logo
Hiring in the U.S. slows, yet employers added a solid 139,000 jobs in May

Hiring in the U.S. slows, yet employers added a solid 139,000 jobs in May

CTV News13 hours ago

WASHINGTON — U.S. employers slowed hiring last month, but still added a solid 139,000 jobs amid uncertainty over President Donald Trump's trade wars.
Hiring fell from a revised 147,000 in April, the Department of Labor said Friday. The job gains last month were slightly higher than the 130,000 economists had forecast. But revisions shaved 95,000 jobs from March and April payrolls.
The unemployment rate stayed at a low 4.2 per cent.
Healthcare companies added jobs. But the federal government shed 22,000 jobs, the most since November 2020, as Trump's job cuts and hiring freeze had an impact.
Average hourly wages rose 0.4 per cent from April and 3.9 per cent from a year earlier – a bit higher than forecast.
Trump's aggressive and unpredictable policies – especially his sweeping taxes on imports – have muddied the outlook for the economy and the job market and raised fears that the American economy could be headed toward recession. But so far the damage hasn't shown up clearly in government economic data.
Economists expect Trump's policies to take a toll on America's economy, the world's largest. His massive taxes on imports — tariffs — are expected to raise costs for U.S. companies that buy raw materials, equipment and components from overseas and force them to cut back hiring or even lay off workers. Billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has slashed federal workers and cancelled government contracts. Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration is expected to make it harder for businesses to find enough workers.
For the most part, though, any damage has yet to show up in the government's economic data.
The U.S. economy and job market have proven surprisingly resilient in recent years. When the inflation fighters at the Federal Reserve raised their benchmark interest rate 11 times in 2022 and 2023, the higher borrowing costs were widely expected to tip the United States into a recession.
Still, the job market has clearly decelerated. So far this year, American employers have added an average of less than 124,,000 jobs a month. That is down from 168,000 last year, 216,000 in 2023, 380,000 in 2022.
And former Fed economist Claudia Sahm warns that the job market of 2025 isn't nearly as durable as the two or three years ago when immigrants were pouring into the U.S. job market and employers were posting record job openings.
'Any signs of weakness in the data this week would stoke fears of a recession again,' Sahm, now chief economist at New Century Advisors, wrote in a Substack post this week. 'It's too soon to see the full effects of tariffs, DOGE, or other policies on the labor market; softening now would suggest less resilience to those later effects, raising the odds of a recession.''
Recent economic reports have sent mixed signals.
The Labor Department reported Tuesday that U.S. job openings rose unexpectedly to 7.4 million in April — seemingly a good sign. But the same report showed that layoffs ticked up and the number of Americans quitting their jobs fell, a sign they were less confident they could find something better elsewhere.
Surveys by the Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing managers, found that both American manufacturing and services businesses were contracting last month.
And the number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits rose last week to the highest level in eight months.
Jobless claims — a proxy for layoffs — still remain low by historical standards, suggesting that employers are reluctant to cut staff despite uncertainty over Trump's policies. They likely remember how hard it was to bring people back from the massive but short-lived layoffs of the 2020 COVID-19 recession as the U.S. economy bounced back with unexpected strength.
Still, the job market has clearly decelerated. So far this year, American employers have added an average 144,000 jobs a month. That is down from 168,000 last year, 216,000 in 2023, 380,000 in 2022 and a record 603,000 in 2021 in the rebound from COVID-19 layoffs.
Trump's tariffs — and the erratic way he rolls them out, suspends them and conjures up new ones — have already buffeted the economy. America's gross domestic product — the nation's output of goods and services — fell at a 0.2 per cent annual pace from January through March this year.
A surge of imports shaved 5 percentage points off growth during the first quarter as companies rushed to bring in foreign products ahead of Trump's tariffs. Imports plunged by a record 16 per cent in April as Trump's levies took effect. The drop in foreign goods could mean fewer jobs at the warehouses that store them and the trucking companies that haul them around, wrote Michael Madowitz, an economist at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute.
A resilient job market has been one of the linchpins that's propped up the U.S. economy, and the worry is that all the uncertainty created by Trump's on-and-off tariffs could push businesses to freeze their hiring.
Elsewhere, in Europe at midday, Germany's DAX lost 0.2 per cent, while the CAC 40 in Paris slid 1.6 per cent. Britain's FTSE 100 was flat.
In Asian trading, Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index rose 0.5 per cent to 37,741.61, while the Kospi in South Korea jumped 1.5 per cent to 2,812.05.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng lost 0.2 per cent to 23,859.52 and the Shanghai Composite index edged less than 0.1 per cent higher, to 3,385.36.
Australia's S&P/ASX 200 shed 0.3 per cent to 8,515.70.
India's Sensex gained 0.8 per cent after the Reserve Bank cut its key interest rate by a half a percentage point to 5.50 per cent.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury held steady at 4.39 per cent after dropping sharply on Wednesday as expectations built that the Federal Reserve will need to cut interest rates later this year to prop up an economy potentially weakened by tariffs.
In energy trading early Friday, U.S. benchmark crude oil lost 7 cents to $63.30 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, fell 3 cents to $65.31 per barrel.
The U.S. dollar rose to 144.24 Japanese yen from 143.49 yen. The euro fell to $1.1414 from $1.1448.
Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

11 MNAs were subject to a harassment complaint or report
11 MNAs were subject to a harassment complaint or report

CTV News

time37 minutes ago

  • CTV News

11 MNAs were subject to a harassment complaint or report

Photo of the Red Room of the National Assembly in Quebec City, taken on Sept. 19, 2024. (The Canadian Press/Jacques Boissinot) No fewer than 11 members of the National Assembly (MNAs) out of 125 were the subject of a complaint or report related to harassment in 2024–2025. That's nine more than the previous year, according to the annual report on the prevention and management of incivility, conflict, and psychological or sexual harassment in the workplace at the National Assembly. Tabled Friday, the report states that 104 cases were handled over the past year, compared to 80 the year before. However, only one complaint was deemed admissible. The names of the complainants and the MNAs involved cannot be disclosed, as confidentiality is guaranteed under the harassment policy adopted by the National Assembly in 2023. Five formal complaints Only five formal complaints were ultimately filed—four for psychological harassment and one for a combination of reasons. Of those, one was deemed admissible, one was dismissed, one was withdrawn, and two are currently under review to determine if they are admissible, according to the report. The admissible complaint is currently under investigation. \ In addition to the 11 MNAs, six political staff members, five managers, and five National Assembly employees were also the subject of a complaint or report, for a total of 27 people. That's already more than triple the eight individuals implicated in 2023–2024. The report also reveals that among those who sought 'support, advice, or intervention' related to incivility, conflict, or harassment, 45 were women, and 32 were men, for a total of 77 people. Among those who filed a report or complaint, 12 were women, and seven were men, for a total of 19. Finally, among those named in complaints—meaning those identified by complainants as being responsible 'for a difficult interpersonal situation, harassment, or similar conduct'—14 were men and 13 were women, totalling 27 individuals. The National Assembly's policy includes processes to address 'difficult interpersonal situations,' as well as corrective and disciplinary measures. These measures can include 'limiting or banning access to the workplace and/or services,' verbal or written warnings or reprimands, 'suspension or demotion,' or 'termination of employment,' the report reads. 'The investigator or the commissioner for compliance (…) may recommend certain measures be imposed on the individual concerned,' it adds. 'These may include restorative, corrective, or disciplinary actions. It is then up to the appropriate authority to implement them.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French on June 6, 2025. By Patrice Bergeron

Court rules Trump can exclude journalists from Oval Office
Court rules Trump can exclude journalists from Oval Office

Toronto Sun

time40 minutes ago

  • Toronto Sun

Court rules Trump can exclude journalists from Oval Office

Published Jun 06, 2025 • Last updated 5 minutes ago • 2 minute read Members of the media during a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Jonas Gahr Store, Norway's prime minister, not pictured, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C, on Thursday, April 24, 2025. Photo by Al Drago / Bloomberg A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump can exclude journalists from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other 'restricted' spaces based on their editorial decisions, handing the administration a win in its fight with the Associated Press over access. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account In a 2-1 order on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit halted a lower-court judge's order that had restored the wire service's ability to participate in a rotating pool of reporters who cover the president's daily movements. The news agency sued the Trump administration in February when the White House press office started limiting the access of AP reporters and photographers after the wire service refused to update its style guide to rename the 'Gulf of Mexico' the 'Gulf of America' following a Trump executive order. A Washington federal judge's order forcing the White House to reinstate the AP's access took effect April 14 after the appeals court didn't immediately intervene. The AP next could ask the full bench of active judges of the D.C. Circuit to reconsider the panel's order or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately intervene. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options,' AP spokesperson Patrick Maks said. Trump called the ruling a 'Big WIN over AP today' on his Truth Social platform. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!! Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the majority opinion that the lower court's decision 'impinges on the president's independence and control over his private workspaces.' The panel did leave in place part of the original order that required the AP to still have access to the East Room in the White House, which was usually open to a broader group of reporters. 'Throughout our nation's history, presidents have held crucial meetings and made historic decisions in the Oval Office and on Air Force One,' wrote Rao, joined by Judge Greg Katsas. 'On occasion, they have welcomed the press to observe. But these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora, and the President retains discretion over who has access.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Rao and Katsas were nominated by Trump in his first term. Judge Nina Pillard, appointed under former president Barack Obama, dissented. Historically, the AP has been part of a small, rotating pool of media outlets that cover the president's day-to-day activities as well as events open to larger groups of credentialed media outlets. In an April 8 order, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that the AP was likely to succeed in arguing that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution by singling out one media outlet based on its editorial choices. He said that officials remained free to exclude journalists from one-on-one access to Trump, but that they couldn't kick out the AP if it allowed in its peers. The case is Associated Press v. Budowich, 25-5109, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Washington) Olympics Toronto & GTA NHL Columnists Toronto & GTA

Appeals court hands AP an incremental loss in its attempt to regain its access to Trump events
Appeals court hands AP an incremental loss in its attempt to regain its access to Trump events

Winnipeg Free Press

timean hour ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

Appeals court hands AP an incremental loss in its attempt to regain its access to Trump events

Digging deep into free-speech precedents in recent American history, a federal appeals panel handed The Associated Press an incremental loss on Friday in its continuing battle with the Trump administration over access by its journalists to cover presidential events. By a 2-1 margin, judges on the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington granted Trump a stay in enforcement of a lower-court ruling that the administration had improperly punished the AP for the content of its speech — in this case not renaming the Gulf of Mexico to Trump's liking. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. The decision itself was aimed only at whether to continue the stay. But the majority and dissenting opinions together totaled 55 pages and delved deeply into First Amendment precedents and questions about whether places like the Oval Office and Air Force One were, in effect, private spaces. Trump posted about the decision on the Truth Social platform shortly after the decision: 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' And White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, one of the defendants in the AP's lawsuit, posted on X after the decision came down that it was a 'VICTORY!' and would allow more media to access the president beyond the 'failing legacy media.' She added: 'And by the way, @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' An AP spokesman said that 'we are disappointed in the court's decisions and are reviewing our options.' One possibility is seeking an expedited review of the full case on its merits. President given wide latitude by court majority Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao agreed in Friday's ruling with Trump's assertion that it's up to the president to decide who gets into spaces like the Oval Office — and he can take into account the viewpoint of journalists he allows. That's related to AP's assertion that the ban amounts to a legal principle known as 'viewpoint discrimination.' 'If the president sits down for an interview with (Fox News') Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with (MSNBC's) Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' In deciding on a stay, the judges considered the likelihood of which side would win the case when Trump's full appeal is taken up, probably not for a few months. In that situation, a different panel of appeals court judges will hear it. Katsas and Rao were both appointed to the federal court by Trump in his first term. Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, who dissented on Friday, was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Pillard wrote that there's no principled basis for exempting the Oval Office from a requirement that a president not engage in viewpoint discrimination. There's nothing to stop the majority's reasoning from being applied to the press corps as a whole, she wrote. In that case, it's not hard to see future Republican White Houses limiting the press covering them to the likes of Fox News, and Democrats to MSNBC, she wrote. 'More to the point, if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike,' Pillard wrote. The bumpiness between Trump and the press is longstanding Since the original ruling, the White House has installed a rotation system for access to small events. AP photographers are usually included, but text reporters are allowed in much less frequently. A study earlier this year showed Trump has spoken to the press more often in the first 100 days of his administration than any of his predecessors back to Ronald Reagan. But he's much more likely to speak to a small group of reporters called into the Oval Office than at a formal briefing or press conference — to which AP journalists have been admitted. Through Leavitt, the White House has opened up to many more conservative news outlets with a friendly attitude toward the president. In her dissent, Pillard rejected the assertion by the White House and her colleagues that the president suffers damage if news outlets not aligned with his views are permitted into certain restricted spaces to watch the government function. The majority though, insisted that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has wide latitude in that respect. Wrote Rao: 'The Oval Office is the President's office, over which he has absolute control and discretion to exclude the public or members of the press.' ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store