Jobs data, trade and fiscal policies in focus with S&P 500 on cusp of record
By Lewis Krauskopf
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Investors who have been captivated by recent geopolitical events are poised to shift their attention in the coming week to key economic data and looming policy deadlines to see if the torrid rally in U.S. stocks extends higher.
The tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 tallied a record high this week while the benchmark S&P 500 moved to the cusp of an all-time peak. Easing tensions in the Middle East paved the way for the latest bump higher in stocks, as a conflict between Israel and Iran appeared to calm after missile strikes between the two nations had set the world on edge.
Focus will shift to Washington in the coming week. President Donald Trump wants his fellow Republicans to pass a sweeping tax-cut and spending bill by July 4, while developments between the United States and trading partners are poised to capture headlines with Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs set to take effect the following week.
Investors also get a crucial view into the U.S. economy with the monthly employment report due on Thursday. U.S. stock markets are closed on Friday, July 4, for the U.S. Independence Day holiday.
Citigroup's U.S. economic surprise index has been weakening, indicating that data has been missing Wall Street expectations, said Matthew Miskin, co-chief investment strategist at Manulife John Hancock Investments.
"After some softer May data, the June data is really going to be under a microscope," Miskin said. "If the data deteriorates more, it may get the market's attention."
U.S. employment is expected to have climbed by 129,000 jobs in June, according to a Reuters poll -- a modest slowdown from May's 139,000 increase.
Data on Thursday showed the number of Americans filing new applications for jobless benefits fell in the prior week, but the unemployment rate could rise in June as more laid off people struggle to find work.
"The labor market right now is front and center over the next few weeks," said Brent Schutte, chief investment officer at Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management.
Employment data could factor into expectations for when the Federal Reserve will next cut interest rates, with investors also watching to see if inflation is calming enough to allow for lower rates. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has been wary that higher tariffs could begin raising inflation, a view he told the U.S. Congress this week, although some Fed officials have talked about a stronger case for cuts and Fed fund futures trading in the past week indicated ramped-up bets for more easing this year.
The level of tariffs will come into sharper view with a July 9 deadline for higher levies on a broad set of countries. Stocks have rebounded sharply since plunging in April following Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcement, as the president pulled back on some of the most severe tariffs and fears about a recession eased, but markets could remain sensitive to any developments.
Investors also will focus on the U.S. fiscal bill in Congress for indication of the extent of stimulus in the legislation and how much it could widen federal deficits.
With a roller-coaster first half nearly complete, the S&P 500 is up more than 4% so far in 2025. Recent history has shown July has been a strong month for stocks, with the S&P 500 increasing 2.9% in July on average over the past 15 years, Wedbush analysts noted in a report this week.
Also around the corner is the kick-off of second-quarter U.S. corporate earnings season in the coming weeks, with concerns over how much tariffs may be biting into company profits or affecting consumer spending. S&P 500 earnings are expected to have climbed 5.7% in the second quarter from a year earlier, according to LSEG IBES data.
"We've been in a geopolitically focused market over the past several weeks," said Josh Jamner, senior investment strategy analyst at ClearBridge Investments. "I think the dawn of earnings season ... will refocus the market back towards fundamentals."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
9 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at END PREP The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though none sent their children to public schools. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also expressed surprise that the school system was 'not respecting religious liberty,' especially because of the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics. Pressed repeatedly about why the school system couldn't reinstitute an opt-out policy, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said, 'It tried that. It failed. It was not able to accommodate the number of opt-outs at issue.' Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, Schoenfeld said. Justices referred to several of the books, but none as extensively as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in which a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who are on opposite sides of most culture-war clashes, offered competing interpretations. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor said, noting there's not even any kissing involved. Alito described the book as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he said. In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote. In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. 'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court OKs fee that subsidizes phone, internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn had ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address 'major questions,' in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators. President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. ___
San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act's preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans. The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare. The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved. President Donald Trump's administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor's law. The Justice Department said board members don't need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary. Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women. The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can't be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case. The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that ruling would still allow full-coverage requirements for some services, including mammography and cervical cancer screening. ___
