bill, a legislative priority of Trump, would further stack the deck against ordinary people in favor of the most affluent. “We’re seeing a tax code being designed that would bring about the world’s first trillionaire,” Riddell said. Some progressives have called for fighting inequality by imposing a wealth tax on ultra-millionaires and billionaires. Oxfam found that a 3% tax on wealth above $1 billion would raise $50 billion from the 10 richest Americans alone – enough to provide food assistance for one year to 22.5 million people. Of course, taxing wealth would be very challenging, in part because it can be hard to value net worth. And some legal scholars have questioned whether a wealth tax is even constitutional. Most gains would go to the top 10% Lawmakers are debating whether and how to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Trump’s signature tax law. The bill that has advanced in the House would make permanent essentially all of the individual income tax breaks from the 2017 law and temporarily cut taxes on tips and overtime. The legislation would increase the nation’s economic output, measured by gross domestic product (GDP), by 0.5% in 10 years and 1.7% in 30 years, according to an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Those economic gains would be fueled by higher savings and labor supply, incentivized by a weaker social safety net, Penn Wharton found. The bill’s gains would go disproportionately to the rich, according to the analysis. The top 10% of earners would receive about two-thirds (65%) of the total value of the legislation, while households in the bottom 20% would lose about $1,035 in 2026 due to cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other changes, according to Penn Wharton. Kent Smetters, professor of business economics and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, told CNN that the top 10% of households would get about $3.1 trillion worth of tax cuts over 10 years. Smetters, who runs the Penn Wharton Budget Model, noted that the US tax system is “very progressive,” with the same group paying about 70% of all federal income and payroll taxes. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said the GOP bill is a “giveaway” for the rich. “Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are trying to jam through massive tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans — millionaires and billionaires who are only getting richer by the day. Billionaires don’t need another break, working people do,” Warren said in a statement to CNN. The White House, however, says Trump’s budget priorities would help Americans thrive, extending gains from his first term in office. “Wealth inequality in the United States actually decreased for the first time in decades during President Trump’s first term thanks to his economic agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, domestic energy production, and tariffs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement to CNN. “The One, Big, Beautiful Bill locks many of these successful policies in, including President Trump’s historic first term tax cuts, to again restore prosperity for Main Street.” Another expensive tax cut? The debate comes as concerns increase over America’s $36 trillion mountain of debt. Moody’s Ratings on Friday downgraded the perfect credit rating it held for the United States since 1917 due to concerns about the surge in government debt over the past decade and high interest payment ratios. The White House has argued the GOP tax bill will help address these concerns by cutting spending. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Monday that the sweeping legislation won’t add to the deficit. However, in its downgrade decision, Moody’s said it does “not believe that material multi-year reductions in mandatory spending and deficits will result from current fiscal proposals under consideration.” Likewise, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal watchdog group, warns that the GOP bill would “add massively to near-term deficits” by piling another $3.3 trillion on the national debt over a decade including interest. That figure surges to $5.2 trillion if temporary provisions are made permanent. “This additional near-term borrowing could stoke inflation and push up interest rates,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget wrote in its analysis.

President Donald Trump and his administration have long suggested that the on-again, off-again rollout of historic tariffs was intentionally chaotic, part of a carefully crafted master plan designed to keep America’s trading partners on the back foot. But that dubious theory has been belied by recent announcements from Trump and his trade officials. Despite a host of tariffs that Trump has imposed, then paused, changed, lowered, exempted and then re-threatened, the president is simply creating “strategic uncertainty,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Sunday told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “If we were to give too much certainty to the other countries, then they would play us in the negotiations,” Bessent told CNN. Trump has at times suggested something similar – that he understands the power wielded by tariffs in a way few others do. “Tariffs are the most misunderstood thing maybe in any form of business,” Trump said in the White House earlier this month. Top trade adviser Peter Navarro has described Trump’s trade strategy as a game of “3D chess” that the media and mainstream economists fail to comprehend. But those suggestions of a coherent strategy behind the tumultuous rollout of Trump’s tariff plans are contradicted by Trump and Bessent’s recent announcements that they’ll set new tariffs for dozens of countries that want to strike a deal but have been unable to get a meeting with the United States during the three-month pause. They’re undermined by the administration’s carve-outs, concessions and pull-backs. And they’re negated by large American companies declaring that they’ll raise prices. Clock is running out The 3D-chess theory goes something like this: Trump threatened massive tariffs as a warning that America will grow less reliant on foreign trade. To show he’s serious, Trump made good on his threat, putting the tariffs in place to scare the bejesus out of foreign countries and companies that manufacture goods outside the United States. But to be fair and realistic, Trump hit pause to give trading partners time to come to the table and companies time to reshore their manufacturing. To some degree, that has happened: The administration says it is in active discussions with 18 trading partners on potential new trading deals that, in theory, could give US businesses access to untapped markets. The framework of a deal with the United Kingdom, announced earlier this month, opened up the British market to some US agricultural producers, for example. And a number of major companies have made big, multibillion-dollar promises to invest in the United States. For example, Apple committed to a $500 billion long-term plan, much of which was previously in the works, to add manufacturing capacity in the United States. So if the plan was showing signs of success, why restart the tariffs with only a couple trade deals in hand? Trump last week said it was impossible to do 150 deals in enough time before the pause was lifted – so his administration would give countries new tariffs in the next few weeks. Bessent this weekend clarified that the original “reciprocal” tariffs as high as 50% that were announced during Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” ceremony could be reimposed on some countries — but the administration may instead decided to replace them with regional tariffs at a different rate. The administration has frequently said 100 or so countries have offered to negotiate on trade to avoid Trump’s tariffs. So restoring initial “reciprocal” tariffs or setting regional rates before most countries have gotten a chance to negotiate undermines the theory that hitting pause would give countries a fair chance to come to the table. Rising prices Tariff proponents may say the high import taxes are necessary to incentivize companies to bring manufacturing back to the United States. Despite some high-profile announcements, that’s by and large not happening. It remains prohibitively expensive and takes considerable time to bring many kinds of manufacturing to the United States. And with the topsy-turvy trade announcements, businesses are uncertain how long Trump’s tariffs will even be in place. For example, Trump’s administration earlier this month lowered tariffs on China to around 30% from 145% after Trump and Bessent called the high rates “unsustainable.” But the only concessions America appeared to get from China was a roll-back on Chinese tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers put in place since April 2. Trump has also issued significant tariff carve-outs on foreign-made auto parts and Chinese electronics, which took considerable bite out of his trade war. “We should not expect any boost to domestic economic activity from tariffs, especially in the near term,” said Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s chief global economist, in a note to investors this week. “For a business that is contemplating moving production to the US, 30% tariffs might make it cost effective. But if the factory takes a couple years to build and another few to recoup the investment, the CEO needs to be convinced tariffs would will be in place at 30% or higher for the next five years or longer. The newsflow since April 2 suggests no such certainty.” Meanwhile, American companies have begun to raise prices. Walmart said last week tariffs were “too high” and that it would be forced to pass along some tariff costs to consumers – a fact Bessent acknowledged this weekend. Home Depot said Tuesday it planned to keep most prices the same but would have to raise prices or stop selling some items because of tariffs. Toymakers, footwear makers and many others have said prices are going up, too. The bond theory In some social media channels, an even wilder 4D chess theory has emerged. The theory suggest that Trump started his trade war to purposefully tank the stock market (it very nearly plunged 20% into a bear market in two short months), creating more demand for safe-haven assets like Treasuries that would send rates lower, thus sinking costs for consumers and allowing America to refinance its debt at a cheaper rate. Meanwhile, tariff revenue would help pay down the debt, allowing Republicans to pass a massive tax cut bill that will boost the economy. But that theory, too, has been contradicted by the fact that the market has rallied since he exempted many electronics from his tariffs mid-May. And long-term bond rates have remained relatively high: Bond prices, which trade in opposite direction to yields, fell further Monday after Moody’s downgraded America’s debt from its perfect AAA credit rating Friday, warning that America’s debt situation is increasingly dire and could be made worse by tax cuts. The tumbling bond market, in fact, is what spooked the Trump administration in the first place and led Trump to hit pause on the “Liberation Day” tariffs, the administration has conceded. Trump acknowledged on April 9, the day he paused the tariffs, that he had been watching the bond market, which was getting “yippy.” National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told Fox News that day that the pause had been previously planned but got “a little extra push from the bond market,” which was saying, “Hey, we don’t believe these guys” on the validity of the tariffs. So it’s sounding more like chaos theory, not the 3D or 4D chess theory, is the reality driving Trump’s trade war.

Just days after the United States and China declared a temporary truce over tariffs, tempers are already flaring: this time over the future of Beijing’s most advanced homegrown semiconductors. Over the past week, Beijing has repeatedly lashed out at Washington for warning companies against using AI chips made by national tech champion Huawei. It has even accused the Trump administration of “undermining” a consensus reached at recent trade talks in Geneva, where both sides agreed to temporarily roll back tariffs and use a 90-day window to hash out a broader deal. The conflict over Huawei’s most advanced chips serves as a reality check that despite the positive words shared by US and Chinese negotiators last week, there are still sharp differences between the two sides on a variety of subjects that may be difficult to bridge. On Wednesday, China’s Commerce Ministry fired its latest broadside, accusing the US of “abusing export controls to suppress and contain China” and engaging in what it called “typical acts of unilateral bullying and protectionism.” China was responding to the Trump administration’s announcement last week rescinding a set of Biden-era curbs meant to keep AI chips out of the hands of foreign adversaries. As part of that announcement, the US Commerce Department issued guidance on May 12 warning companies that “using Huawei Ascend chips anywhere in the world would violate US export controls.” The department has since changed its wording to remove the reference of “anywhere in the world” in an updated version of the statement. The Ascend chips are Huawei’s most powerful AI processors, which are used to train AI models and aim to challenge Nvidia’s dominance in designing high-end chips. Huawei’s efforts are central to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s plans to build up China’s own capacity to develop cutting-edge chips as it vies for AI supremacy with the US. At a top political meeting last month, Xi called for “self-reliance” to develop AI in China, saying his country would leverage its “new whole national system” to target bottlenecks such as advanced chips. Beijing’s ire On Monday, Beijing signaled the US Commerce Department’s wording change in the updated statement on Huawei wasn’t enough to end the feud. In a statement, China’s Commerce Ministry said that despite the “adjustment” in wording, the “discriminatory measures and market-distorting nature” of the guidance itself remained unchanged. “China has engaged in negotiations and communications with the US at various levels through the China-US economic and trade consultation mechanism, pointing out that the US actions seriously undermined the consensus reached during the high-level talks in Geneva,” the ministry said, urging the US to “correct its mistake.” The ministry’s latest statement on Wednesday came with an extra warning from Beijing to global businesses, threatening legal action against anyone who helps what it calls a US attempt to “globally ban the use of advanced Chinese chips.” “Any organization or individual that implements or assists in implementing these US measures may be in violation of China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law and other relevant laws and regulations, and must bear corresponding legal responsibilities,” the statement said. “China will closely monitor the implementation of the US measures and will take resolute steps to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” it added. There has been no announcement of further trade talks between the US and China. But last Friday, US trade representative Jamieson Greer and Chinese trade envoy Li Chenggang met on the sidelines of a gathering of APEC trade ministers in South Korea, Reuters reported.

This is an epic — pardon the pun — week for Comcast and the wider media business. Epic Universe, the first major new theme park in the US in 20-plus years, is opening in Orlando, Florida, on Thursday. Fans are expected to camp out overnight ahead of the official opening day. Comcast’s NBCUniversal says Epic is the “most technologically advanced theme park” ever. It cost an estimated $7.7 billion and took more than six years to build. Accordingly, Comcast is putting all its corporate muscle into the launch. Epic Universe “showcases the incredible creativity, innovation, and operational excellence of our talented teams,” Mark Woodbury, the chair of Universal Destinations & Experiences, told CNN. This moment is about more than a single company’s awesome new roller coasters. It’s about media giants meeting the growing demand for live experiences, or what some analysts call “the experience economy.” “People want to immerse themselves in the characters and franchises and content they love,” said media analyst Rich Greenfield of Lightshed Partners. Disney, the reigning theme park king, recently announced a deal to develop a new park and resort in Abu Dhabi. It is also doubling its fleet of cruise ships around the world. Universal has more to come, as well. It is developing a theme park in the United Kingdom, slated to open in 2031. It also has smaller-scale projects in the works, like a horror experience in Las Vegas and a kids’ resort in Frisco, Texas. “Streaming wars” to “theme park wars” Some of the same companies that have competed in the so-called “streaming wars” are also locked in “theme park wars,” Greenfield observed. Universal’s two theme parks in Orlando have often been seen as the “add-on” for tourists who spend more time at Disney’s four parks there. Disney has, of course, been paying close attention to its rival. In the past year, Disney has announced some major expansions to its Florida parks, giving fans new reasons to return in the years ahead. Epic Universe may start to change those calculations. Woodbury predicted that Epic “will transform Universal Orlando Resort into a full week vacation destination that delivers mind-blowing experiences for global audiences.” Historically, Disney CFO Hugh Johnston told investors last year, “Other non-Disney parks opening in Florida (have) been positive for Disney bookings.” When Greenfield was at Epic for a sneak preview of the park this spring, he was struck by how much space for further expansion Universal still has. He suggested this week’s launch is “step one to making Universal more of the destination versus the add-on.” An epic media frontier All four hours of NBC’s “Today” show were live from Epic Universe on Wednesday morning to show off the park to viewers, and all of Comcast’s top executives traveled to Orlando for Wednesday night’s opening ceremony. Universal’s parks promote NBC’s intellectual property, of course — Epic has a “How to Train Your Dragon” world — but feature partner media brands, too, like The Wizarding World of Harry Potter from Warner Bros. Discovery (CNN’s parent) and Super Nintendo World from Nintendo. In recent interviews, Universal executives have highlighted the new park’s trackless ride systems, augmented reality features, and high-resolution projections. They say Harry Potter and the Battle at the Ministry is the company’s most impressive attraction to date. Both Universal and Disney have leaned heavily on parks to generate profits during a turbulent period elsewhere across the media industry. As Comcast president Mike Cavanagh told analysts last month, the theme park business is unique because it “is, within media, not at all exposed to the shift in time on screens from one venue to another.” After all, parks are the opposite of “screen time” — they’re where the characters from screens appear to come to life.

Russia’s Investigative Committee has launched criminal proceedings against a prominent journalist who heads a publication in neighboring Latvia providing critical coverage of the three-year-old conflict in Ukraine. The Moscow branch of the committee, which deals with major criminal cases in Russia, said Tuesday that it had opened the case against Russian-born Galina Timchenko, co-founder and head of the Meduza publication. Meduza, which reports in detail on Moscow’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor, said in an announcement posted online that Timchenko faced six years in prison if convicted. The committee said the case was based on organizing the activities of an “undesirable organization” and posting videos “to foment protest sentiment and to involve the public in the activities” of such an organization. Institutions deemed “undesirable” on grounds that they threaten Russia’s constitutional order can be subject to fines or orders to dissolve. Timchenko, who had previously headed up prominent publications inside Russia, was last year declared a “foreign agent,” a designation that carries negative Soviet-era connotations and imposes difficult bureaucratic requirements. Hundreds of Russian nationals have had the designation imposed on them. Since Russia sent tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine in February 2022, parliament has approved legislation cracking down on dissent in the country, including fines and prison terms for discrediting or spreading false information about the army.

Target was already facing a very public revolt from some of its most loyal customers. Now it’s warning about tariffs. The company said Wednesday that sales fell last quarter, driven in part by customer backlash to Target’s reversal on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. Target also cut its guidance as President Donald Trump’s tariffs push up costs for the company. Target’s sales at stores open for at least a year tumbled 3.8% last quarter. Fewer customers visited Target and spent less when they shopped. Target also cut its financial outlook, a sign Target’s problems won’t go away quickly. The company expects sales to decline by low single-digits this year. The company announced that it established a multi-year “Enterprise Acceleration Office” to speed up growth plans, and it reshuffled its executive team. “We faced several additional headwinds this quarter, including five consecutive months of declining consumer confidence, uncertainty regarding the impact of potential tariffs, and the reaction to the updates we shared on (DEI) in January,” Target CEO Brian Cornell said on a call with analysts Wednesday. Cornell warned of “massive potential costs” from tariffs, but said the retailer could offset them by diversifying suppliers, adjusting products – and hiking prices, if necessary. “We have many levers to use in mitigating the impact of tariffs and price is the very last resort,” he said. Target’s stock (TGT) dropped 7% during pre-market trading Wednesday. Target’s stock has declined 37% over the past year. Cornell acknowledged in a recent email to staff that it has been “a tough few months” between the retail economy “headlines, social media and conversations that may have left you wondering,” the Minnesota Star Tribune reported. (Target confirmed the email to CNN.) Cornell said Target’s culture and commitment to staff has not changed. “I recognize that silence from us has created uncertainty, so I want to be very clear: We are still the Target you know and believe in,” Cornell said. DEI rollback Boycotts over Target’s DEI reversal hurt Target’s business. On January 24, days into Donald Trump’s presidency, Target announced it was eliminating hiring goals for minority employees, ending an executive committee focused on racial justice and making other changes to its diversity initiatives. Target said it had a new strategy called “Belonging at the Bullseye” and the company remained committed to “creating a sense of belonging for our team, guests and communities.” Target also stressed the need for “staying in step with the evolving external landscape.” But the decision angered supporters of diversity and inclusion policies, who felt blindsided by Target. Target had been a champion of diversity initiatives and LGBTQ rights. Customers online protested Target’s decision and Anne and Lucy Dayton, the daughters of one of Target’s co-founders, called the company’s actions “a betrayal.” Target faced a 40-day consumer boycott during Lent led by Rev. Jamal Bryant, a prominent Atlanta-area megachurch pastor, over its DEI rollback. Protestors picketed outside Target headquarters in Minneapolis and other Black leaders such as Rev. Al Sharpton supported boycott efforts. Target came under more pressure than other companies that rolled back DEI policies because Target had gone further in its DEI efforts, and it has a more progressive base of customers than those competitors. On CNN on Wednesday evening, Bryant said that though Target was the first business targeted, it wouldn’t be the last. He said he is aware of more than 17 companies that have rolled back DEI initiatives. “Another company is going to be coming on the radar the next couple of weeks,” he said. Target was a leading advocate for DEI programs in the business world in the years after George Floyd was murdered by police in the company’s home city of Minneapolis in 2020. Target also spent years building a public reputation as a progressive employer on LGBTQ issues. Tariff hit Tariffs and a consumer slowdown put even more pressure on Target. The chain stocks more nonessential merchandise compared to competitors such as Walmart (WMT) and Costco (COST). More than half of Target’s merchandise is discretionary and is at risk as consumers reign in spending. Around 50% of Target’s products are also imported from overseas, including an estimated 25% from China, leaving Target in a “challenging position,” Steven Shemesh, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, said in a note Wednesday. Tariffs may force Target to either absorb added costs, hurting its profit, or raise prices on consumers. Home Depot said Tuesday that it plans to keep most of its prices stable, despite Trump’s tariffs driving costs up. But tariffs may cause Home Depot to increase prices on select items and eliminate some product lines entirely. Walmart said last week that Trump’s tariffs are “too high” and it will raise prices on some items, prompting an angry response from Trump. “Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain,” Trump said over the weekend. “Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, “EAT THE TARIFFS,” and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”

Foreign nationals with $5 million to spare will soon be able to register for a new “gold card” visa that would give them the right to live and work permanently in the United States, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Wednesday. “I expect there will be a website up called ‘Trump card dot gov’ in about a week,” Lutnick said at Axios’ “Building the Future” event in Washington, DC, on Wednesday. “The details of that will come soon after, but people can start to register.” Further information about the visa program will come in the next few weeks, he added. Lutnick has said the card would replace the government’s EB-5 immigrant investor visa program, which grants green cards to immigrants who make a comparatively smaller investment of $1.8 million into the US or $900,000 into economically distressed zones. On Wednesday, Lutnick suggested there is already strong interest in the new visa program, saying that on a recent trip to the Middle East he was already “selling” cards. “Basically, everyone I meet who is not an American is going to want to buy this card if they have the fiscal capacity,” Lutnick said. The new “gold card” visa program was first proposed in February by President Donald Trump. “We’re going to be putting a price on that card of about $5 million and that’s going to give you green card privileges, plus it’s going to be a route to citizenship. And wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card,” Trump said from the Oval Office in February. Immigration law experts have warned that creating a new visa requires approval from Congress, though. On Wednesday, Lutnick said the “gold card” program could help pay down the US federal debt, which currently totals over $36 trillion. “These are going to be great people who are going to come and bring businesses and opportunity to America, and they’re going to pay $5 million,” Lutnick said. “If there are 200,000 people who pay, that’s a trillion dollars. That pays for everything.”

Stocks, bonds and the dollar fell on Wednesday as concerns mount about the premier status of American assets. The Dow closed lower by 817 points, or 1.91%. The broader S&P 500 slid 1.61% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 1.41%. The three major indexes each posted their worst day in one month. Stocks moved sharply lower and bonds sold off after a 1 p.m. ET auction for 20-year Treasury notes that saw weak demand and was “disappointing,” according to Chip Hughey, managing director for fixed income at Truist Advisory Services. While the 20-year Treasury note usually garners less attention than the 10-year or 30-year notes, all eyes have been on investors’ perception of Treasuries since Moody’s on Friday downgraded US government debt. The Treasury sold $16 billion worth of 20-year bonds, and the auction settled with a 20-year Treasury yield above 5%, signaling investors are demanding higher rates to hold US debt. The auction settled with a high yield of 5.047% compared to 4.83% at the last 20-year auction, in February. The weak demand for US Treasuries comes as Wall Street is already fretting over the potential for President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax bill to add to the deficit and put pressure on the federal debt burden at a time when there is heightened uncertainty about the safe-haven status of American assets. Treasury yields have pushed higher in recent days after Moody’s announcement Friday, which stripped the United States of its last perfect credit rating. Bond prices and yields trade in opposite directions. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note on Wednesday rose to 4.59% to hit its highest level since February and the yield on the 30-year Treasury rose above 5% to hit its highest level since 2023. “Although Moody’s decision to downgrade the US’s sovereign credit rating on Friday from Aaa to Aa1 was unsurprising, it does add focus on the real issues at hand: the US’s growing deficit and debt burden,” Hughey said. Higher bond yields can also entice investors and pull them away from other assets, putting pressure on the stock market. Stocks were lower Wednesday morning as Republicans in Congress tried to advance Trump’s tax bill. “Recent budget deliberations in Washington are not offering global investors much solace that these challenges are being incorporated into the decision-making process,” Hughey said. The ratio of federal debt to gross domestic product, or the total value of goods and services produced in the economy, was 123% in 2024, up from 104% in 2017, according to the Treasury Department. “We’re now talking about deficits and a national debt-to-GDP ratio that are really going to be unprecedented, except for recent recessionary times,” Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley, previously told CNN. US stocks were coming off a session in the red. The S&P 500 on Tuesday snapped a six-day winning streak. While the S&P 500 has wavered this week, it is up 17% from its lowest point this year after staging a sharp rebound in the past month. Wall Street’s fear gauge, the CBOE Volatility Index, surged more than 15%. The US dollar index, which measures the dollar’s strength against six major foreign currencies, slid 0.5%. Bitcoin surged to an all-time record high above $109,400 on Wednesday morning before paring gains and trading around $107,000. The cryptocurrency, which is highly volatile, has surged more than 40% since dropping just below $75,000 in early April.

Jony Ive, the veteran former Apple design chief credited with shaping the company’s product design, is joining ChatGPT maker OpenAI. OpenAI will merge with Ive’s tech company, io, according to a joint announcement from Ive and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The deal is said to be valued at about $6.5 billion, according to reports from The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and other media outlets. OpenAI previously held a 23% stake in io, according to The New York Times. Spokespeople for OpenAI did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment regarding the deal’s valuation. Ive and his separate design firm, LoveFrom, will take on design responsibilities for OpenAI and io, according to an announcement video on OpenAI’s website. They plan to announce their work next year, the video also said. The collaboration comes at a critical time for tech companies, which are racing to incorporate AI into their software and build new products fueled by the technology, from smart glasses to jewelry and new types of handheld devices. “I think we have the opportunity here to kind of completely reimagine what it means to use a computer,” Altman said in the video. Ive had been collaborating with OpenAI for two years, according to the announcement. He has been working with OpenAI on a product that “uses A.I. to create a computing experience that is less socially disruptive than the iPhone,” The Times reported in September. Altman said in the video that he had recently been given a prototype of the device, which he described as “the coolest piece of technology the world will have ever seen.” No concrete details have emerged about the product. Ive played a pivotal role in Apple’s product design, from the iPhone to the iMac and even the company’s Apple Park headquarters. He left the company in 2019 after nearly 30 years to start his own firm. Ive has largely been credited with establishing Apple’s iconic sleek aesthetic and reviving the company’s fortunes in the late 1990s. When Ive departed the company, CEO Tim Cook said in a press release that his “role in Apple’s revival cannot be overstated.” OpenAI is perceived to be the front-runner in the consumer AI space; its popular ChatGPT chatbot thrust AI into the spotlight in late 2022, prompting tech giants and startups to shape their products around the technology. Apple partners with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into its Siri virtual assistant. Ive’s and Altman’s announcement comes a day after Google outlined its plans to release AI-powered smart glasses, a product it believes could be the next iteration of the personal computer. Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses have already been a relative hit with consumers; at least 2 million pairs have been sold. But some new styles of tech devices built around the promise of facilitating AI interactions, like the Humane AI Pin, have fallen flat with consumers. “The products that we’re using to deliver and connect us to unimaginable technology, they’re decades old,” Ive said in the video. “And so it’s just common sense to at least think surely there’s something beyond these legacy products.”

Increasing the $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction could benefit millions of tax filers. But a proposal to do just that has become a point of contention and a possible roadblock to House Republicans’ passing “one big, beautiful bill” that reflects President Donald Trump’s agenda. That agenda includes making permanent essentially all of the individual income tax provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which are otherwise scheduled to expire this year. The SALT deduction, as it is known, enables federal income tax filers to deduct either their state and local income taxes or their state and local general sales taxes. In addition, they are also allowed to deduct their property taxes, assuming their income or sales taxes don’t put them over the cap. The tax break, however, may only be taken by those who itemize deductions on their federal returns, which only a minority of filers do. Prior to 2017, there was no limit on the SALT deduction. But the TCJA imposed a $10,000 cap — which, when coupled with the expanded standard deduction under that tax law, meant the number of people who claimed the SALT deduction fell dramatically — from about one-quarter of filers in 2017, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, to less than 10% today. Going forward, it appears there will still be a cap, but it likely will be higher than $10,000. The question is just how much higher and for whom? The House Ways and Means and House Budget committees already approved a tax package that would permanently raise the cap to $30,000 for any taxpayer whose modified adjusted gross income is $400,000 or less if married filing jointly (and $200,000 or less for single filers). But anyone above those income thresholds would still be able to deduct at least $10,000, according to the Tax Foundation. But a small group of House Republicans with constituents who benefit from the tax break publicly rejected the proposal. By Wednesday morning, House Speaker Mike Johnson said a new agreement was reached with the so-called SALT caucus to raise the cap to $40,000 for a decade for households making less than $500,000. For those making more, the cap would be reduced gradually between $500,000 and $800,000. Households making more than $800,000 would be able to deduct $10,000. What’s the fight over? What’s not clear is whether that compromise, if finalized, will be accepted by conservatives who dislike the SALT deduction and have been insisting on deep spending cuts. Republicans introduced the cap as part of their 2017 tax cuts bill to help pay for the sweeping legislation. And they are hoping to use it again as a revenue raiser in this year’s package. For example, the $30,000 cap proposal was estimated to raise $915.6 billion over 10 years relative to simply letting the cap expire as it is otherwise set to do if lawmakers don’t act, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation. A higher cap covering more households, like that reached in the tentative agreement Wednesday, will result in less revenue gained. That may further fuel the intraparty battle over the SALT deduction between GOP lawmakers from high-tax blue states, such as California and New York, and their colleagues from lower-tax red states, whose residents don’t benefit from the deduction nearly as much. And even if all House GOP can get on board, it’s not clear where the Senate, which is expected to amend the final House tax-and-spending bill, will come down. It’s hardly the first time SALT has been the subject of dispute in modern times, said tax historian Joe Thorndike. The SALT break has been on the books since 1913, when the federal income tax code was created. It also had a decade-long stint during the Civil War as well. But there have been efforts to limit the deduction over the past five decades. While originally the SALT deduction was created so that the federal government didn’t encroach upon states’ ability to collect revenue, SALT today is portrayed as a subsidy to high-tax states and as regressive in that it disproportionately benefits higher-income households, Thorndike noted. Who benefits the most In 2020, the SALT deduction was claimed on just 8.6% of all federal tax returns, according to the Tax Policy Center. But the incidence of people claiming it was most concentrated in 13 states and the District of Columbia. The deduction was claimed on more than 20% of returns from Maryland and Washington, DC; and on 10% to 20% of returns filed by residents of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington State. And those who have received the biggest break — both before and after the cap was imposed — are high-income filers, especially those in high-tax states and cities. In 2017, before the cap went into effect, for example, roughly two-thirds of the benefit went to those with incomes of $200,000 or more, according to the center. The average SALT deduction was about $13,000, but it topped $30,000 in eight counties, mostly in California and New York. While the vast majority of middle- and upper-income households received tax relief from TCJA regardless of where they lived, they would have received even more, had the cap not been instituted, said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the TPC. For example, the tax cut for those in the top 20% would have been $2,500 larger, on average, had their state and local tax deductions not been limited, according to the center. Their average individual income tax cut was only about $6,200, instead of $8,700. The cap had an even greater impact on taxpayers in the top 1%, whose average tax cut was $40,100, instead of $71,000. But those in the bottom 80% would not have seen much of a change in the size of their tax cut had the cap not been put in place.