Trump claims credit for falling egg prices but no relief for shoppers yet
Wholesale egg prices are starting to drift lower amid signs that the bird flu is easing, but don't expect to find lower prices at grocery stores yet.
Why it matters: Even as President Trump is claiming victory, his administration is acknowledging that the upcoming Easter holiday could cause prices to jump again.
The big picture: The highly pathogenic avian influenza has led to tens of millions of chickens being culled, triggering shortages and price spikes.
Many stores are limiting how many eggs shoppers can buy and some restaurants have added temporary egg surcharges.
Trump on Wednesday took credit for falling prices, saying "we did a lot of things that got the cost of eggs down, very substantially."
But while wholesale prices have started to tick down, grocery shoppers are still paying more than ever for a dozen eggs.
When are egg prices coming down?
Wholesale egg prices fell by $1.20 to $6.85 per dozen last week, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's March 7 report.
The department noted that flu outbreaks had slowed over the past two weeks and been "localized, which is providing producers in unaffected regions with an opportunity to make progress in reducing the egg deficit problem the market has been experiencing."
The latest: The price of Midwest large eggs was $5.23 per dozen on Thursday, down 39% from its peak two weeks earlier, according to Karyn Rispoli, managing editor for eggs in the Americas for price-reporting service Expana.
Yes, but: The price consumers are actually paying still rose 10% from January to February, according to the latest Consumer Price Index released Wednesday.
Egg prices were up 59% from February 2024 to February 2025.
The USDA said in a recent report that egg prices are expected to rise by 41.1% this year.
Between the lines: Consumers often don't see wholesale price drops reflected at the grocery store — at least not immediately.
"There's usually (at least) a two-to-three-week lag between wholesale and retail pricing, and since the market only started correcting last Monday, shoppers haven't seen the impact of these lower prices at the grocery store just yet," Rispoli said Thursday.
"The main driver behind this drop is weakened demand, largely due to widespread purchasing restrictions and elevated shelf prices," she said. "Right now, consumers are still experiencing the peak of the market in terms of what they're paying at checkout."
Easter could cause egg prices to soar
State of play: Easter is traditionally one of the highest demand periods for eggs with eggs playing a big part of Easter traditions and the Jewish holiday of Passover.
This year, Easter is April 20, the latest date since 2019. Passover starts April 12.
"We're going into Easter season. This is always the highest price for eggs," Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins said Tuesday. "We expect it to perhaps inch back up."
What they're saying: Kevin Bergquist, Wells Fargo Agri-Food Institute sector manager, said in a new report that egg prices "will likely remain highly variable for the near future, but at a higher-than-usual level."
"In the short term, we will likely see a continuation of high egg prices," Bergquist said. "The Easter season is just around the corner, and the demand for eggs is not abating."
The bottom line: If egg prices are still high for Easter, expect families to turn to alternatives like painting and hiding potatoes, an idea that sprouted in 2023 because of high prices.
More from Axios:
Why food prices are still high, five years after COVID
Government suspends free COVID test distribution program
Walmart clashes with China after asking suppliers to absorb tariffs
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Defying debt warnings, Republicans push forward on Trump tax agenda
By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are determined to enact his tax-cut agenda in a political push that has largely abandoned longtime party claims of fiscal discipline, by simply denying warnings that the measure will balloon the federal debt. The drive has drawn the ire of Elon Musk, a once-close Trump ally and the biggest donor to Republicans in the 2024 election, who gave a boost to a handful of party deficit hawks opposed to the bill by publicly denigrating it as a "disgusting abomination," opening a public feud with Trump. But top congressional Republicans remain determined to squeeze Trump's campaign promises through their narrow majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives by July 4, while shrugging off warnings from the official Congressional Budget Office and a host of outside economists and budget experts. "All the talk about how this bill is going to generate an increase in our deficit is absolutely wrong," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo told reporters after a meeting with Trump last week. Outside Washington, financial markets have raised red flags about the nation's rising debt, most notably when Moody's cut its pristine "Aaa" U.S. credit rating. The bill also aims to raise the government's self-imposed debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion, a step Congress must take by summer or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. "Debt and deficits don't seem to matter for the current Republican leadership, including the president of the United States," said Bill Hoagland, a former Senate Republican aide who worked on fiscal bills including the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. The few remaining Senate Republican fiscal hawks could be enough to block the bill's passage in a chamber the party controls 53-47. But some have appeared to be warming to the legislation, saying the spending cuts they seek may need to wait for future bills. "We need a couple bites of the apple here," said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a prominent fiscal hardliner. Republicans who pledged fiscal responsibility in the 1990s secured a few years of budget surpluses under Democratic former President Bill Clinton. Deficits returned after Republican President George W. Bush's tax cuts and the debt has pushed higher since under Democratic and Republican administrations. "Thirty years have shown that it's a lot easier to talk about these things when you're out of power than to actually do something about them when you're in," said Jonathan Burks, who was a top aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan when Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted into law in 2017. "Both parties have really pushed us in the wrong direction on the debt problem," he said. Burks and Hoagland are now on the staff of the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank. DEBT SET TO DOUBLE Crapo's denial of the cost of the Trump bill came hours after CBO reported that the legislation the House passed by a single vote last month would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Interest costs would bring the full price tag to $3 trillion, it said. The cost will rise even higher - reaching $5 trillion over a decade - if Senate Republicans can persuade Trump to make the bill's temporary business tax breaks permanent, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The CRFB projects that if Senate Republicans get their way, Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act could drive the federal debt to $46.9 trillion in 2029, the end of Trump's term. That is more than double the $20.2 trillion debt level of Trump's first year at the White House in 2017. Majorities of Americans of both parties -- 72% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats -- said they were concerned about the growing government debt in a Reuters/Ipsos poll last month. Analysts say voters worry less about debt than about retaining benefits such as Medicaid healthcare coverage for working Americans, who helped elect Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress. "Their concern is inflation," Hoagland said. "Their concern is affordability of healthcare." The two problems are linked: As investors worry about the nation's growing debt burden, they demand higher returns on government bonds, which likely means households will pay more for their home mortgages, auto loans and credit card balances. Republican denial of the deficit forecasts rests largely on two arguments about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that independent analysts say are misleading. One insists that CBO projections are not to be trusted because researchers predicted in 2018 that the TCJA would lose $1.8 trillion in revenue by 2024, while actual revenue for that year came in $1.5 trillion higher. "CBO scores, when we're dealing with taxes, have lost credibility," Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin told reporters last week. But independent analysts say the unexpected revenue gains resulted from a post-COVID inflation surge that pushed households into higher tax brackets and other factors unrelated to the tax legislation. Top Republicans also claim that extending the 2017 tax cuts and adding new breaks included in the House bill will stimulate economic growth, raising tax revenues and paying for the bill. Despite similar arguments in 2017, CBO estimates the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the federal deficit by just under $1.9 trillion over a decade, even when including positive economic effects. Economists say the impact of the current bill will be more muted, because most of the tax provisions extend current tax rates rather lowering rates. "We find the package as it currently exists does boost the economy, but relatively modestly ... it does not pay for itself," said William McBride, chief economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The legislation has also raised concerns among budget experts about a potential debt spiral. Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the danger of fiscal crisis has been heightened by a potential rise in global interest rates. "This greatly increases the cost of having a high debt and of running high deficits and would accelerate the point at which we really got into trouble," said Obstfeld, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Axios
15 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: The scariest AI reality
The wildest, scariest, indisputable truth about AI's large language models is that the companies building them don't know exactly why or how they work. Sit with that for a moment. The most powerful companies, racing to build the most powerful superhuman intelligence capabilities — ones they readily admit occasionally go rogue to make things up, or even threaten their users — don't know why their machines do what they do. Why it matters: With the companies pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into willing superhuman intelligence into a quick existence, and Washington doing nothing to slow or police them, it seems worth dissecting this Great Unknown. None of the AI companies dispute this. They marvel at the mystery — and muse about it publicly. They're working feverishly to better understand it. They argue you don't need to fully understand a technology to tame or trust it. Two years ago, Axios managing editor for tech Scott Rosenberg wrote a story, "AI's scariest mystery," saying it's common knowledge among AI developers that they can't always explain or predict their systems' behavior. And that's more true than ever. Yet there's no sign that the government or companies or general public will demand any deeper understanding — or scrutiny — of building a technology with capabilities beyond human understanding. They're convinced the race to beat China to the most advanced LLMs warrants the risk of the Great Unknown. The House, despite knowing so little about AI, tucked language into President Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" that would prohibit states and localities from any AI regulations for 10 years. The Senate is considering limitations on the provision. Neither the AI companies nor Congress understands the power of AI a year from now, much less a decade from now. The big picture: Our purpose with this column isn't to be alarmist or " doomers." It's to clinically explain why the inner workings of superhuman intelligence models are a black box, even to the technology's creators. We'll also show, in their own words, how CEOs and founders of the largest AI companies all agree it's a black box. Let's start with a basic overview of how LLMs work, to better explain the Great Unknown: LLMs — including Open AI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini — aren't traditional software systems following clear, human-written instructions, like Microsoft Word. In the case of Word, it does precisely what it's engineered to do. Instead, LLMs are massive neural networks — like a brain — that ingest massive amounts of information (much of the internet) to learn to generate answers. The engineers know what they're setting in motion, and what data sources they draw on. But the LLM's size — the sheer inhuman number of variables in each choice of "best next word" it makes — means even the experts can't explain exactly why it chooses to say anything in particular. We asked ChatGPT to explain this (and a human at OpenAI confirmed its accuracy): "We can observe what an LLM outputs, but the process by which it decides on a response is largely opaque. As OpenAI's researchers bluntly put it, 'we have not yet developed human-understandable explanations for why the model generates particular outputs.'" "In fact," ChatGPT continued, "OpenAI admitted that when they tweaked their model architecture in GPT-4, 'more research is needed' to understand why certain versions started hallucinating more than earlier versions — a surprising, unintended behavior even its creators couldn't fully diagnose." Anthropic — which just released Claude 4, the latest model of its LLM, with great fanfare — admitted it was unsure why Claude, when given access to fictional emails during safety testing, threatened to blackmail an engineer over a supposed extramarital affair. This was part of responsible safety testing — but Anthropic can't fully explain the irresponsible action. Again, sit with that: The company doesn't know why its machine went rogue and malicious. And, in truth, the creators don't really know how smart or independent the LLMs could grow. Anthropic even said Claude 4 is powerful enough to pose a greater risk of being used to develop nuclear or chemical weapons. OpenAI's Sam Altman and others toss around the tame word of " interpretability" to describe the challenge. "We certainly have not solved interpretability," Altman told a summit in Geneva last year. What Altman and others mean is they can't interpret the why: Why are LLMs doing what they're doing? Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, in an essay in April called "The Urgency of Interpretability," warned: "People outside the field are often surprised and alarmed to learn that we do not understand how our own AI creations work. They are right to be concerned: this lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology." Amodei called this a serious risk to humanity — yet his company keeps boasting of more powerful models nearing superhuman capabilities. Anthropic has been studying the interpretability issue for years, and Amodei has been vocal about warning it's important to solve. In a statement for this story, Anthropic said: "Understanding how AI works is an urgent issue to solve. It's core to deploying safe AI models and unlocking [AI's] full potential in accelerating scientific discovery and technological development. We have a dedicated research team focused on solving this issue, and they've made significant strides in moving the industry's understanding of the inner workings of AI forward. It's crucial we understand how AI works before it radically transforms our global economy and everyday lives." (Read a paper Anthropic published last year, "Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model.") Elon Musk has warned for years that AI presents a civilizational risk. In other words, he literally thinks it could destroy humanity, and has said as much. Yet Musk is pouring billions into his own LLM called Grok. "I think AI is a significant existential threat," Musk said in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, last fall. There's a 10%-20% chance "that it goes bad." Reality check: Apple published a paper last week, "The Illusion of Thinking," concluding that even the most advanced AI reasoning models don't really "think," and can fail when stress-tested. The study found that state-of-the-art models (OpenAI's o3-min, DeepSeek R1 and Anthropic's Claude-3.7-Sonnet) still fail to develop generalizable problem-solving capabilities, with accuracy ultimately collapsing to zero "beyond certain complexities." But a new report by AI researchers, including former OpenAI employees, called " AI 2027," explains how the Great Unknown could, in theory, turn catastrophic in less than two years. The report is long and often too technical for casual readers to fully grasp. It's wholly speculative, though built on current data about how fast the models are improving. It's being widely read inside the AI companies. It captures the belief — or fear — that LLMs could one day think for themselves and start to act on their own. Our purpose isn't to alarm or sound doomy. Rather, you should know what the people building these models talk about incessantly. You can dismiss it as hype or hysteria. But researchers at all these companies worry LLMs, because we don't fully understand them, could outsmart their human creators and go rogue. In the AI 2027 report, the authors warn that competition with China will push LLMs potentially beyond human control, because no one will want to slow progress even if they see signs of acute danger. The safe-landing theory: Google's Sundar Pichai — and really all of the big AI company CEOs — argue that humans will learn to better understand how these machines work and find clever, if yet unknown ways, to control them and " improve lives." The companies all have big research and safety teams, and a huge incentive to tame the technologies if they want to ever realize their full value.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Aluminium producers in the US win from Trump's tariffs
By Pratima Desai LONDON (Reuters) -Century Aluminum, the largest primary aluminium producer in the U.S., and top recycler Matalco will be among the big winners from President Donald Trump's higher tariffs on imports of the metal as domestic prices surge, four industry sources said. However, some sector players are worried that Trump's move from June 4 to hike the tariffs to 50%, from 25%, could push prices so high that demand starts to weaken. Higher revenues for U.S. aluminium producers and recyclers are expected mainly due to the way the market prices the metal key for construction, power and packaging industries. The companies typically charge customers the London Metal Exchange aluminium price plus a physical market premium to cover other costs including freight and taxes. The so-called Midwest premium hit a record 62.5 U.S. cents a lb, or $1,377 a metric ton, on Friday. Since Trump was elected for his second term in November, it has surged nearly 190%. Consultancy Harbor Aluminum said the premium would have to rise to 70 cents a lb, or $1,543 a ton, to fully reflect the 50% tariff. Century, in which London-listed miner Glencore is the top shareholder with a stake of more than 40%, declined to comment beyond a statement it issued last week, in which it welcomed the 50% tariff. Century produced 690,000 metric tons of aluminium last year. Miner Rio Tinto, which owns a 50% stake in Matalco, declined to comment, speaking on behalf of the U.S. company, which produced 528,000 tons of recycled or secondary aluminium last year. U.S. imports of scrap aluminium remain free of tariffs, but aluminium recycling needs primary metal to maintain properties of alloys used to make industrial goods. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Alcoa, one of the world's largest aluminium producers, said its U.S. smelters would also benefit from the tariffs, and that its active production capacity in the United States totalled 291,000 tons. Alcoa's global aluminium output was 2.215 million tons last year. Constellium, which has a capacity to recycle 360,000 tons of aluminium annually in the United States, said it supported the original 25% tariff because it helped address unfair trading practices by non-market economies. "However, we are concerned that increasing the tariff beyond this level could have unintended consequences - potentially disrupting the aluminum supply chain and impacting demand," it added. Higher aluminium costs are likely to be passed on to consumers, which analysts expect will eventually hit demand. SCRAMBLE FOR SCRAP With its local primary aluminium industry in decline for years, the U.S. relies on imports of large amounts of unwrought aluminium and alloys - more than 3.9 million tons last year, according to U.S. government data. The U.S. produced more than four million tons of aluminium last year, most of it recycled material, according U.S. Geological Survey. Industry sources expect U.S. scrap aluminium imports to climb as recycling companies take advantage of high premiums to ramp up production. Already U.S. scrap aluminium imports have started to rise. Data from information provider Trade Data Monitor shows U.S. scrap aluminium imports rose more than 30% to 201,968 tons in the first quarter of this year from the same period in 2024. Traders said the high Midwest premium would allow recyclers to bid more for scrap than buyers outside the United States, as they can sell aluminium locally at a higher price. LME aluminium is trading around $2,500 a ton, while the duty-paid premium in Europe has dropped more than 50% to $170 a ton since January on expectations some global producers will divert primary metal to Europe to avoid U.S. tariffs. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
