The figures came out before Trump and European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a trade agreement on Sunday. They said the EU has agreed to purchase $750 billion of American energy and invest $600 billion into the U.S. beyond current levels, while the U.S. imposes a 15% tariff on most goods being imported from the EU.

Trump had threatened to place a 30% tariff rate on the EU if it failed to reach a deal with the U.S. Negotiations continue with other countries before Friday’s deadline for trade deals imposed by the Trump administration.

Experts at Bankrate have warned that the cost of Trump’s tariffs on trading partners could ultimately be passed on to American consumers, unless importers or businesses absorb the costs themselves.

Did prices rise in June?

The June Producer Price Index report indicated that producer prices did not rise, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, suggesting the U.S. has so far avoided significant economic fallout from the tariffs.

Morgan Stanley analysts project tariffs could bring in $2.7 trillion over the next decade, according to reporting from Fortune, while the Congressional Budget Office estimates they could reduce the deficit by $2.8 trillion, but also slow economic growth.

“In CBO’s assessment, the changes in tariffs will reduce the size of the U.S. economy — in part because of tariffs imposed by other countries in response to the increases in U.S. tariffs,” said the CBO.

Will prices eventually rise?

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell cited tariffs as a reason for not cutting interest rates, despite a decline in producer-price inflation to 2.3% year over year in June. The potential effect of tariffs on consumer prices could be delayed.

The CBO projects the U.S. GDP will be 0.6% smaller in 10 years because of tariffs. Morgan Stanley has cautioned that investors may be underestimating the long-term risks associated with tariffs.

The bottom line

While tariffs might reduce the deficit by $2.8 trillion over the next decade, financial experts describe them as a tax on imports that could affect consumers’ prices. The CBO anticipates slightly weaker economic growth over time, and although prices are currently down, the Federal Reserve remains cautious about potential inflationary effects from tariffs.

The Federal Open Market Committee meets this week, but don’t expect a rate cut. Economists at EY predict the Fed to deliver two cuts in 2025, one in September and another in December, assuming inflation continues to decline and the labor market shows signs of cooling.

Have a news tip? Contact Emma Withrow at ewithrow@sbgtv.com or at x.com/emma_withrow. Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.

So, what’s the holdup? And how does this standoff compare to past administrations?

Last rate cut

The last rate cut came on December 18, 2024, during the final weeks of the Biden administration. The Fed lowered rates by 25 basis points, moving from 4.50-4.75% to 4.25-4.50%, according to Forbes.

That December move marked the third rate cut in three months and was in response to a clear shift in the data the Fed uses to make its decisions. Inflation had cooled significantly from its pandemic-era peak and the labor market was starting to ease. Unemployment was inching up and consumer spending had begun to soften. In other words, the Fed had the economic cover it needed to pivot.

Since then, though, no additional cuts have materialized, despite early 2025 projections hinting at at least one by summer.

Why Fed is holding back

The core issue? Inflation still hasn’t hit the Fed’s 2% target. According to the most recent Consumer Price Index report, annual inflation rose to 2.7% in June, up from 2.4% in May. That’s not the direction the Fed wants to see.

According to economists at EY, the Fed is now expected to deliver two cuts in 2025, one in September and another in December, assuming inflation continues to decline and the labor market shows more definitive signs of cooling. But the widely expected summer cut? That’s pretty much off the table.

Trade policy uncertainty isn’t helping either. With tariffs and global tensions in flux, the Fed is proceeding cautiously.

But Christopher Waller, a member of the Fed’s governing board, said in a speech in New York City on Thursday that the central bank should cut its key interest rate later this month, according to the Associated Press. The Federal Open Market Committee meets July 29-30.

Waller said the economy is showing signs of weakening and the Fed should reduce borrowing costs to shore up spending and growth before the job market declines further, according to AP.

Past rate cuts

The current back-and-forth between Trump and Powell isn’t the first time politics and monetary policy have collided, but it’s important to note that rate cuts don’t happen because presidents want them. They happen because the economy demands them.

Here’s how it’s played out under past administrations:

• Trump’s first term: The Fed cut rates three times in 2019 during the U.S.-China trade war, then made emergency cuts in March 2020 as COVID-19 hit. Rates were slashed to near zero.
• Biden’s term: The Fed responded to soaring post-pandemic inflation with aggressive rate hikes throughout 2022 and 2023, before reversing course with three cuts in late 2024.
• Obama’s presidency: After the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed cut rates to zero and kept them there for years. The first rate hike didn’t come until late 2015.

As Bankrate’s chief financial analyst Greg McBride put it:

“The Fed has been sitting back, evaluating economic data amidst all the uncertainty. The old saying that you skate to where the puck is going to be — if you don’t know where the puck is going to be, you can’t skate to it.”

Bottom line

Right now, inflation is still hovering just above target and data is mixed. That’s why Powell is keeping rates steady, despite public calls for action from the White House.

Unless the economy takes a sharper downturn, don’t expect rate cuts to come easily or early.

Have a news tip? Contact Emma Withrow at ewithrow@sbgtv.com or at x.com/emma_withrow. Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.

This decision, however, is temporary, and the department continues to operate with a reduced workforce. Lower courts are still reviewing the legality of the move to terminate half of the department’s employees. In the interim, some responsibilities might shift to state governments, and Congress could choose to respond based on the progression of the legal case.

This ruling is part of a series of recent Supreme Court decisions favoring the Trump administration. The court recently allowed the deportation of a group of illegal immigrants to South Sudan and other countries, overturned lower-court orders limiting the DOGE’s access to Social Security records and permitted the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from military service.

These decisions were made under the court’s “emergency docket,” often referred to as the “shadow docket.” According to the Brennan Center for Justice, cases on the shadow docket do not typically receive extensive briefing or hearings, and decisions are often issued with little explanation, sometimes without indicating which justices are in the majority or minority.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice:

“Cases on the shadow docket, in contrast to those on the merits docket, typically do not receive extensive briefing or a hearing. The decisions are accompanied by little to no explanation and often lack clarity on which justices are in the majority or minority. They are sometimes released in the middle of the night, creating a sense of palace intrigue.”

The Supreme Court’s temporary rulings, such as the one involving the Department of Education, do not resolve the full case. They merely decide whether to pause or allow actions while lower courts continue to hear the case.

It was the 15th case the justices had granted an emergency appeal from Trump, and the seventh time the majority ruled with no explanation, according to Courthouse News Service. The court’s rulings on Trump’s appeals have almost always been split ideologically with the three liberals dissenting, the court news outlet said.

In the Department of Education’s situation, the Supreme Court’s decision allows the layoffs to proceed, lifting a lower court’s block, but the lawsuit regarding the authority to make such layoffs is still ongoing in Massachusetts.

Have a news tip? Contact Emma Withrow at ewithrow@sbgtv.com or at x.com/emma_withrow. Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.

The survey, conducted by Axios and Ipsos American Health Index, included responses from more than 1,100 individuals. It found that approximately three out of four participants agreed most politicians are not forthcoming about their health and that presidents should be legally required to disclose their medical records.

According to the poll, about four out of five respondents (81%) agree there should be a legal requirement for any current president to undergo cognitive tests and disease screenings with results shared publicly.

The poll comes as the House Oversight Committee is investigating whether there was a coverup of former President Joe Biden’s health and cognitive issues during his four-year term.

Legality behind medical transparency for presidents

Despite the sentiments in the poll, there are no laws mandating that sitting presidents release their health records. The U.S. Constitution outlines basic eligibility requirements for the presidency, but does not define what constitutes being “fit for office.”

The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of a president who is unable to perform their duties, but it does not clearly define “unfit.” According to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment:

“Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Have presidents always hidden their health?

Historically, secrecy surrounding presidential health has been prevalent.

Barbara Perry of the University of Virginia said notable examples include President Grover Cleveland, who underwent secret cancer surgery on a boat, and former President Woodrow Wilson, who suffered a major stroke in 1919. Wilson’s condition was concealed from the public, with his wife effectively managing presidential duties.

The trend of concealing health issues continued into the 20th century. Former President Franklin Roosevelt ran for a fourth term despite having congestive heart failure that was hidden from the public. Similarly, former President John F. Kennedy, who suffered from Addison’s disease, maintained a public image of health.

However, there have been instances of transparency. Former President Dwight Eisenhower, after suffering a heart attack while in office, chose to be open about his condition. His doctors provided daily updates, and Eisenhower used the opportunity to educate the public about heart health, which ultimately boosted his approval ratings and led to his re-election.

Have a news tip? Contact Janae Bowens at jnbowens@sbgtv.com or at x.com/JanaeBowens. Contact Emma Withrow at ewithrow@sbgtv.com or at x.com/emma_withrow. Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.

The U.S. Census, conducted every 10 years, currently counts all residents, regardless of citizenship status.

This comprehensive count determines congressional representation and the distribution of federal funds for services like schools and hospitals, and also electoral and congressional seats, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

However, a shift to a citizen-only count could diminish political influence and resources for states with large noncitizen populations, including New York and California, potentially leading to legal challenges.

According to a 2024 report from the Office of Homeland Security, there were as many as 10 million living in the United States illegally in 2022.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., plans to introduce the Making American Election Great Again Act that proposes limiting the census to American citizens and requiring proof of citizenship for federal voting.

Greene announced the bill’s introduction on Thursday, saying, “I’m honored to have President Trump’s support for my Making American Elections Great Again Act! It’s simple. It’s common sense. And we must pass it.”

She emphasized the bill would lead to redrawing district lines based on new census data, affecting House districts and electoral college votes.

“The United States House of Representatives needs to only represent American citizens and American citizens’ interests and American taxpayers,” Green said.

Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., also reintroduced the Equal Representation Act, aiming to ensure only legal citizens are counted for congressional and electoral college purposes.

“It is unconscionable that illegal immigrants and non-citizens are counted toward congressional district apportionment and our electoral map for the presidency,” Hagerty said.

The proposed legislation would add a citizenship question to future censuses and require detailed population breakdowns.

The debate over who “counts” in America continues to intensify, with significant implications for the nation’s political landscape and resource distribution.

Have a news tip? Contact Janae Bowens at jnbowens@sbgtv.com or at x.com/JanaeBowens. Contact Emma Withrow at ewithrow@sbgtv.com or at x.com/emma_withrow. Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.

His administration’s most significant legislative achievement to date is the approval by Congress of a sweeping tax-and-spending bill, dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” This legislation provides approximately $4.5 trillion in tax cuts while reducing social safety nets and increasing the national debt limit. House Republicans gave final approval to the bill on Thursday, sending it to Trump’s desk and meeting the deadline he set.

In addition to legislative efforts, Trump has issued more than 140 executive orders, targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, environmental regulations, and immigration policies. Many of the orders have ended up in court, but the administration has seen legal victories on that front.

His administration has implemented aggressive immigration enforcement measures, resulting in mass deportations and stricter border security. According to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, daily border encounters have decreased by 93%, with encounters involving “gotaways” down by 95%, and migrant crossings nearly eliminated.

Despite these domestic achievements, Trump has faced challenges on the international stage.

A key campaign promise to end the war between Ukraine and Russia remains unfulfilled. Trump had pledged to negotiate an end to the conflict and apply pressure on any party obstructing peace. However, Russia has rejected his proposals, and Trump has been criticized for his reluctance to take a firmer stance against Moscow.

According to the Atlantic Council, at the G7 Summit, he blocked efforts to lower the price cap on Russian oil and criticized the decision to exclude Russia from the G8, actions perceived as favorable to President Vladimir Putin. Though the Atlantic Council suggests Trump’s approach for dealing with Russia is evolving into a tougher stance.

On the NATO front, Trump has succeeded in pushing allies to commit to spending 5% of member countries’ GDP on defense by 2035, a move described as provocative by Putin’s spokesman. Trump has also directly criticized Putin as an obstacle to peace in Ukraine and suggested that the U.S. might enhance Ukraine’s air defense capabilities.

Trump also directed a strike on Iran on its three nuclear facilities, escalating the Israel-Iran conflict. While his administration says the strikes decimated Iran’s nuclear program, others have questioned the veracity of the statements.

Have a news tip? Contact Emma Withrow at ewithrow@sbgtv.com or at x.com/emma_withrow. Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.

A record-low 58% of U.S. adults say they are “extremely” (41%) or “very” (17%) proud to be an American, down nine percentage points from last year and five points below the prior low from 2020.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, Gallup reported that about 90% of Americans felt very or extremely proud of their nationality. This sentiment remained relatively stable for years but began to decline steadily in the 2010s, with a more rapid drop occurring over the past five years.

Gallup wrote in its report that “at the beginning of the 21st century, U.S. adults were nearly unanimous in saying they were extremely or very proud to be Americans. But that national unity has eroded over the past 25 years due to a combination of political and generational changes.”

The findings are from a June 2-19 Gallup poll conducted before the June 21 U.S. military strikes on Iran nuclear facilities. It is unknown whether Americans’ national pride has been affected by that action, Gallup said.

American pride dependent on political party

The decline in national pride appears to be deeply partisan.

“Democrats are mostly responsible for the drop in U.S. pride this year, with 36% saying they are extremely or very proud, down from 62% a year ago,” according to Gallup. In contrast, more than 90% of Republicans continue to express pride in being American, highlighting a significant gap between the parties.

The split between Democrats and Republicans, at 56 percentage points, is at its widest since 2001, according to the Associated Press. That includes the four years of President Donald Trump’s first term.

Younger generation less proud to be American

Age also plays a role in the shifting sentiment. Less than half of Generation Z adults report feeling proud of the country, whereas pride levels among Baby Boomers and older generations remain higher, ranging from 70% to 80%.

“Each generation is less patriotic than the prior generation, and Gen Z is definitely much lower than anybody else,” Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor at Gallup, told the Associated Press. “But even among the older generations, we see that they’re less patriotic than the ones before them, and they’ve become less patriotic over time. That’s primarily driven by Democrats within those generations.”

Flying the flag

In a related survey conducted by YouGov in 2022, about 60% of Americans expressed a “very positive” view of the U.S. flag. This sentiment is particularly strong among Republicans, white Americans and older adults. However, younger Americans, especially those under 30, and Black Americans are less likely to view the flag “very positively,” though a majority in both groups still hold a favorable view.

The YouGov poll also found that 54% of Americans have a flag at home, with 40% flying it daily and another 30% displaying it on holidays or special occasions.

Have a news tip? Contact Emma Withrow at ewithrow@sbgtv.com or at x.com/emma_withrow. Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.

Finland President Alexander Stubb called this past week’s agreement “a big win, I think, for both President Trump and I think it’s also a big win for Europe.” He said “we’re witnessing the birth of a new NATO, which means a more balanced NATO,” according to the Associated Press.

NATO members formally agreed to raise their defense budgets to 5% of their GDP by 2035, a significant increase from the current 2% target set in 2014, according to a NATO news release. The agreement comes as NATO allies face “profound security threats and challenges,” including the long-term threat posed by Russia and persistent terrorism.

Trump called the spending boost “something that no one really thought possible. And they said, ‘You did it, sir. You did it.’ Well, I don’t know if I did it, but I think I did,” according to AP.

However, the commitment remains a pledge for now. Just 11 of the 32 NATO countries currently meet the 2% GDP defense spending target, according to NATO data. Achieving the 5% goal will require major political and budgetary shifts across Europe.

“Together, allies have laid the foundations for a stronger, fairer and more lethal NATO,” NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said, accordig to AP. “This will fuel a quantum leap in our collective defense.”

While Trump celebrated the defense spending pledge, questions rose about his support for NATO’s mutual defense pact, Article 5. The article, part of the Washington Treaty, establishes the principle of collective defense. It has only been invoked once, in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, according to NATO archives.

The article reads, according to the NATO website:

“Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.”

At the summit in The Hague, Netherlands, NATO leaders expressed an “ironclad commitment” to come to each other’s aid if attacked.

But when asked about his support for Article 5, Trump said, “It depends on your definition. There are numerous definitions of Article 5.” He added, “I’m committed to being their friend and helping them.”

Trump later clarified that if he did not support the defense pact, he would not be present at the summit supporting NATO countries, according to reporting from The Hill.

Have a news tip? Contact Emma Withrow at ewithrow@sbgtv.com or at x.com/emma_withrow. Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.

Yale sampled 4,100 self-reported registered voters, including 2,025 voters aged 18-29. When the voters were asked whether they were going to vote Democrat or Republican in the upcoming midterm elections, the older Gen Z voters, 22-29 year olds, favored the Democratic candidate by a margin of 6.4 points.

But the younger Gen Z voters, ages 18-21, favored the Republican by a whopping margin of 11.7 points.

Why the shift among Gen Z?

Yale didn’t draw any specific conclusions as to why younger Gen Z voters favored Republican candidates compared to their older Gen Z counterparts, but according to Youth Political Analyst Rachel Janfaza, who spoke with Axios, there are a few possible connections.

She pointed out it could have to do with the political climate during Gen Z’s formative years. Younger Gen Z voters spent their teen years during COVID lockdowns, which could have shaped how they see government and authority. While older Gen Z voters were influenced by progressive movements and platforms like Instagram, younger Gen Z grew up with TikTok, where right-leaning voices got a big head start.

According to the Pew Research Center:

Young adults also stand out when it comes to turning to TikTok for news. Today, 39% of adults under 30 say they regularly get news there, compared with much smaller shares of adults ages 30 to 49 (19%), 50 to 64 (9%) and 65 and older (3%).

For some younger Gen Z voters, leaning conservative just feels like pushing back on the status quo.

Political lean by generation

Regardless of the shift toward the Republican Party for young Gen Z voters, about two-thirds of voters under 30 still identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. But as voters get older, they tend to shift more Republican, according to the Pew Research Center.

About two-thirds of voters ages 18 to 24 (66%) associate with the Democratic Party, compared with 34% who align with the GOP.

Among voters 60 and older, Republicans hold a clear advantage, with about 53% identifying with the GOP compared to 43% for Democrats. The partisan split becomes more balanced in middle age, but the trend toward Republican affiliation grows stronger in senior voters.

The generational divide

The divide between generations based on political affiliation has grown wider in the last few decades.

In the 1990s there wasn’t as much difference between younger and older voters in terms of party affiliation. But recently, each younger generation is leaning more Democratic than the last, until recently with young Gen Z voters overwhelmingly more likely to vote for Republicans than Democrats.

Have a news tip? Contact Emma Withrow at ewithrow@sbgtv.com or at x.com/emma_withrow. Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.

The re-vote, which will run through Tuesay, comes after former Vice Chair David Hogg, a 25-year-old activist, and Pennsylvania State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta were removed from their roles.

Hogg, known for his efforts to engage young Democrats, officially stepped down on Wednesday, according to ABC News. The situation escalated when Hogg expressed support for primary challengers against sitting Democratic incumbents, a stance that clashed with DNC Chair Ken Martin’s position that the party should remain neutral in primaries.

Hogg, who survived the deadly 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, announced on social media that he would not seek reelection and would now be focusing on “Leaders We Deserve.” He co-founded the group that plans to invest $20 million in primary races within safe Democratic districts.

“There is a fundamental disagreement about the role of a Vice Chair — and it’s okay to have disagreements, what isn’t okay is allowing this to remain our focus when there is so much more we need to be focused on,” Hogg wrote in his post. “Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters. I need to do this work with Leaders We Deserve, and it is going to remain my number one mission to build the strongest party possible.”

Martin commended Hogg for his activism and service, stating, “I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation, and while I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as Vice Chair.”

As the elections proceed, Kenyatta is running unopposed for the male vice chair seat. For the second vice chair position, which is open to any gender, contenders include Washington State Democrats Chair Shasti Conrad, Oklahoma National Committeewoman Kalyn Free, and Kansas Party Chair Jeanna Repass, according to Politico.

The DNC’s rules stipulate that the first vice chair seat must be filled by a man, with voting for this position closing on Saturday. The second seat, open to any gender, will be decided from Sunday to Tuesday.

Amid these internal changes, a recent Quinnipiac Poll shows just 21% of voters approve of how Democrats in Congress are handling their job, while 70% disapprove. Just 41% of Democrats approve of the way the members of their party in Congress are handling their job.

With the 2026 midterms approaching, Democrats face significant challenges as they aim to regain control of both chambers of Congress currently held by Republicans.

Hogg says the Democrats “need to build a party not defined by not being the less bad of two options in voters’ eyes. We need to be the best option period at every level of government.”

“The American people are looking for an answer for how to revive the American Dream that they feel has become more of a fiction than a possibility,” Hogg wrote.

Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.