Trusted Retail Chain Is Closing 500 Stores by August
Walgreens is retracting its retail footprint, with the trusted retail chain closing 500 stores across the U.S. this fiscal year alone.
According to Yahoo Finance, the 500 stores are among 1,200 locations that Walgreens plans to shutter overall. According to Newsweek, Walgreens still runs about 8,500 stores throughout the United States.
The 500 closures started in September 2024 and are expected to take place by August 2025, which is the end of the company's fiscal year, according to the Coloradoan. Walgreens closed 11 locations in Colorado, the Coloradoan reported, including three stores in April.
Already, reports of Walgreens' closures are coming in throughout various states, which many occurring in March, April, and May. The chain has not provided a master list of closings.
Walgreens is closing seven Connecticut locations in April and May. Nine locations closed in Massachusetts, mostly in March and April.
A Kansas Walgreens closed in March.
In December 2024, Walgreens closed two locations in Milwaukee, WI.
According to a May 1, 2025, report by ABC 7, long lines were forming at the last remaining Walgreens in San Francisco's Mission District after the chain closed two dozen stores in the city, although some of those closures dated to 2000. Multiple stores are closing in California, including in Fresno, The Fresno Bee reported.
Walgreens' website posted a list of suggestions for customers who are dealing with their local store's closing.
When Walgreens first announced the closures in October 2024, a number of trends were blamed. According to The Associated Press, they include "shrinking prescription reimbursement, persistent theft, rising costs," and competition from online retailers.
According to AP, the 500 closures span the company's fiscal year, which started in September 2024. Although Walgreens didn't provide a list, the company said it was closing "poor-performing stores where the property is owned by the company, or where leases are expiring," AP noted.
CVS Health and Rite-Aid, which are two Walgreens' competitors, have been closing locations, too, according to AP.Sign in to access your portfolio
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON (AP) — When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create accounts for all babies born in the U.S. over the next four years with $1,000 that would accrue interest until the children reach adulthood. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Rep. Blake Moore, a Republican from Utah, spearheaded the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he said wealth inequality has soured many people on capitalism. 'Trump Accounts,' as the proposal calls them, could be the antidote, he said. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them," Moore wrote. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill calls for the money to be handled by investment firms. The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. 'When little baby is born they're gonna start off with a thousand dollars and if we do a good job of investing their money — we're going to go with one of the investing guidelines, who the hell knows if they're any good — but they have a chance to be very rich,' Trump said at a rally last week in Pittsburgh. 'It's going to be very cute to see.' Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. He envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Moriah Balingit, The Associated Press
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON (AP) — When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create accounts for all babies born in the U.S. over the next four years with $1,000 that would accrue interest until the children reach adulthood. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Rep. Blake Moore, a Republican from Utah, spearheaded the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he said wealth inequality has soured many people on capitalism. 'Trump Accounts,' as the proposal calls them, could be the antidote, he said. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them," Moore wrote. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill calls for the money to be handled by investment firms. The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. 'When little baby is born they're gonna start off with a thousand dollars and if we do a good job of investing their money — we're going to go with one of the investing guidelines, who the hell knows if they're any good — but they have a chance to be very rich,' Trump said at a rally last week in Pittsburgh. 'It's going to be very cute to see.' Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. He envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Musk fact-checks his own AI for claiming he bragged about stealing Stephen Miller's wife
'Bro code' has a whole new meaning. Tech magnate Elon Musk was forced to refute a naughty claim by his prized artificial intelligence chatbot, which alleged that he bragged about stealing top White House adviser Stephen Miller's wife. Grok, a mainstay on Musk's X platform, had told a user that a viral screenshot of the Tesla and SpaceX CEO bragging about his ties to Katie Miller referred to a post that 'likely existed and was deleted.' Advertisement 'No, it's fake [for f—'s sake] I never posted this,' Musk wrote on X late Sunday with a face palm emoji, publicly calling out Grok. The bogus screenshot had gone viral earlier in the day, alluding to the fact that Katie Miller had joined Musk as a spokesperson after he left government service May 30. 3 Elon Musk was forced to fact check his own AI chatbot over the salacious claim. AP Advertisement In response to Miller saying, 'We will take back America,' Musk was reported to have sniped: 'Just like I took your wife.' Stephen and Katie Miller have been married since 2020 and have three children. Katie Miller, a former spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security and Vice President Mike Pence, had been a rep and adviser for Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) during his 130-day stint as a special government employee. Advertisement Last week, Musk erupted at President Trump and his administration over the deficit impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Stephen Miller has repeatedly defended. The 53-year-old Musk reportedly unfollowed Miller on X during his outburst, but had refollowed him as of Monday morning. 3 Stephen Miller's wife is seemingly caught in the crosshairs of Elon Musk's beef with President Trump. AP Musk has championed Grok as an alternative to ChatGPT, which was developed by OpenAI, a tech giant that Musk helped found in 2015. Advertisement Three years later, Musk left the company's board of directors, publicly pointing to 'a potential future conflict [of interest]' given Tesla's AI developments. Musk has long been publicly bitter toward OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, particularly after the company made massive breakthroughs in generative AI with its large language models. 3 Elon Musk's feud with President Trump had sent shockwaves inside the Beltway last week. REUTERS Over the weekend, Musk resumed making friendly posts about the president on X, endorsing his hardline stance against anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. Trump has largely refrained from escalating against Musk — at least in the public eye — since their stunning falling-out last week.
