US employers likely added 115,000 jobs last month as labor market continues to cool
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Hiring decelerated after the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate 11 times in 2022 and 2023. But the economy did not collapse, defying widespread predictions that the higher borrowing costs would cause a recession. Companies kept hiring, just at a more modest pace.
Advertisement
But the job market increasingly looks under strain. A survey released Wednesday by the payroll processor ADP found that private companies cut 33,000 jobs last month. 'Though layoffs continue to be rare, a hesitancy to hire and a reluctance to replace departing workers led to job losses last month,' said ADP chief economist Nela Richardson. (The ADP numbers frequently differ from the Labor Department's official job count.)
Advertisement
Employers are now contending with fallout from Trump's policies, especially his aggressive use of import taxes – tariffs.
Mainstream economists say that tariffs raise prices for businesses and consumers alike and make the economy less efficient by reducing competition. They also invite retaliatory tariffs from other countries, hurting U.S. exporters.
The erratic way that Trump has rolled out his tariffs – announcing and then suspending them, then coming up with new ones – has left businesses bewildered.
Manufacturers responding to a survey released this week by the Institute for Supply Management complained that they and their customers were reluctant to make decisions until they understood where Trump's tariffs would end up. 'That whiplash has to stop and it has to stay stopped,' said Susan Spence, chair of the ISM's manufacturing survey committee.
Trump's assault on the federal bureaucracy could also show up in June's job report. Nancy Vanden Houten, lead U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, expects federal jobs dropped by 20,000 last month, 'reflecting a hiring freeze, voluntary quits and retirements.'' For now, she wrote in a commentary Wednesday, court rulings 'have put massive federal layoffs on hold.''
The president's deportations – and the threat of them – also are likely to start having an impact on the job market by driving immigrants out of the job market. In May, the U.S. labor force – those working and looking for work – fell by 625,000, the biggest drop in a year and a half.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
19 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Restaurants Facing Labor Crunch Ask Trump for Immigration Relief
The US trade group representing restaurants urged President Donald Trump to weigh immigration relief for some workers, saying the industry is struggling to fill job openings. In a July 1 letter, the National Restaurant Association encouraged the president to consider 'deferred action with work authorization on a select basis for long-serving employees who pass background checks, pay taxes and meet rigorous vetting standards,' according to a copy of the document seen by Bloomberg News.
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
After settling with Trump, CBS News staffers fear what comes next
Paramount Global is being hammered for bowing to presidential pressure and settling a lawsuit that it likely could have beaten in court. But this convoluted episode is really more about the plaintiff, President Trump, than about Paramount. 'It is odd to call this a 'settlement' when the result of it is so unsettling,' veteran journalism professor Al Tompkins remarked. Employees at CBS News, which produces '60 Minutes,' feel the same way. 'There is great fear about what comes next,' a CBS News staffer told CNN on condition of anonymity. Even though Trump's '60 Minutes' lawsuit is now history, his bullying tactics will continue to challenge media companies for the foreseeable future. Get Reliable Sources newsletter Sign up here to receive Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter in your inbox. 'Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated,' the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said Wednesday. 'This settlement will only embolden the president to continue his flurry of baseless lawsuits against the press — and against the American people's ability to hear the news free from government intrusion.' For newsrooms and other organizations targeted by Trump, the question becomes, fight or fold? One follow-up question might be: How do audiences react to outlets that fold? When Trump first sued CBS last fall, Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton professor of First Amendment law at Harvard Law School, told CNN the suit was 'ridiculous junk and should be mocked.' Tushnet – whose professional home is under multifaceted assault by the Trump administration – said in a follow-up exchange on Wednesday that Paramount's decision to settle was disappointing. 'The individual incentive in a budding authoritarian state is always to capitulate; that's the point of imposing costs on speech,' she said. 'It's disappointing that so many of our institutions are folding especially when individual citizens can see very clearly the dangers of this path.' Some CBS staffers have expressed similar views. Former CBS News correspondent Armen Keteyian echoed current staffers when he wrote on X, 'This Paramount settlement is the nadir for the network — a breach of the public trust Murrow, Cronkite, Hewitt and thousands of us worked decades to build.' Democratic lawmakers also heaped criticism on Paramount for settling; Sen. Elizabeth Warren said 'this looks like bribery in plain sight,' and Sen. Ron Wyden condemned the 'corporate execs who sold out our democracy,' promising action 'when Democrats retake power.' The bribery allegation stems from the fact that Paramount is trying to get the Trump administration to approve its pending merger with Skydance Media. Paramount insists that the settlement is not related to the FCC merger review process. Trump, however, recently spoke about the '60 Minutes' lawsuit and the merger hold-up as if they were self-evidently connected. When a reporter asked Trump what was holding up the merger on June 18, Trump answered by praising Skydance CEO David Ellison, then immediately repeated his talking points about the lawsuit. 'They're working on a settlement now,' he said. According to the terms of the settlement, which were announced late Tuesday night, Trump will drop the suit in exchange for $16 million toward his presidential library. The financial terms mirror the deal that Disney's ABC struck with Trump last December. 'Trump's presidential library will be a permanent monument to Paramount's surrender,' remarked Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Other press freedom advocates called the CBS parent's decision a 'spineless' and 'shameful' capitulation. Veteran media reporter Paul Farhi said on X that it was 'fascinating how Paramount has borne the bulk of the criticism for agreeing to this payoff. As if Trump is a passive bystander who played no role.' The conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, focused on Trump's conduct in a sharply critical piece on Wednesday night. 'The President is using government to intimidate news outlets that publish stories he doesn't like,' the Journal wrote. 'It's a low move in a free country with a free press.' Trump, who on Wednesday was focused on his sweeping agenda bill, has yet to personally weigh in on the Paramount settlement. But a spokesman for his legal team cast the deal as an example of him holding 'the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.' The supposed 'wrongdoing' in this case, however, was just an edit to a '60 Minutes' interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris last fall. Trump seized on the clunky editing of one particular question and answer, but TV networks edit interviews all the time, and those editorial decisions are protected under the First Amendment. One takeaway for journalists is to be 'transparent about how you do what you do,' Tompkins said. CBS resisted calls to release the full transcript of the Harris interview last fall, but eventually shared the transcript and tapes amid mounting political pressure. The tapes reaffirmed that Trump had a weak legal case. But the lawsuit gave him leverage over Paramount — and potentially Skydance, the CBS-owner-in-waiting, as well. David Ellison, son of the billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, was seen schmoozing near Trump at two different UFC matches earlier this year, stoking speculation that he was leaning on personal relationships to help get the merger approved. On Wednesday, Paramount pushed back on a New York Post report about a 'side deal' between Ellison and Trump involving TV airtime for public service announcements promoting Trump-aligned causes. 'Paramount has no knowledge of any promises or commitments made to President Trump other than those set forth in the settlement proposed by the mediator and accepted by the parties,' the company said. A spokesperson for Ellison had no comment on the matter, and there is no evidence of any such deal. But the report only intensified questions inside CBS News about how Ellison might approach owning the news division in the future. While journalists at '60 Minutes' and across CBS News are concerned about the situation, they ultimately want to move on and continue doing their jobs. 'This settlement is not a reflection on the essential and bold work of 60 Minutes of CBS,' Tompkins told CNN. 'It is a reflection of a vindictive president and corporate heads who did not value one of the fundamental principles that underpin the ownership of a news organization.' 'That principle,' he said, 'is stated as the second tenant of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics: Act Independently.'
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Trump's children will not be affected by his birthright citizenship executive order
Claim: U.S. President Donald Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship for children born to immigrants in the country illegally and people on temporary status would have resulted in four of his five children being deported, as they were born to immigrant mothers. Rating: What's True: Four of Trump's five children were born to immigrant mothers. Trump has proposed a plan ending birthright citizenship specifically for children of immigrants in the country illegally and for people with temporary visa status residing in the U.S. What's False: However, Trump's children were not born to mothers with questionable immigration statuses, and their father is an American citizen. Thus, they are not affected by the proposal. In late June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to restrict the power of federal courts to limit President Donald Trump's executive orders, a decision centered around the his order on birthright citizenship. This was seen as a victory for the Trump administration in its attempts to implement such a policy. Trump has long said he wants to end birthright citizenship and in January 2025 he issued an executive order to that effect — which faced immediate legal challenges. As we have reported previously, birthright citizenship stipulates that all people born within the boundaries of the United States are considered U.S. citizens from birth, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of their parents. After the Supreme Court ruling, many people online pointed out the irony of Trump limiting birthright citizenship, given that four of his five children were born to immigrant mothers. Trump's first and third wives — Ivana Trump and Melania Trump — were not citizens at the time they gave birth to Trump's children Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Barron Trump. (Reddit user u/QuaziBonzai) While it is true that the mothers of four of Trump's children were not citizens at the time of those children's births, Trump himself was an American citizen. This alone is enough to ensure that his children have American citizenship. Ivana Trump had a strong legal standing to obtain permanent residency, and Melania Trump — by her own account — already had a green card. As such, we rate this claim as mostly false. However, as we noted before, determining the legal status of an immigrant prior to achieving naturalization or permanent residency is a complex issue, as is determining the legal status of Trump's wives at the time they gave birth. At the beginning of those marriages, Trump was a real estate developer and not as entrenched in politics, so his wives' immigration statuses did not attract attention. Trump's January 2025 executive order specifically calls for ending birthright citizenship in two cases, for mothers who are in the country illegally or have temporary status in the country. It states birthright citizenship does not apply: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth. Ivana Trump, a native Czechoslovakian, moved to New York around 1976 and married Donald Trump in April 1977. Their first son, Donald Trump Jr., was born in December 1977. The Trumps likely settled any lingering immigration matters during the time between their marriage his birth. However, even if Ivana Trump had not yet become a permanent resident in the U.S., her children would still be entitled to citizenship under Trump's plan because they were born in the country to an American citizen father. Similarly, Slovenia-native Melania Knauss Trump moved to New York City in 1996, although her immigration status came under scrutiny. She had a career as a model and, according to her immigration attorney, entered the country on a short-term visit visa, followed by an H-1B work visa which allowed her to work as a model. The lawyer noted that Melania "self-sponsored herself for a green card as a model of 'extraordinary ability,' and on March 19, 2001, she was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident." She married Trump in January 2005. Their son, Barron Trump, was born in March 2006, more than a year after the wedding and within the U.S. to an American citizen father. Per our previous coverage, Trump's proposition was widely criticized as incongruent with the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment granting birthright citizenship to all people born inside the U.S. While it's true that the executive order could be considered hypocritical given that Trump's children were born to immigrant mothers, because Trump was married to those mothers at the time of the births, his wives had stronger legal status. One already had a green card by her own account and the other could have obtained a green card through her spouse. We have noted before that both women were already of above-average means and married to a business mogul, likely aiding their ability to gain legal status. The executive order also states the policy would "apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order." Trump's children were all born decades before the order was issued. Even if the mothers' immigration statuses were called into question and even if Trump was not married to them at the time of the children's births, all of Trump's children have an American father. Thus, Trump's executive order against birthright citizenship would not affect the statuses of his own children. Snopes' archives contributed to this report. Garcia, Arturo. "FACT CHECK: Did Melania Trump's Parents Arrive in the U.S. Through 'Chain Migration'?" Snopes, 8 Feb. 2018, Accessed 2 July 2025. LaCapria, Kim. "Would Donald Trump Deport His Children?" Snopes, 20 Aug. 2015, Accessed 2 July 2025. Neuman, Scott. "What Is a Universal Injunction and How Did the Supreme Court Limit Its Use?" NPR, 27 Jun. 2025. NPR, Accessed 2 July 2025. "Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship." The White House, 21 Jan. 2025, Accessed 2 July 2025. "What's next for Birthright Citizenship after the Supreme Court's Ruling." AP News, 27 Jun. 2025, Accessed 2 July 2025.
