(VATICAN CITY) — The cardinal of Baghdad, Louis Raphael Sako, reportedly told journalists at the Vatican on Tuesday that he expects a “short conclave” that could select Pope Francis’ successor in as little as two days.
“It will be a short conclave, two, three days,” Sako said, as quoted by Italy’s ANSA news agency, speaking to reporters before today’s general congregation.
“There is a very fraternal atmosphere and a spirit of responsibility,” the cardinal said.
When asked if he had an idea of who he would vote for to become the new pope, Sako replied: “I have a very clear idea but I cannot say it.”
The conclave to elect the Catholic Church’s 267th leader will begin Wednesday, May 7, the Vatican announced on Monday. Cardinals will convene at the Vatican to begin the process.
Francis, who died last Monday at the age of 88, was buried on Saturday in the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome.
ABC News’ Kevin Shalvey contributed to this report.
Yurii Tynnyi/Suspilne Ukraine/JSC “UA:PBC”/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
(LONDON) — U.S. and Russian officials continued Ukraine peace discussions on Monday as the Kremlin announced a 3-day ceasefire during May’s Victory Day celebrations — and as Kyiv cited continued Russian missile and drone attacks as evidence that Moscow has no genuine interest in peace.
On Monday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry released a transcript of an interview with Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov in the Brazilian Newspaper O Globo, in which he set out maximalist demands for a deal.
Among Moscow’s demands, Lavrov reportedly said, are Ukraine’s non-admission to NATO and future non-aligned status and international recognition of Russian control of all Ukrainian regions claimed annexed by the Kremlin — including Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, both of which are only partially occupied by Russian forces.
Lavrov also said Russia is still seeking the “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine, the lifting of international sanctions and the return of frozen Russian assets.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Lavrov by phone “at Lavrov’s request” on Sunday, the State Department announced on Monday. Rubio has previously said that the U.S. is still evaluating whether the Kremlin is serious about reaching an agreement to end its 3-year-old invasion of Ukraine.
The conversation was a follow-on to Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s visit to Moscow last week, with Rubio and Lavrov discussing “next steps in Russia-Ukraine peace talks” and “the need to end the war now,” per the State Department’s readout.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, on Monday unilaterally announced a ceasefire to mark Victory Day — the 80th anniversary commemoration of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in 1945.
The ceasefire will last from May 8 to May 10, the Kremlin said. “Russia believes that the Ukrainian side should follow this example,” its statement said. “In the event of violations of the truce by the Ukrainian side, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will give an adequate and effective response.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was dismissive of the proposal.
“Russia has consistently rejected everything and continues to manipulate the world, trying to deceive the United States,” he wrote in a statement posted to Telegram.
“Now, yet again, another attempt at manipulation: for some reason everyone is supposed to wait until May 8 before ceasing fire — just to provide Putin with silence for his parade,” he continued.
“We value human lives, not parades,” Zelenskyy wrote. “That’s why we believe — and the world believes — that there is no reason to wait until May 8. The ceasefire should not be just for a few days, only to return to killing afterward. It must be immediate, full, and unconditional — for at least 30 days to ensure it is secure and guaranteed. This is the foundation that could lead to real diplomacy.”
Cross-border strikes continued into Tuesday morning, with Ukraine’s air force reporting 100 Russian drones launched into the country overnight. The air force said it shot down 37 of the drones with another 47 lost in flight without causing damage.
Russia’s Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said its forces downed 40 Ukrainian drones overnight.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration with the slow progress being made on reaching a deal to end the war, an agreement he claimed on the campaign trail he would secure within 24 hours of returning to office.
On Sunday, Trump told reporters he wants a deal to end the war in “two weeks or less,” but later said a little more time might be acceptable. The president added he was “very disappointed” that Russia continued to carry out strikes in Ukraine days after he appealed to Putin to stop the attacks while negotiations continued.
Vice President JD Vance told conservative influencer Charlie Kirk on Monday that he is not certain that a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia will be reached, but that he remains optimistic.
“The biggest breakthrough is that we’ve got both of them talking about what they would need in order to stop fighting but what one side needs is different from what the other side needs,” Vance said.
“It’s the job of diplomacy to try to bring those two sides together,” Vance added. “I can’t say 100% certainty, Charlie, we’re going to be able to do it, but I do think that we’re trying very hard, and I feel more optimistic about it today than I did two weeks ago, and I feel more optimistic two weeks ago than I did two months ago.”
Vance added that the administration has found itself “frustrated” with Russians and Ukrainians during the peace talks.
“If I could bring people on the inside, I think what they see is that sometimes you’re incredibly frustrated with Ukrainians,” he said. “Sometimes you’re incredibly frustrated with the Russians.”
“You know, that is the nature of the negotiation as you’re going back and forth, and sometimes you just want to throw your hands up, but that’s what President Trump doesn’t let us do,” Vance said.
ABC News’ Will Gretsky and Fritz Farrow contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — Severe weather continues to impact the Midwest on Tuesday as intense storms are affecting millions of people.
The atmosphere did not recover well from Monday morning’s severe weather in the region, enabling the storm line to roll through in the later afternoon and evening as millions were impacted by intense weather events.
There were two reported tornadoes, one near Kenyon, Minnesota, where a farm suffered damage, and one near Fall Creek, Wisconsin, where structure damage was also recorded, though no injuries reported.
Other reports include a roof blown off a shed near Morristown, Minnesota, and roof damage to a large commercial warehouse near Kenyon — both of which may be related to the Kenyon but has not yet been fully confirmed.
Ten states reported storm damage from hail, wind and tornadoes, from Texas all the way to the upper peninsula of Michigan.
Elsewhere, hail up to the size of baseballs was reported in parts of Kansas, and hail larger than a baseball was reported in Oklahoma.
Severe storms are still underway on Tuesday morning in northern Texas and Oklahoma as golf ball-sized hail has already been reported early Tuesday in Oklahoma amid numerous severe thunderstorm warnings.
Meanwhile, a severe thunderstorm watch has been issued for northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas until 10 a.m. CT.
More than 50 million Americans are in today’s storm zone stretching 14 states from Texas to New York as super cellular storms are expected to begin around 3 p.m. CT along this entire path and continue into the evening hours.
There are two areas of heightened severe potential — an enhanced risk from west Texas to southwest Oklahoma including Midland, Lubbock and Wichita Falls in Texas — and the other from Louisville, Kentucky to near Watertown, New York, encompassing Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland and Buffalo, though the severe threat is not expected to continue past midnight for the northeastern portion of this system.
However, in Texas and Oklahoma, the severe threat may linger into the early morning hours of Wednesday with the severe potential including severe wind gusts, large to very large hail and a few tornadoes.
Flash flooding could also be a major concern for the Texas and Oklahoma portion of this event.
Given the scenario expected to play out starting Tuesday afternoon and overnight into Wednesday, which includes multiple rounds of very heavy and hours-long thunderstorms over the same consecutive locations, widespread flash flooding is expected.
However, because the ground in this area is already saturated from weekend flooding, this is an even more dire forecast and is primed for numerous potentially life-threatening flash floods.
The topsoil is already full, and streams are already high, meaning the water will have nowhere to go but stay above ground, and it may flood areas that don’t usually see flooding.
On Wednesday, the moderate risk will slide just east, extending from north of Dallas to Branson, Missouri, where there is also a chance for those heavy storms to produce damaging wind, large hail and a few tornadoes.
Meanwhile, a flood watch is in effect from north Texas to central Missouri for more than 6 million Americans across five states until Thursday morning and some areas could see more than 5 inches of rain in a 12-hour period.
(WASHINGTON) — In a speech to a joint session of Congress in March, President Donald Trump took direct aim at diversity, equity and inclusion policies, saying hiring and promotion practices should be based on merit, not race and gender.
“We’ve ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government and indeed the private sector and our military. And our country will be ‘woke’ no longer,” said Trump, using the term some conservatives have adopted to negatively describe progressive values.
In the first 100 days of his new administration, Trump has wielded the power of the Oval Office in an attempt to root out DEI programs beyond the federal government, threatening to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding and grants from universities, including Harvard University, unless they fall in line.
A new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll released on Sunday indicated that the country is almost evenly split on the issue. While 51% of respondents said they believe DEI efforts help level the playing field, 47% said such policies create unfair discrimination.
Despite the president’s claim that DEI in America is history, supporters say Trump’s war against what they refer to as “wokeism” is far from over.
“It’s definitely not over. And those of us who want to see corporate America get back to neutral and focusing on uniting Americans around creating value rather than dividing us on the basis of race and sex, we have a long, long way to go,” said Stefan Padfield, executive director of the Free Enterprise Project, which is part of National Center for Public Policy Research, a non-partisan conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
Padfield said one of his primary focuses is on “reversing what we might refer to as the woke capture of corporate America” by filing shareholder proposals, engaging in litigation and conducting educational research across the nation.”
“One of the things that I and others on our side are concerned about is this idea and this notion that somehow we’ve won,” Padfield told ABC News.
Using the analogy of the Allied troops storming the beach at Normandy during the 1944 D-Day invasion, Padfield said, “Could you imagine if the Allied forces just packed up and left and claimed to have won World War II after they took Normandy beach? It would be a very different world.”
“So, we’ve got a very long march to go and certainly the proponents of DEI and related ESG [environmental, social and governance] agendas, they’re making very clear that they’re not going to go quietly, certainly,” Padfield said.
Target boycott
In a letter dated Feb. 12, 2025, a coalition of the nation’s largest civil and human rights organizations, including the NAACP and the National Urban League, asked for an urgent meeting with congressional leadership “to discuss actionable steps to protect diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to ensure equal opportunity for all Americans.”
The letter was addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. “We are deeply concerned about the recent executive actions by the Trump Administration that seek to undo decades of bipartisan support for civil and human rights,” the coalition wrote.
“Diversity is and will always be one of America’s greatest strengths because a diverse America is an innovative and prosperous America,” the letter said. “Diversifying our institutions, providing opportunities, and working to ensure that everyone is included are not partisan values. These values strengthen our nation and are rooted in our country’s history of advancing equal opportunity and ‘liberty and justice for all.'”
The letter goes on to characterize the actions taken by the Trump administration as “misguided” and, according to the coalition, “seek to erode progress and stifle opportunity for all.”
The letter emphasizes that America’s strength and leadership “in an increasingly diverse and competitive world depends on our ability to be an inclusive society.” It goes on to say that history has shown that without clear-cut guidelines that encourage diversity, equity and inclusion, institutions will “continue discriminatory and exclusionary patterns that hold us all back.”
Some corporations have taken Trump’s cue and have started to eliminate or roll back DEI programs. After Minnesota-based retailer Target announced in January that it would phase out some of its DEI initiatives, the Rev. Jamal Bryant, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, a megachurch in the Atlanta suburb of Stonecrest, Georgia, organized a 40-day “fast” of Target.
Bryant said he encouraged followers of his movement to fight back with their pocketbooks and not shop at the chain’s stores from the first day of Lent, March 5, until Easter Sunday.
In an interview with ABC News, Bryant said he announced at his church on Easter that the “fast” is now a full-fledged boycott of Target.
“We began the boycott against Target because the Black community felt betrayed,” Bryant said.
Among the programs Target said it is phasing out is one established in the wake of the 2020 police-involved killing of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man. The program assists Black employees in building meaningful careers and promoting Black-owned businesses.
“For them to roll back DEI, it was felt as a slap in the face,” Bryant said.
Bryant noted that the Montgomery bus boycott led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1955 and 1956 lasted 381 days.
“We have just been boycotting Target for 10 weeks and I think that the African American community is resolved that we’re not going back into the store until we see a market change,” Bryant said.
In response to the boycott, Target, which has 2,000 stores nationwide and employs more than 400,000 people, said in a April 23 statement, “We have an ongoing commitment to creating a welcoming environment for all team members, guests, and suppliers.”
“It’s core to how we support and grow our business,” Target said. “We remain focused on supporting organizations and creating opportunities for people in the 2,000 communities where we live and operate.”
But Target isn’t the only major U.S. company scaling back on DEI programs. McDonald’s, Meta, Walmart, Ford, John Deere and Harley-Davidson have all announced they are eliminating some DEI programs.
Some of the companies changed their DEI programs after coming under pressure from conservative groups.
Conservative political commentator and anti-woke activist Robby Starbuck publicly attacked Walmart’s DEI programs. This prompted the big-box retail giant to announce it was rolling back diversity policies and pivoting from the term DEI in internal communications.
After Walmart said it was eliminating the use of the phrase “DEI” altogether, Starbuck said in a social media post, “This is the biggest win yet for our movement to end wokeness in corporate America.”
In a statement to ABC News, Walmart said, “Our purpose, to help people save money and live better, has been at our core since our founding 62 years ago and continues to guide us today. We can deliver on it because we are willing to change alongside our associates and customers who represent all of America.”
Universities under fire
The Trump administration has also threatened to withhold federal funding and grants from universities nationwide that decline to roll back DEI programs or curb protests on campuses, including pro-Palestinian demonstrations that the administration deems antisemitic.
Some universities have fought back against the administration.
The Trump administration threatened to withhold from Harvard University $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contract value after demanding that the school end its DEI programs, adopt what the administration deems merit-based admissions, and cooperate with immigration authorities.
But Harvard President Alan Garber has refused to give in to the White House’s demands, writing in an April 14 letter addressed to members of the Harvard community, that the school “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights” by agreeing to the terms proposed by the Trump administration.
On April 21, Harvard sued the Trump administration, asking a Massachusetts federal judge to block Trump’s funding freeze, arguing that it is “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.” Harvard also argued that by withholding funds, the Trump administration is violating the First Amendment, flouting federal law, and threatening life-saving research.
“All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote.
Trump’s Department of Education has also attempted to pressure public schools K-12 to do away with DEI programs or risk losing federal funding. Education groups sued the administration over the move.
Federal judges in both Maryland and New Hampshire issued rulings this month siding with the education groups.
“This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,” wrote U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of Maryland, a Trump appointee, on Thursday. “But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. The government did not.”
New Hampshire U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty also issued an order Thursday partially blocking the Department of Education from withholding funding to public schools that did not end DEI programs.
“Ours is a nation deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned,” McCafferty wrote, adding the “right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is…one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”
The Department of Education did not immediately respond to the rulings on Thursday.
Two sides, similar arguments
Supporters of doing away with DEI programs claim the policies are racist, discriminatory and further divide the nation, while advocates for keeping the programs argue it is racist, discriminatory and divisive to end them.
Rev. Bryant told ABC News that he believes Trump is pursuing his “war on woke” to appeal to his base.
“I think he’s playing to his base of uneducated white males, who for some reason feel threatened,” Bryant said. “They’re getting ready to see that America is better when we’re together, not when we are segregated.”
Bryant said Trump’s fight against wokeism has been an attack on civil rights that demonstrators have shed blood and died for going back to the 1950s and 1960s.
“It looks like we’re going back to yesteryear and it’s a very disturbing probability,” Bryant said.
On the other hand, Padfield described most DEI programs in corporate America as “overt racial discrimination.”
“It’s problematic because it sets the corporation up for legal liability and it’s problematic on a moral basis because that’s not the country that we want to live in, where some of our most powerful institutions have decided that the way to get what they want in terms of demographic outcomes is just start brazenly and, in fact, proudly, discriminating on the basis of race and sex,” Padfield said.
Padfield added, “The problem is that the pro-DEI solution actually makes things worse and divides us further. And what I’m hoping for is that ultimately corporate America wakes up and starts addressing these inequalities on a colorblind basis.”
(WASHINGTON) — The first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term have been filled with mass firings, cancellations of research grants, university funding cuts and questions over what should be studied.
Thousands of people have been let go at federal agencies and critical research has been put on hold. Additionally, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines and antidepressant medications despite dozens of studies proving they are safe and effective.
Doctors and public health specialists critical of the administration tell ABC News they view these actions as an “attack” on science, damaging the reputation of respected agencies and by questioning what is believed to be established science.
“It’s completely unprecedented,” Steve Cohen, senior vice dean of Columbia University’s School of Professional Studies and a professor of public affairs at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, told ABC News. “It’s frankly a little unhinged. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
The White House did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
An HHS official told ABC News that framing the actions of the admiration as an “attack” is “fundamentally dishonest.”
“Further reviewing pharmaceutical products with gold standard science and common sense is not an'”attack on science’ — it’s what the American people have asked for and deserve,” the official said. ” Let’s be clear: Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine — he is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability.”
Thousands of layoffs
Earlier this month, HHS began to lay off 10,000 workers as part of a massive restructuring plan.
Sources previously told ABC News that affected offices included most of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health, key offices in the Center for Tobacco Products, most of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the entire assisted reproductive technology team at the CDC.
There have also been local impacts in communities due to federal layoffs. ABC News previously reported in March, the CDC was poised to send its lead ‘disease detectives’ to Milwaukee amid an ongoing lead crisis in schools, but the entire division was cut under sweeping HHS layoffs, leaving local health officials without help they were relying on.
Erik Svendsen, the director of the division that oversaw the CDC’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention branch, previously told ABC News that what’s happening in Milwaukee is a real world example of the impact of their absence.
“Without us, there is no other unit at the federal level that is here to support them in doing what they need to do,” he said.
On Monday, officials in Milwaukee announced two additional schools are closing due to this crisis
Despite Kennedy saying some programs and employees would soon be reinstated because they were mistakenly cut, it still leaves thousands of federal employees without jobs.
Scientists have also been laid off at NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Cohen said these firings have put studies on hold and have greatly reduced the capacity of the federal government to review research.
“Scientists inside agencies, whether they’re environmental scientists or medical scientists or people focusing on vaccines or drugs, are being fired, and so some of the research capacity in Washington, in the federal government is being eliminated, and also their ability to judge proposals from universities,” he said.
“The only place I haven’t seen [firings] happen yet are the laboratories,” Cohen added.
Cuts that are currently proposed or have already been implemented include the elimination of the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV Policy, created by Brett Giroir, the former U.S. assistant secretary for health.
Giroir, who helped convince Trump in his first term to set a goal to end the HIV epidemic in the U.S., wrote in a post on social media last week that the president could ruin his legacy and mission with such cuts.
Canceling research grants, funding cuts to universities
Millions of dollars’ worth of grants have been terminated at the National Institutes of Health related to studies involving LGBTQ+ issues, gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) because they do not “effectuate” the “priorities” of President Donald Trump’s administration, according to copies of termination letters sent to grant recipients and viewed by ABC News.
Dr. Harold Varmus, a cancer researcher at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and former director of the NIH, said these terminations are “detrimental” because they may be affecting people in the middle of clinical trials, or affecting the early stages of experimental work.
Research projects focusing on minority populations have major benefits, Varmus noted.
“The purpose of health research in this country is to address problems faced by everybody and to explore every facet of a population that may affect their health,” he said. “To single out certain categories of individuals who would not be appropriate to study seems ludicrous to me … one of the great strengths of America is that we are diverse.”
Universities have also been threatened with funding cuts — or have seen funds frozen — if they don’t fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus and to end race-based programs.
Cohen believes universities are at odds with the administration because some on the political right view universities as “left wing.” By “weakening the finances of universities, they can force them to change the ideologies that they believe are being promoted in the classrooms,” he argued.
The problem with this idea, according to Cohen, is that the administration’s actions are hurting the least ideological parts of universities, such as engineering schools or medical centers. At Columbia, for example, several institutes and centers are conducting Alzheimer’s research, he said.
“Those are the places that are being attacked,” Cohen said. “It’s pretty ironic, but the greatest danger, actually, is that one of America’s fundamental economic strengths is the creativity and the innovation of our scientists, and that is now under attack by the Trump administration.”
Questioning safety, efficacy of vaccines
Kennedy has shared vaccine skepticism in the past and has continued to do so as HHS secretary.
In the wake of several ongoing measles outbreaks and over 800 cases so far this year, Kennedy has shared contradicting views about vaccines.
In a post on X on April 6, he said that “most effective way to prevent the spread of measles” is to receive the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine. However, in a post later that evening, he said more than 300 children have been treated with an antibiotic and a steroid, neither of which are cures for measles.
Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said the statements Kennedy has made in support of the MMR vaccine are “half-hearted.”
“The reason I say ‘half-hearted’ or insufficient is because each time he talks about using the MMR vaccine, he qualifies it,” Hotez told ABC News. “He then draws this false equivalency between either getting the MMR vaccine or this cocktail of interventions that would do absolutely nothing.”
Last month, HHS confirmed that the CDC will study “all the potential culprits” including whether vaccines cause autism despite numerous existing studies already showing there is no link.
Hotez said epidemiologic studies show that children who received either the MMR vaccine, or vaccines containing thimerosal — a compound used as a preservative in vaccines — are not more likely to be diagnosed autism than kids who didn’t receive those vaccines.
Additionally, Hotez said about 100 genes have been identified that are involved in the development of autism, many by the Broad Institute at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He believes rising rates of autism diagnoses are likely due to wider testing and expanding diagnostic criteria. Hotez added that there could be an environmental exposure influencing autism genes, but that it’s not vaccines.
In 2017, he discussed with Kennedy an investigation looking at “about half a dozen chemical exposures” in early pregnancies but Kennedy “had no interest,” according to Hotez, who later documented these conversations in a book he published in 2018.
“He apparently seems to not understand the science or doesn’t care about the science. He’s got his fixed beliefs and doesn’t want to let any of the facts or scientific findings get in the way of his fixed belief,” Hotez said. “And it’s completely irresponsible having someone like that as Health and Human Services secretary.”
Claims around antidepressant use
Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order to study the use of several medications including antidepressants and antipsychotics.
The order called for the formation of the “Make America Healthy Again” commission — to be chaired by Kennedy — with an aim to understand chronic diseases.
Among the goals of the commission is to “assess the prevalence of and threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, stimulants, and weight-loss drugs.”
Dr. Joseph Saseen, associate dean for clinical affairs and a professor in the departments of clinical pharmacy and family medicine at the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Colorado, said there are plenty of studies and analyses in the medical literature looking at the prevalence of SSRIs.
“We have an overwhelming amount of information,” he told ABC News. “These medicines, particularly SSRIs, are the most frequently prescribed antidepressants for patients with major depressive disorder. There is a plethora of information evaluating efficacy in a broad range of patient populations for which these medicines are indicated.”
Saseen says these medications do have side effects, just like any drug, but the benefits significantly outweigh the risks for most people in the general population who have major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders.
Kennedy has also falsely linked the use of antidepressants to school shootings and claimed during his Senate confirmation hearings that members of his family had a harder time stopping SSRI use than heroin use.
Experts have said there is no evidence that equates ending the use of antidepressants to ending the use of heroin or to suggest that people on SSRIs are more likely to be violent.
Saseen said it’s reasonable to question scientific research, either to reaffirm or dispute findings, but it must be done following the scientific method.
“Question it the real way, not the cowardly way,” he said. “The cowardly way is labeling things as threats or as bad without taking a scientific approach. The key is you need to use appropriate methodologies, not vocal inflections and very triggering and polarizing words to create an uprising.”
ABC News’ Dr. Jade Cobern, Cheyenne Haslett, Will McDuffie and Sony Salzman contributed to this report.
Allison Robbert for The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Since Donald Trump took office 100 days ago, the president and his administration have faced an average of more than two lawsuits per day, challenging nearly every element of his agenda.
The breakneck pace of the president’s policies has been matched in nearly equal force by a flood of litigation — at least 220 lawsuits in courts across the country — challenging more than two dozen executive orders, the firing of twenty high-ranking government officials, and dozens of other executive actions.
While the Trump administration has had some victories in the courts, federal judges have blocked key parts of Trump’s agenda ranging from parts of his immigration policy and military guidelines to his effort to roll back diversity and equity initiatives.
“The administration has basically gone on a shock-and-awe bombing campaign,” said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University. “There is a huge amount of what they are currently doing that they probably could have achieved lawfully, but they have crashed through any of the existing legal guardrails in an attempt to do everything, everywhere, all at once.”
The suits have come at a steady clip — 20 in January, approximately 70 in both February and March, and about 50 so far in April — as the Trump administration has rolled out its new policies.
Approximately 60 of those cases have focused on the president’s immigration policy, with courts so far blocking the president’s attempts to remove birthright citizenship, withhold funding from sanctuary cities, remove noncitizens to countries other than their place of origin with little-to-no due process, and strip thousands of their temporary protected status. Some of those policies have earned the president rebukes from judges questioning the rationale for his unilateral immigration policy.
“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, said of Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. “There are moments in the world’s history when people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges?’ In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today.”
Courts have also blocked the Trump administration from effectively banning transgender people from military service, limiting gender-affirming care, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, attempting to freeze trillions in funding to states and nonprofits, and moving to block billions in foreign aid.
But in many cases federal courts have not stopped the president outright — tentatively allowing the mass firing of thousands of government employees, greenlighting a historic federal buyout, and, for now, allowing the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development. The Department of Education and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau are also undergoing massive staffing reductions as judges actively consider the legality of the Trump administration’s cuts.
The president’s supporters have decried the litigation as a “judicial coup,” while those opposing his policies have praised judges for serving as a check against the administration. But the seemingly constant conflict between the Trump administration and the judiciary could risk permanent damage to the separation of powers at the heart of the Constitution, some judges have warned.
“Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around,” wrote federal Judge Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee who rebuked the Trump administration inaction after being ordered to return a man from a Salvadoran prison.
Acting in ‘bad faith’
In the first hundred days since Trump took office, lawyers challenging his actions in court alleged that his administration violated court orders at least six times, according to court records reviewed by ABC News.
While no judge has held members of the Trump administration in contempt of court, two federal judges have sharply rebuked the government for acting in “bad faith” during ongoing lawsuits. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — who heard arguments over the deportation of two planeloads of alleged migrant gang members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act — an 18th century wartime authority used to remove noncitizens with little-to-no due process — ultimately determined the Trump administration likely violated his order by failing to return the migrants to the United States.
An appeals court temporarily blocked Judge Boasberg from beginning the process of contempt proceedings, but his most recent ruling invoked the words of former Chief Justice John Marshall to describe the stakes of the Trump administration’s actions.
“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the Constitution itself,'” Boasberg wrote.
Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued that Judge Boasberg’s order fell outside his jurisdiction because the flights in question had left U.S. airspace, and have insisted that a federal judge should not dictate U.S. foreign policy.
The Trump administration has also faced legal challenges for its refusal to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native living in Maryland, to the United States after he was mistakenly deported to his home country despite an order barring his deportation there due to fear of persecution.
The administration has so far declined to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States despite the Supreme Court ordering his release, though administration officials have complied with a lower court’s order to provide regular updates about him.
The administration has rebutted orders to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States despite the Supreme Court ordering them to facilitate his release.
Judge Wilkinson, in the meantime, has condemned the Trump administration’s attempt to send alleged migrant gang members to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison.
“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order,” he wrote. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”
In an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, 65% of respondents said Trump’s administration is trying to avoid complying with federal court orders, and 62% said they don’t think his administration respects the rule of law.
‘It was a sham’
With the Trump administration just 100 days in, most lawsuits have not made their way through the appeals process to the Supreme Court — but the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to block some court orders on an emergency basis.
Those appeals have led to some losses for the Trump administration — among them a 5-4 Supreme Court decision ordering the Trump administration to unfreeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds for work that aid groups have already completed on the government’s behalf.
On the flip side, the Supreme Court — citing largely technical reasons — handed the Trump administration a series of temporary wins, including vacating an order blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. In that case, the justices opted to throw out the case because the case was filed in the wrong court, declining to weigh in on the merits of the issue.
The Supreme Court also handed the Trump administration a temporary win by blocking a lower court’s ruling that barred the Trump administration from firing thousands of probationary government employees without cause. The district judge who blocked the firings slammed the Trump administration for using a “sham” and “gimmick” to fire thousands of federal workers.
“I just want to say it is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”
But the Supreme Court vacated his order because the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit — a group of unions and interest groups — lacked the legal standing to bring the lawsuit.
Over the next month, the Supreme Court is set to hold oral arguments for the first time in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, which confers American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ immigration or citizenship status.
The Trump administration also asked the Supreme Court to take up a legal challenge to the Pentagon’s transgender service ban after three judges blocked it from taking effect.
‘A shocking abuse of power’
Despite President Trump’s vow to restore free speech and end censorship, his administration has faced multiple lawsuits challenging his actions on the grounds they violate the First Amendment.
Four law firms have sued the Trump administration after they were targeted for their past work, with each firm arguing the Trump administration unlawfully retaliated against them and violated their First Amendment rights. Judges have temporarily blocked the Trump administration from targeting Susman Godfrey LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, and Perkins Coie LLP.
“The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power,” U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan said regarding the order targeting Susman Godfrey LLP.
At least nine law firms have already acquiesced to the Trump administration’s demands, agreeing to donate a total of $940 million in legal services to promote causes supported by the president.
After the Trump administration attempted to freeze more than $2 billion dollars in federal funding to Harvard University, the country’s oldest school cited the First Amendment in their lawsuit challenging the funding freeze, arguing the “threat of additional funding cuts will chill Harvard’s exercise of its First Amendment rights.” More than two in three Americans support Harvard in their ongoing dispute with the Trump administration, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
“Harvard will be unable to make decisions regarding its faculty hiring, academic programs, student admissions, and other core academic matters without fear that those decisions will run afoul of government censors’ views on acceptable levels of ideological or viewpoint diversity on campus,” Harvard’s lawyers argued.
At least nine current or recent students have challenged the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke their visas or green cards, with several alleging they were targeted for their outspoken support of Palestinians. The Trump administration’s policy of revoking student visas marks the government’s most aggressive approach in more than two decades and the first time students have been targeted over their speech, according to immigration attorney Renata Castro.
“The government is looking at speech — the exercise of free speech — and using that to dig into perceived immigration violations so that they can revoke student visas,” Castro said.
The Trump administration also invoked a rarely used law — 8 U.S.C. § 237 (a)(4)(C)(i) — to justify removing noncitizens such as Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who was a prominent figure during student protests at Columbia, because he and others allegedly harm U.S. foreign policy.
According to an analysis of past immigration cases conducted by political scientists Graeme Blair and David Hausman, the United States had only used that provision as a basis to remove a noncitizen two times in the last 25 years.
“The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent,” Khalil wrote in a public letter last month from an ICE detention facility in Louisiana. “At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all.”
Earlier this month, an immigration judge ruled that Khalil can be deported on the grounds that he threatens U.S. foreign policy. While he remained in ICE detention and prepared an appeal, Khalil’s wife gave birth to their child last week.
(WASHINGTON) — Few of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in his second term carried more fanfare than April 2, which Trump previewed for weeks under the moniker of “Liberation Day.”
At a Rose Garden ceremony replete with a live band and floor-to-ceiling American flags, Trump announced the nation’s largest set of tariffs in nearly a century.
For decades, Trump claimed, other nations had erected trade barriers to shut U.S. companies out of their markets, all the while enriching themselves through access to American shoppers. As a result, factories had shuttered and workers had suffered, Trump added.
“In the face of unrelenting economic warfare, the United States can no longer continue with a policy of unilateral economic surrender,” Trump said.
The tariff announcement, he added, would forever be remembered as “the day that we began to make America wealthy again.”
Instead, the major stock indexes lost about $3.1 trillion in value the next day, suffering their biggest one-day decline since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Days later, Trump suspended a major swathe of the tariffs, sending the market to one of its largest ever single-day increases.
The policy exemplified Trump’s handling of the economy so far in his second term, some experts said. A norm-breaking decision adjusted soon afterward, leaving behind a cloud of uncertainty for consumers and business alike, while risking an economic slowdown.
It remains to be seen whether the potential pain will be outweighed by future gain, experts said, but the policy swerves may undermine those benefits as firms lack the assurance necessary to make long-term investment and hiring decisions.
“This isn’t how we normally do business. We normally like stability and predictability,” Nancy Qian, a professor of economics at Northwestern University, told ABC News. “The cycle of uncertainty is freaking people out.”
‘Challenged the rules of the global trading system’
Trump’s tariff rollout took Wall Street by surprise, but the president had repeatedly promised to make use of the policy tool during his presidential campaign.
“To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariff,'” Trump said weeks before the election during an appearance at the Economic Club of Chicago.
As a candidate, Trump proposed tariffs of between 60% and 100% on Chinese goods, as well as across-the-board tariffs of between 10% and 20% on all imported goods.
Tariffs would hinder foreign producers and boost domestic manufacturers, reinvigorating regions left behind as the sector’s jobs moved overseas, Trump said.
In the first 100 days, Trump has taken the policy even further than he pledged, experts said.
Trump slapped 145% tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as a universal tariff of 10% on nearly all imports.
Trump also imposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, the nation’s neighbors, thought to be among its closest allies. Additional tariffs have hit autos, steel and aluminum. For now, Trump has paused a far-reaching set of so-called “reciprocal tariffs” targeting about 75 countries.
“We face the stark reality of large and persistent U.S. deficits as a result of an unfair trading system,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told an audience at the Institute of International Finance in Washington, D.C. last week. “Intentional policy choices by other countries have hollowed out America’s manufacturing sector and undermined our critical supply chains, putting our national and economic security at risk.”
“President Trump has taken strong action to address these imbalances and the negative impacts they have on Americans,” Bessent added.
Qian, of Northwestern University, said Trump’s policy accurately identifies a challenge facing the U.S. economy, as trade partners erect barriers that make it more difficult for some American companies to sell abroad than it is for their foreign competitors to sell in the U.S.
The on-again, off-again approach to tariffs undermines the policy objective, however, since businesses and investors lack the confidence necessary to build up domestic manufacturing or adjust strategy abroad.
“What manufacturers need is what markets need: stability,” Qian said.
Trump’s tariffs elicited retaliatory measures from some countries, including China. The world’s second-largest economy slapped 125% tariffs on U.S. goods and placed export restrictions on some minerals crucial to domestic electronics and weapons industries.
“Trump’s tariffs challenged the very premise of the rules of the world trading system,” Robert Lawrence, a professor of trade and investment at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, told ABC News. “He has done a lot more than he said he would do.”
Consumer sentiment this month dropped to a level lower than any point during the Great Recession. A slew of Wall Street firms, meanwhile, have raised their odds of a U.S. recession within the next year, forecasting a potential drop-off of consumer spending and business investment.
For its part, the Trump administration has largely refused to rule out the possibility of a recession. Trump has vowed to strike new agreements with many U.S. trade partners, predicting the U.S economy may suffer short-term pain but will ultimately flourish under a more favorable set of international rules.
“We have been ripped off by every country in the world practically. And friend and foe,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on April 23. “We’re not doing that anymore.”
The fight against inflation
During the campaign, inflation consistently ranked as a top issue of concern to voters – and a majority of them favored Trump to best handle the problem, surveys showed.
Trump vowed to address the issue, saying he would lower prices on “day one.”
Prices would come down as a result of increased energy output, which would reduce costs for the production and transport of goods and in turn lower prices, Trump said.
Inflation has eased since Trump took office, meaning prices have risen at a slower pace than they had been at the end of the Biden administration. Consumer prices increased 2.4% in March compared to a year earlier, registering a pace slightly higher than the Fed’s target of 2%.
Overall prices have not fallen, however, experts told ABC News. In fact, some prices have climbed significantly. Egg prices are 60% higher than where they stood a year ago. Bird flu has continued to decimate the egg supply, lifting prices.
To be sure, the price of oil has dropped nearly 20% since Trump took office. However, experts attributed the trend to an anticipated drop in demand as investors worry about a global recession, instead of the spike in output promised by Trump.
The current level of inflation may offer false reassurance, experts added, since tariffs are widely expected to raise prices over the coming months.
“We are not yet applying the tariffs to the maximum degree and that of course reduces the impact seen in the data so far,” Felix Tintelnot, a professor of economics at Duke University, told ABC News.
Earlier this month, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell raised the possibility that Trump’s tariffs may cause what economists call “stagflation,” which is when inflation rises and the economy slows.
If the Fed raises interest rates as a means of protecting against tariff-induced inflation under such a scenario, it risks stifling borrowing and slowing the economy further. On the other hand, if the Fed lowers rates to stimulate the economy in the face of a potential slowdown, it threatens to boost spending and worsen inflation.
A day later, Trump sharply criticized Powell, urging the central bank to lower interest rates and saying Powell’s “termination cannot come soon enough.”
Since Trump took office, he has criticized Powell on multiple occasions, despite a longstanding norm of political independence at the central bank. The Fed is an independent government agency established by Congress.
“It’s a fundamental feature of our economic system that we have an independent Fed,” Lawrence said. “Trump’s threats are deeply concerning.”
In theory, the removal of Powell could undermine the Fed’s capacity to fight inflation, since it may make the central bank more likely to follow Trump’s preference for lower rates, Lawrence said.
Trump appeared to soften previous attacks on the Federal Reserve last week, saying he has “no intention” of firing Powell.
After making those remarks, Trump continued to pressure Powell.
“I would like to see him be a little more active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates,” Trump said. “This is a perfect time to lower interest rates.”
(LONDON) — At least 22 people have been killed and three others were injured in a fire at a restaurant in northern China on Tuesday afternoon, according to Chinese state media.
The blaze broke out at around 12:25 p.m. local time on Tuesday in the city of Liaoning, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency and national broadcaster CCTV.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has urged all-out efforts to treat the injured, assist victims’ families and investigate the cause of the fire, Xinhua and CCTV reported.
Investigators have not yet discovered the cause of the fire but, according to the Associated Press, images from the scene showed huge flames spurting from the windows and doors of the two- or three-story building.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Most Americans take President Donald Trump at his word when he talks about sending American citizens to foreign prisons, serving a third term as president and trying to take control of Greenland and Canada — even as sweeping majorities oppose each of these potential actions.
About 7 in 10 adults in this ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll think Trump is serious when he talks about sending American citizens who are convicted of violent crimes to prisons in other countries (71%) and the United States trying to take control of Greenland (68%).
Fewer, but still a broad 62%, say the same about his serving a third term, even though the Constitution prohibits him from running again. A slim majority, 53%, think Trump is serious when he talks about the United States trying to take control of Canada.
That doesn’t mean most people think these are good ideas: The survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos, finds that Americans by wide margins oppose these proposals. At the high end, a vast 86% oppose the United States trying to take control of Canada. Eighty percent oppose Trump serving a third term, 76% oppose trying to take control of Greenland and 66% oppose sending U.S. citizens to foreign prisons.
For his part, Trump insisted in an interview last week that he wasn’t trolling about trying to take control of Canada and Greenland. He also has said he is not joking about running for a third term; upping the ante, Trump 2028 merchandise appeared for sale on the Trump Organization’s website last Thursday.
Unsurprisingly, these proposals are especially well received by the 39% of Americans who approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president. One, indeed, reaches majority support — sending U.S. citizens who are convicted of violent crimes to foreign prisons, backed by 59% of Trump approvers.
Half of those in his base, 49%, support the United States trying to take control of Greenland. Forty-three percent in this group like the third-term idea; taking control of Canada lags, even among Trump approvers, at 29%.
Kidding me?
Notably, too, Republicans, conservatives and Trump approvers are most likely to say he’s not serious about any of these proposals. On the other side of the political spectrum, Democrats, liberals and Trump disapprovers are far more apt to think he means it.
Just 35% of Republicans think Trump is serious about taking over Canada, compared with 75% of Democrats. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans think he’s serious about a third term, compared with 88% of Democrats. And while more Republicans — just shy of six in 10 — think he’s serious about taking control of Greenland and sending U.S. prisoners abroad, again, these go much higher among Democrats.
On each item:
Third term
Opposition to a third term is substantial even among some of the key support groups that elected Trump last fall, including white men without four-year college degrees (74% of whom oppose another Trump term), white evangelical Protestants (70%), conservatives (67%) and Republicans (60%).
Wishful thinking may be a factor for some: Among Republicans who think Trump is serious about a third term, support for the idea rises to 60%. That compares with 24% among Republicans who don’t think he’s serious. On the other hand, a vast majority of Democrats (88%) think he’s serious about a third term; nearly none of them (3%) support it.
Canada/Greenland
When it comes to Canada and Greenland, perceptions of Trump’s intentions are associated with broader approval of his handling of U.S. relations with other countries — which has a strong partisan flavor. Among people who approve of his handling of international relations — 51% and 30%, respectively — support trying to take control of Greenland and Canada. Among those who disapprove of Trump’s work on international relations, support for these actions drops to 4% in the case of Greenland and 3% for Canada.
Notably, in partisan terms, 45% of Republicans support trying to take control of Greenland. That drops to 27% who support trying to take control of Canada.
Deporting Americans
As reported Friday, 47% of Americans support sending undocumented immigrants who are suspected members of a criminal group to El Salvador prisons without a court hearing. Fifty-seven percent in this group also support shipping out U.S. citizens convicted of violent crimes, while 41% oppose it.
At 32% overall, support for sending convicted Americans to foreign prisons peaks in especially Trump-friendly groups, including 59% of those who approve of his work in office, 58% of people who call themselves very conservative and 57% of Republicans. Support drops to 30% of independents and 12% of Democrats.
Methodology
This ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® April 18-22, 2025, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,464 adults. Partisan divisions are 30%-30%-29%, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
Results have a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points, including the design effect. Error margins are larger for subgroups. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.
The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos. See details on ABC News survey methodology here.
(NEW YORK) — A new survey of consumers on Tuesday is expected to show attitudes worsened in April, casting further gloom over the economy as President Donald Trump’s tariffs set off warnings of price increases and a possible recession.
A reading of sour consumer sentiment would mark the fifth consecutive month of decline, leaving the Conference Board gauge at its lowest level since the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell this month joined a growing set of policymakers and analysts who’ve cautioned about a possible outcome that bodes poorly for consumers: accelerating price increases alongside a sluggish economy.
A slew of companies have already announced plans for price hikes in response to the tariffs, including bargain retailers Temu and Shein.
Meanwhile, recession fears are mounting on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs earlier this month hiked its odds of a recession from 35% to 45%. JPMorgan pegged the probability of a recession this year at 60%.
Trump earlier this month paused so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on most U.S. trade partners, but the White House also raised its cumulative tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%.
An across-the-board 10% tariff applies to nearly all imports, except for semi-conductors, pharmaceuticals and some other items. Those levies come on top of specialized tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos.
Even after the suspension of some tariffs, U.S. consumers face the highest average effective tariff rate since 1909, the Yale Budget Lab found.
In recent days, Trump has voiced mixed messages about the prospect of a de-escalation in the trade war with China.
Trump last week said that tariffs on China would “come down substantially.” Days later, however, Trump urged Boeing to “default China” in response to a Chinese order that airlines reject deliveries of the U.S.-based aerospace company’s planes.
“This is just a small example of what China has done to the USA, for years,” Trump said in a post on social media.
Despite flagging consumer sentiment and ongoing market turmoil, key measures of the economy remain fairly strong.
The unemployment rate stands at a historically low level and job growth remains robust, though it has slowed from previous highs. Meanwhile, inflation cooled in March, putting price increases well below a peak attained in 2022, data showed.
The sturdy data offers little reassurance, some economists previously told ABC News.
Measures of the economy like inflation and hiring are released a month after the data is gathered, and they often reflect slow-moving shifts in business or consumer behavior, the economists said. As a result, such measures can prove outdated, especially when the economy is in flux.
Consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, could weaken if shopper sentiment sours. In theory, a slowdown of spending could hammer some businesses, prompting layoffs that in turn further shrink consumer appetite.
Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago earlier this month, Powell acknowledged the “solid condition” of the U.S. economy, but he cautioned about signals of a potential slowdown. For instance, Powell noted a “sharp decline in sentiment” among businesses and households.
