US stock futures lower amid Treasury yields, Trump tax bill
US stock futures lower amid Treasury yields, Trump tax bill
Show Caption
Hide Caption
GOP could raise student loan bills to pay for Trump's tax cuts
Millions of student loan borrowers could be stuck paying more as GOP lawmakers considering ending repayment plans to fund Trump's tax cuts.
Straight Arrow News
Stock futures point to a lower open as investors kept an eye on Treasury yields as President Donald Trump's tax bill continues to travel through Congress.
After the House narrowly passed by one vote its version of the One, Big Beautiful Bill, it's now the Senate's turn to examine the proposed legislation.
Investors worry that the more than 1,000-page bill will lead to a sharply wider deficit. To pay for the spending, the government would have to issue more debt, which will dampen Treasury prices and push up rates. Debt prices move in the opposite direction of yields.
The 30-year Treasury bond yield touched a high of 5.161%, its highest level since October 2023. The rate on the 10-year Treasury note at one point breached 4.6%. Both yields came off their highs but remain elevated, keeping pressure on stocks.
At 5:50 a.m. ET, futures tied to the blue-chip Dow slipped -0.13%, while broad S&P 500 futures fell-0.07% and tech-laden Nasdaq futures dropped -0.10%.
Corporate news
Deckers Outdoor issued a lower-than-expected outlook for the current quarter.
Ross Stores withdrew its full-year outlook, saying it expects pressure on its profitability if tariffs remain at elevated levels.
Intuit cited a more stable outlook and raised its full-year earnings forecast above Street estimates.
Autodesk issued a higher-than-expected second-quarter outlook.
Cryptocurrency
Major U.S. banks including companies co-owned by JPMorgan Chase,Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and other large commercial banks, are exploring a joint stablecoin to compete with the crypto industry, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing sources.
Medora Lee is a money, markets, and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@usatoday.com and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Some Dems Warn Colleagues: Crypto Bill Could Inject Some 19th Century Chaos Into US Economy
The Senate is poised to pass the GENIUS Act in the coming weeks. The bill will bestow upon the crypto industry a long-sought blessing: a key form of the digital currency, stablecoins, will now be subject to a bespoke (and notably light-touch) regulatory system created by Congress. With it will come the U.S. government's stamp of approval. After years spent being dismissed as a haven for money launderers and speculators, the bill is in part a marker that the crypto industry has arrived in Washington. And yet, there are a few problems. The bill could open multiple pathways toward contagion that could spread throughout the financial system, Hill staffers and experts familiar with the legislation warn TPM. Some argue that it would create a financial system that operates with many of the same risks the U.S. left behind in the 20th century, including banks and private companies issuing their own, alternate currencies; others regard the bill as priming the country for a series of runs on digital currencies. Among legislators, the fighting over the proper level alarm about these possible eventualities has been most acute among Senate Democrats. While nearly the entire Republican Senate conference supports the bill, a few Senate Dems have broken off to lead negotiations over the legislation and persuade others in their party to support it. Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) was the first Democrat to co-sponsor the bill; others, including Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), have taken the lead in pushing it. Stablecoins, the form of crypto that the GENIUS Act addresses, are cryptocurrencies that are pegged to the value of a state-issued currency, like the dollar. Crypto advocates tout stablecoins as solving a few problems: consumers can use their stability to buy other forms of cryptocurrency; they can also, advocates say, double as a means to quickly transfer payments between people. In that sense, they're kind of like Venmo, only based in the blockchain and, often, possessing perplexing foreign ties. (One of the biggest stablecoins, Tether, is run from El Salvador.) It's that quality that causes anxiety among many experts in banking and financial regulation, including Democratic staffers on the Senate Banking Committee. Stablecoins, under the GENIUS Act, will receive the benefits that the U.S. legal system gives to deposits, but without most of the qualities that make that system secure. 'The GENIUS Act folds stablecoins directly into the traditional financial system, while applying weaker safeguards than banks or investment companies must adhere to,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said in a speech last month. Under the bill, there's no deposit insurance to guarantee stablecoin holdings. But more troubling than that, for critics, is the limited regulation of how stablecoin issuers can use the money they receive and how, in the event of a crisis, customers would be made whole. New kinds of businesses will be able to issue stablecoins under the legislation, including banks (typically via subsidiaries) and tech megafirms like Meta, X, Amazon, and others. The risk, experts told TPM, partly stems from how stablecoin issuers would meet a run on their coins. Stablecoins are typically backed up by bank deposits or investments in treasuries; customers pulling their stablecoin deposits at once could resemble an old-school bank run, depleting these assets. 'It would be a financial crisis grease fire,' one Senate staffer told TPM about the possibility. Under this scenario, even people who don't hold crypto investments could be affected. A bank that holds a large amount of stablecoin deposits, when faced with mass withdrawals to shore up one or multiple failing stablecoins, could see its balance sheet falter. The same thing could happen if treasury securities or other backing assets are sold en masse, causing prices to plummet. Mark Hays, who covers cryptocurrency issues for American for Financial Reform, told TPM last month that banks themselves might be exposed in another way. Bank subsidiaries that issue stablecoins could experience a run, meaning that the parent bank would have to bail it out. These are all means by which risks inherent to the form of cryptocurrency might spread. 'The more banks get exposed to that, the more the fallout could be significant,' Hays said. Many critics of the GENIUS Act say that features of the bill will revive the problems that America's financial system experienced in the 19th century. There's an irony here. Some of Trump II's staunchest backers, particularly those on the new tech right, frame their support for the president as part of an effort to return to the 1890s. Trump himself has supposedly become enamored with President William McKinley; some supporters speak about going further than undoing the social changes of the 1960s or the New Deal, and instead call to undo the changes brought by the Progressive Era. That includes the federal reserve, income tax, and many early banking regulations. Of course, in the case of cryptocurrency, this effort to turn back the clock skips right past a key point of the push for legislation. The GENIUS Act, some observers say, could prompt mass adoption of the coins. That, in the event of a crisis, could prompt the Federal Reserve to bail out issuers — a decidedly post-1890s backstop. But one feature of the bill would turn time back: it would allow banks and some businesses to issue their own stablecoins. This hasn't escaped the attention of analysts at JP Morgan; strategists at the bank reportedly noted in a letter to clients that such a system would recall that of 'the 19th century, when various types of banknotes were valued differently.' For big tech firms, stablecoins present an opportunity: users could pay for purchases entirely within an app. Companies with operations around the world could unify transactions under one, in-house coin; they could also charge small transaction fees on each purchase that would open up a new way of making money. Hilary Allen, an American University professor who studies financial regulation, told TPM that the problem, again, would be that these are not actual bank deposits: they are lightly regulated cryptocurrencies. 'People will quite happily leave all their money in an app offered by a big tech platform,' she said. The scale of the risk to the financial system all depends on how many people adopt the use of stablecoins. Relatively few people use cryptocurrencies, though industry boosters argue that passing the GENIUS Act and market structure legislation later this summer will spur more people to do so. Big tech firms issuing their own coins as a means to buy products sold by the firms would also prompt more people to join. But even that, Allen said, could raise troubling questions about how it affects the nature of these businesses. 'Do they become too-big-to-fail financial institutions with all the power and the implicit bailouts that come with that?' 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
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Internal Docs Raise Questions About Trump IRS Pick Billy Long's ‘No-Show Jobs' And ‘Strange' Schedule Inside A Powerful Agency
It's not quite clear what is happening with former Missouri Congressman Billy Long and his associates at the federal Office of Personnel Management, where he has been a senior advisor to the director since March. And Long's internal OPM calendar, which was obtained and reviewed by TPM, doesn't exactly shed light on the situation. In fact, multiple former OPM employees who discussed the matter with us said Long's schedule — which shows him averaging less than three items per week over the past three months — only adds to the questions about his workload and whether he is complying with recordkeeping requirements. In a statement to TPM, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who is the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, suggested the calendar data from OPM indicates Long and some of his associates were taking advantage of the agency, which plays a crucial part in the federal bureaucracy. 'If you ask me, it sure looks like Congressman Long got himself and some pals no-show jobs with maxed-out federal salaries,' Wyden said, adding, 'Somebody who abuses taxpayer dollars like that shouldn't come within 100 miles of the IRS.' Long and an OPM spokesperson did not respond to detailed questions from TPM about his schedule and role at the agency. OPM, which essentially serves as the chief human resources office and personnel policy manager for the federal government, is not the most high profile agency, but it is an influential one. During the second Trump administration, it has played a particularly central role, working closely with the Department of Government Efficiency — the initiative spearheaded by Elon Musk — to slash the federal workforce. Even as his current job is raising eyebrows, Long is on his way to taking a more powerful post. On Tuesday, members of the Senate Finance Committee voted 14-13 along party lines to advance Long's nomination to become commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. That sets the stage for a Senate floor vote that could end in Long's confirmation. President Trump announced his intention to have Long lead the tax agency on Dec. 4, 2024. Long, who represented Missouri's Seventh Congressional District from 2011 until 2023, previously pushed to abolish the IRS and earned a reputation as a staunch Trump loyalist. As TPM has previously reported, Long was one of the members of Congress who promoted bogus conspiracy theories in texts with Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, during the president's fight to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. In the announcement about the nomination, which came before Trump took office for his second term, the president boasted of Long's past work as an auctioneer and described him as the 'consummate 'people person.'' Since then, Long has been installed at OPM as his nomination has worked its way through the Senate. In that time, various controversies have erupted around his nomination to lead the IRS. These include questions about Long's tax credentials, which seem to come from a Florida business that offers a three-day seminar, and about his past private-sector work promoting a non-existent tax credit as well as another credit that has been described as 'riddled with fraud.' And, in recent weeks, Long's stint at the OPM has added to those concerns. On May 23, shortly after Long appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, members provided him with additional written questions for the record. Wyden, who cited the internal OPM calendars, took the opportunity to ask Long about the work that he and three associates — Ben Elleson, Karen Meads, and Mark Czuchry — are doing at OPM. According to Wyden, Long's in-person answer about the role that he and his associates play at the agency left much to be desired. 'If Congressman Long and his associates had real jobs doing serious work at OPM they'd have proven it to us when we gave him the opportunity,' Wyden said. 'The best he could do when staff questioned him on this was to read aloud a printout of a random press release and garble a few brief answers about proofreading and retirement issues, and it wasn't believable at all.' In his written questions to Long, Wyden claimed that both Long and Elleson, who was previously deputy chief of staff and legislative director in Long's House office, were both earning $195,200, which is the maximum salary for a federal worker in Washington D.C. Wyden also referenced the calendars as he asked Long, 'How many hours per week do you work?' Long's response did not directly answer that question or several others that were asked by the senator about his specific accomplishments and schedule. Instead, Long offered a terse three sentence reply. 'As a Senior Advisor at OPM, I work with the Acting Administrator in modernizing and digitizing the federal government retirement system,' Long wrote. 'This includes identifying improvements and discussing options to better serve federal employees. I work at OPM in the Washington, D.C. headquarters.' TPM obtained and reviewed internal OPM calendars that were provided by a source involved in Long's confirmation. They show Long had a total of 34 items on his schedule during March, April, and May, a period that included thirteen weeks and 64 working days. The calendars did not detail the appointments on Long's schedule, but none appeared to last a full day. And many of the items on Long's calendar may not have been work at all. Eleven of them were identified as 'tentative,' rather than scheduled commitments, and one of the blocked off periods was explicitly listed as 'free.' Long's associates at the agency had similarly open schedules. The calendars show Elleson, whose title at OPM is reportedly 'senior adviser,' had 65 items scheduled, an average of slightly more than one thing per day for the three-month period. Of these, eight were listed as 'tentative' and three were identified as 'free.' According to Wyden's questions for the record, Meads, who spent a dozen years serving as the scheduler in Long's district office, is earning a salary of $175,000. Her OPM calendar shows just six items for all of March and April. Everything on Meads' schedule during that two month period was identified as either 'tentative' or 'free.' Meads' calendar for the month of May was completely empty. In his written responses to Wyden, Long defended the work of both of his associates while providing few details. 'Mr. Elleson is a trusted and respected employee with years of experience. He was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures,' Long wrote, later adding, 'Ms. Meads is a seasoned employee with extensive government experience. She was brought on following normal hiring practices and procedures.' Elleson and Meads did not respond to requests for comment from TPM. A former senior OPM staffer who left the agency prior to Trump's second term and requested anonymity to avoid retaliation said the lack of activity on these calendars is unusual. 'I can't imagine a day that I had less than six or seven meetings when I was at OPM — or more — that were back to back. That's especially true for senior directors,' the former senior staffer said. The ex-staffer went on to point out that DOGE, the so-called government efficiency agency, has extensively focused on OPM and placed personnel inside the agency. One of the items highlighted by DOGE as part of efforts to eliminate 'waste, fraud, and abuse' is a decommissioned mine in Pennsylvania that OPM has used to warehouse retirement records. Because many of the retirement functions that Long has suggested he is focused on are based there rather than in D.C., the former staffer suggested his work should include an abundance of online meetings that would crop up on the calendar. 'As DOGE mocked or made clear, retirement services is based in a mine in Pennsylvania, so your work cannot be done in person,' the former staffer said. Obviously, it is possible that Long and his associates are simply not inputting all of their activity on the internal calendar system. However, the former senior staffer suggested this would raise other issues since federal recordkeeping requirements call for detailed tracking. Long's third associate at OPM, Mark Czuchry, brings up a whole host of other issues unrelated to workload and bookkeeping. Czuchry is a Minnesota lawyer and partner at the financial firm Lifetime Advisors, which employed Long after he left Congress in 2023. Czuchry, a member of his family, and other employees at Lifetime Advisors were among a group of donors who provided Long with an influx of campaign donations after Trump announced his nomination. Long used that cash to reimburse himself for a personal loan he had made to the failed Senate bid that led him to abandon his House seat. And, last month, the news outlet The Lever surfaced a recording where the CEO of a financial services company touted his relationship with Long and asserted that, if he was confirmed, Long planned to bring Czuchry on board at the IRS. In his written questions to Long, Wyden said Czuchry is also earning a $195,200 salary at OPM. Wyden also noted the fact 'Czuchry was one of many individuals who recently contributed to your Senate campaign fund.' Wyden went on to ask about Czuchry's role at OPM and whether Long wanted to have the attorney 'join' him at the IRS. 'Mr. Czuchry is not employed at OPM and does not plan on being employed by the IRS,' Long wrote in his response, which was submitted on Friday. However, OPM records obtained by the Project on Government Oversight last month described Czuchry as a 'senior advisor' at OPM. While Czuchry seems to have worked at the agency in the past, an OPM spokesperson told Bloomberg for a May 15 story that he had left. Czuchry also had an internal OPM calendar. Like the others belonging to Long and his associates, it was conspicuously empty. There were 27 items on Cuzchry's calendar in March and April of this year. Of those, ten were listed as 'tentative' and one was identified as 'free.' In May, Czuchry's calendar displayed six items, all of which were listed as either 'tentative' or 'free.' A second former OPM employee who left the agency earlier this year and declined to be named for fear of retaliation described Long and his associates' calendars as 'pristine' and said the absence of appointments on them was 'incredibly unusual and disturbing.' The employee had firsthand knowledge of the calendars and said they had raised concerns among others at the agency. 'To be a senior adviser and not be having meetings with various teams — particularly for these sweeping policy initiatives — is strange. They're trying to reimagine the federal workforce,' the employee said. 'They would be meeting with multiple teams. You would be seeing advising or fact finding scheduled throughout the day.' The employee also stressed that, due to its role providing oversight to other agencies, OPM is especially concerned with maintaining standards and procedures. Because of this, the person said, it was particularly problematic to 'have a pocket of four people who aren't contributing to personnel policy in any way but are taking salary.' They also echoed the concerns about recordkeeping and suggested the situation with Long and his associates is even more troubling given the Trump administration's supposed commitment to government efficiency. 'What are these people adding? Why are the American taxpayers paying for him and these three people? What are the taxpayers getting for this time that they have purchased? It doesn't look like anything and that's incredibly disturbing,' the former employee said, adding, 'Talk about 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' What is going on at the government personnel agency? … We always talk about the tone being set, so if this is happening at the personnel agency, what else is happening?'
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
A cohort of Senate Republicans already troubled by the House GOP's version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" found a common ally in Elon Musk, who again trashed the legislation on Tuesday. Musk, who just exited his tenure as Trump's efficiency bloodhound leading the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) last week, doubled down on his position that the House's reconciliation package was an "abomination." White House Stands By Tax Bill After Musk Calls It A 'Disgusting Abomination' "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk said on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination." "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," he continued. "You know it." Senate Republicans have already vowed to make changes to the colossal bill, which includes the president's desires on tax, energy, immigration, defense and national debt policies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., lauded Musk for his work with DOGE, but noted that the Senate GOP and the tech-billionaire had "a difference of opinion." Read On The Fox News App Elon Musk Criticism Of Trump Tax Bill Frustrates Some Republicans: 'No Place In Congress' He didn't believe that Musk's comments would derail the bill entirely in the upper chamber, either. Thune has pledged to get the bill to the president's desk by Independence Day. "The legislation, as passed by the House, can be approved here in the Senate, can be strengthened in the Senate, in a number of ways," Thune said. "We intend to do that, but when it's all said and done, we'll send it back to the House and hope that they can pass it and put it on the president's desk." Still, fractures have emerged among lawmakers, with some viewing the bill through the same lens as Musk. "Well, he has some of the same skepticism I have, you know, towards the big, beautiful bill," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Trump Criticizes Rand Paul Over Tax Bill Opposition: 'Votes No On Everything' Paul has vowed not to support the bill as is without a serious overhaul to the legislation that would nix a $5 trillion increase to the nation's debt ceiling — a stance that has gotten him into hot water with Trump. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has similarly pledged not to support the bill unless much steeper spending cuts are achieved. The House's product includes $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson would like to see a return to pre-pandemic spending levels, which would effectively amount to a roughly $6 trillion cut in spending. "I share his concerns," Johnson said of Musk. "I also appreciate what he and President Trump did with his DOGE effort." And Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a fiscal hawk whose views are closely aligned with Johnson's, argued in response to the tech billionaire's social media post that "federal spending has become excessive." "The resulting inflation harms Americans and weaponizes government," Lee said on X. "The Senate can make this bill better. It must now do so." Other Senate Republicans, including those with outstanding concerns with the current legislation, were much less receptive to Musk's tirade against the bill. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has remained steadfast in his position that he would not support the current Medicaid proposals in the House's bill, especially if they cut benefits to his constituents and people across the country. When asked his reaction to Musk's rant, he shrugged, "Well, he's entitled to his opinion, it's a free country." Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.V., who has expressed reservations on the contents of the megabill, was more blunt. "My reaction to that is just simply this — and y'all may like this or not like this — but you know, Donald Trump is our president, not Elon Musk," he article source: GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
