America is one of the world's biggest food importers. It relies on EU nations, Mexico, Canada, China, India, and many other countries for products like seafood, fruit, olive oil, sugar, and cheese. President Donald Trump is threatening tariffs on many of these countries, which could make food more expensive for Americans at grocery stores. We explore where America gets its food and what's at stake if trade relations are jeopardized.

• Tiffany Bly has a tight budget and relies on food banks to feed her family.
• In 2023, 47 million Americans lived in food-insecure households, a 38% increase from 2021.
• Bly's household income is slightly above the federal poverty line, disqualifying them from most aid.

Tiffany Bly has no money left after she pays her monthly bills. To feed her family of four, she relies on her local food bank.

"It has saved us," said Bly, 57, who lives in North Texas with her 22-year-old daughter Caeleigh Hallman, Hallman's husband, and their baby. "Everything that we're surviving on we've gotten from our food pantry."

Bly and her family are some of the millions of Americans who rely on assistance programs to eat. About one in seven US households — or 47 million people — lived in a food insecure household in 2023, per the latest data available from the national nonprofit Feeding America. The national food insecurity rate that year was up 38% over 2021.

Bly's household cobbles together meals through regular food pantry hauls and limited spending at the grocery store, usually less than $150 a month. Boxes from the food pantry are often filled with the basics — like ground beef, bread, potatoes, canned vegetables, spaghetti sauce, and pasta — but sometimes, Bly gets lucky: the pantry has eggs or fresh fruit.

She said there are a lot of families like hers who are struggling to put food on the table. She told Business Insider about her finances, grocery shopping strategies, and what she picks up at the food pantry.

"We're a normal family," Bly said. "We work and we still need help, and it's OK to need the help."

Bly relies on pantries for most of the food her family is 'surviving on'

Bly earns just under $2,000 monthly at her administrative job, which is supplemented by the few thousand dollars Hallman's husband makes each month. Because childcare is expensive and difficult to access near their rural Texas town, Hallman stays with the baby.

Along with monthly trips to the food pantry, Bly and Hallman also visit a smaller pantry at a church each week to fill up on essentials.

At the grocery store, Bly said she sticks to items that are less accessible at pantries, like toilet paper or laundry detergent. Her last trip to Walmart — which included deodorant ($8.97), butter ($7.64), and bacon ($7.94) — added up to $56.28. She shops a couple times a month, but limits her spending.

She added that her household doesn't waste anything. When the food pantry has produce, they use every item to make meals, snacks, smoothies, and baked goods. Often, Bly and Hallman show off their pantry hauls, cook together, and encourage followers to "use their resources" on their shared TikTok channel, she said.

Bly also said her family gets creative to save money: they make their own hair conditioner with coconut oil and use essential oils and vinegar to make cleaning supplies.

"We don't have other financial assistance," she said. "We are doing it on our own."

While Bly's family is low income, they do not receive any forms of government aid because their household earnings are above the federal poverty line — which is $32,150 for a family of four. When she applied for SNAP benefits, Bly said her income was $11 too high to qualify. Bly's family's household income is also slightly too high for WIC, which is financial aid for women, infants, and children.

Food banks and pantries are often the only source of food assistance for low-income Americans who are ineligible for SNAP and other safety net programs, like Bly and Hallman. Feeding America reported that one in six US households received charitable food assistance in 2022, the most recently available data.

Bly said there are many different reasons that a family may need help affording groceries, either temporarily or long-term.

"It's OK to be scared about how your bills are gonna get paid," she said. "And it's OK to use the resources that are available to you so you don't have to go hungry."

Are you open to sharing how your grocery budget with us? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• Gainesville and Durham piloted guaranteed basic income for formerly incarcerated people.
• Many formerly incarcerated people in the US do not have access to traditional social safety nets.
• Participants reported better financial resilience but struggled with housing costs after the program.

Six hundred dollars a month was the boost some formerly incarcerated people needed to rent apartments, cover unexpected expenses, and land steady jobs.

Gainesville, Florida, and Durham, North Carolina, recently tried using cash aid to help alleviate financial instability among formerly incarcerated residents, a demographic that is especially vulnerable to homelessness and food insecurity. Guaranteed basic income — which offers participants no-strings-attached payments — has been piloted across America as an approach to poverty reduction.

The cities aren't the only places that have tried similar cash aid programs: the Center for Employment Opportunities gave cash to over 10,000 formerly incarcerated people across the US in 2020.

In Gainesville, 115 participants received an initial $1,000 payment followed by $600 a month for 11 months, ending in spring 2023. In Durham, 109 participants received $600 a month for one year, ending in spring 2023.

Both participant cohorts were compared to control groups of formerly incarcerated people who did not receive GBI, and the pilot results were published by the Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania in February. The results are based on interviews with participants and surveys that were completed before, during, and six months after the program.

While some Gainesville and Durham participants struggled to maintain financial gains after their cash payments ended, most said the money allowed them to afford essentials and alleviated some stress, which helped their mental health. Rent, groceries, and household bills were commonly reported uses of the GBI payments.

"Guaranteed income really is just a tool to ensure, in the Gainesville and Durham cases especially, that no one is too poor to be free," said Sukhi Samra, executive director of the advocacy group Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, which partnered on the pilots. "We're not trapping people in a culture of poverty and in a culture of scarcity and lack."

Cash helped formerly incarcerated people afford essentials

Formerly incarcerated people face higher rates of financial insecurity and unemployment compared to the rest of the population. This can make it difficult to afford basic needs. Per data published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2022, the most recent year available, about a third of formerly incarcerated individuals aren't hired in the four years after their release. Black people were also admitted to jail at more than four times the rate of white people as of 2022.

Most states give incarcerated people a small amount of money — between $10 and $200 — when they leave a prison or jail. However, some states restrict access to safety nets for formally incarcerated people. For example, Florida prohibits people who have been convicted of drug trafficking from accessing safety nets like SNAP and TANF.

Brianna Seid, a lawyer for the justice program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told Business Insider that $10 or $200 might help buy a train or bus ticket home, but it isn't near enough to pay court fees, lease an apartment, afford childcare, or establish reliable transportation — especially if people face limited access to safety nets.

"There's this idea that people get arrested or convicted, go to prison, and leave, and that's just the end of the punishment," Seid said. "I think for a lot of people, they don't understand the ways that we excessively and perpetually punish people for having a criminal conviction, and it really touches every area of your life."

Cash is a potential way to ease work and income barriers, she said.

In the Gainesville pilot, participants reported that guaranteed basic income helped them secure housing, have more hope, increase financial resiliency, and put food on the table. The share of participants who said they were "worried about having enough food" decreased from 59% at the start of the program to 49% six months after payments ended. The number of participants employed full-time also increased from 12% to 17% during that time.

Durham participants reported using GBI money to buy hygiene products, afford food, and build savings. The percentage of participants "worried about having enough food" also decreased from 59% at the start of the program to 44% six months after payments ended. Over that same period, the share of participants who felt they had enough money to support themselves rose from 3.7% to 18.35%.

Samra added that many participants in both Gainesville and Durham said that having extra cash helped them better adhere to probation requirements and prevent further arrests.

Many participants struggled with housing costs after the programs ended

Six months into receiving cash, 3% of Gainesville participants said they were experiencing homelessness. But six months after GBI ended, that figure had risen to 12%. In Durham, results showed that 29% of participants were severely housing-cost-burdened six months into the program, a number that rose to 41% six months after payments ended.

At the same time, Samra said that guaranteed basic income isn't meant to be a cure-all poverty solution. GBI pilots are temporary, and she said the financial challenges some participants faced after the program show that more support is needed.

For Samra, there's one major takeaway from the results: financial support is a step toward keeping people out of the prison system.

"These results show that if you provide a little bit of cash support, you're allowing folks the space and the ability to not only re-enter and breathe," she said. "And prevent the sort of harm and activities that they wouldn't be doing if it weren't for a simple lack of cash."

• Egg prices are soaring, straining many food banks' ability to meet demand for low-income families.
• The recent spread of avian influenza has diminished egg availability.
• Many food banks have pivoted to cheaper proteins, like canned meat and peanut butter.

Krystal Kabela has received frequent phone calls at the eastern Iowa food bank she manages: people are searching for eggs.

"People know that the eggs come on Friday, so that makes Friday afternoons and Saturdays really busy days," she told Business Insider.

The price of eggs is soaring, frustrating shoppers and stretching budgets for small businesses that rely on them. As eggs see their biggest monthly price spike in a decade, some safety net organizations — like CommUnity Crisis Services, where Kabela works — are struggling to keep their shelves stocked. This comes as millions of low-income Americans rely on food banks as a free supplement to traditional grocery stores.

Kabela said her organization serves about 1,000 households per week in-house, and at least another 100 households through its mobile pantry service. The number of egg donations has dwindled in the past couple of years, she said. Now, the 450 dozen eggs it can stock each week barely last a few days.

"Everybody wants them," she said.

Some food banks have stopped buying eggs as prices spike

Eggs are one of the most accessible and affordable forms of protein, especially for low-income Americans. However, the recent spread of avian influenza has diminished egg availability. A high demand for eggs, especially for seasonal baking, also means prices are unlikely to go down anytime soon.

US egg prices rose by 15.2% from December to January, the biggest month-over-month increase since June 2015, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average price of a dozen Grade A large eggs hit an all-time high last month, at $4.95 a dozen. And, egg prices contributed to overall inflation rising to 3% year over year in January — contributing to steeper grocery bills for shoppers.

This is having a major impact on food banks, which about 50 million Americans relied on in 2023 for at least some of their meals, per the nonprofit food bank network Feeding America.

The food banks that BI spoke with said that they stock their shelves with a combination of food they purchase via grants or financial donations and items directly given by community members or suppliers. Eggs are rarely donated and almost always need to be purchased, the organizations said.

City Harvest, which provides food to New York City soup kitchens and food banks, told BI that it recently paused all egg purchasing due to rising costs. Director of Procurement and Inventory Controls Max Hoffman said that City Harvest has pivoted to stocking less costly protein sources like peanut butter and ground beef.

Similarly, Kate MacDonald — the director of communications at Rhode Island Community Food Bank — told BI in a statement that her organization hasn't been able to purchase eggs since December. The food bank is a central distribution hub for a network of 147 smaller pantries and meal sites across the state, she said.

In June 2024, MacDonald said a case of several dozen eggs was $16.50 for the food bank to purchase. In October, it was up to $48. And, in December, she said the cost per case had spiked to $61.50.

"We will likely not have eggs on the shopping list for our agencies until the cost goes down some," MacDonald said.

Although Kabela said her Iowa food bank still stocks eggs every week, it is becoming more difficult to meet demand. She said the farm that the bank relied on to provide eggs has largely stopped donating because the bird flu is shrinking its supply.

Kabela added that a lack of eggs is especially challenging for food bank patrons because they are so versatile. Protein is vital for muscle and brain function. While a single egg has six grams of protein — compared to about 30 grams for four ounces of chicken — they are among the only protein sources that double as a healthy meat alternative and baking ingredient.

"We always have shelf-stable protein, whether it be canned tuna or chicken or salmon or peanut butter," she said. "But I don't know that anything really takes the place of eggs."

Food insecurity is on the rise

The egg affordability problem sweeping America underscores an ongoing issue for food banks: grocery costs are rising, and national hunger levels aren't getting better.

About one in seven US households — or 47 million people — lived in a food insecure household in 2023, the latest data available, Feeding America found. The national food insecurity rate that year was up 38% over 2021.

Food banks also play a specific role in combating food insecurity. Social safety programs like SNAP are typically restricted to households that live at or below the federal poverty line, which is $32,150 annually for a family of four. Local food banks and pantries are often the only source of food assistance for low-income Americans who don't qualify for SNAP.

Not every food bank is experiencing the same impact of rising food prices. The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts told BI that it has not yet experienced an interruption in stock or a price increase from its egg supplier.

Still, Kabela said she continues to see a significant — and growing — reliance on food banks in her community. Rising costs, like the price of eggs, make it harder for organizations like hers to meet demand.

"There are so many people in need," she said.

Are you open to sharing how your grocery budget with us? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• Hundreds of FAA probationary employees were fired over the weekend, their union said.
• The firings, which include air traffic control staff, come as the agency faces staffing shortages.
• The FAA is the latest government agency to be impacted by Trump's aims to cut federal spending.

Hundreds of Federal Aviation Administration employees have been fired, according to their union, just weeks after a deadly Washington, DC, plane crash.

The firings were carried out "without cause" and were not based on employees' "performance or conduct," the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists said in a February 15 statement.

Some employees received a termination email on Friday, and the union said it is possible that others received termination emails over the weekend or could be "literally barred from entering FAA buildings" when they return to work on Tuesday.

The union said the emails were sent from an 'exec order' Microsoft email address, not a .gov address.

The White House, FAA, and the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists did not respond to requests for comment on Monday.

The White House's move to reduce the FAA workforce comes after a military helicopter collided with an American Airlines passenger plane outside Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in January, killing 67 people. The tragedy underscored staffing challenges within the FAA and potential safety shortcomings in federal aviation policy.

Following the crash, Trump promised to make "rapid" improvements to US air travel, while also blaming the the crash on the FAA's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on February 16 that "President Trump has ordered that I deliver a new, world-class air traffic control system that will be the envy of the world."

Aviation industry leaders have warned that long-standing understaffing within the FAA could put future airline operations at risk.

"This draconian action will increase the workload and place new responsibilities on a workforce that is already stretched thin," said David Spero, National President of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, in the February 15 statement.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association also told Business Insider that it is "analyzing the effect of the reported federal employee terminations on aviation safety."

The FAA workforce includes thousands of government employees at all levels of aviation, including systems specialists, safety inspectors, mechanics, air traffic control, and administrative staff. Probationary employees, who the union said have been most impacted by the firings, are typically new hires.

The FAA is one of many government agencies to face staffing cuts from Trump and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

Thousands of employees at the Agency for International Development, the Office of Personnel Management, the Forest Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and more have received similar termination notices in recent weeks as the administration vows to slash federal spending.

Are you an FAA employee or an affected federal worker? If so, reach out to this reporter on a non-work device at [email protected] or on the secure messaging app Signal at alliekelly.10

• Trump's new tariff plans are in officially in action.
• They're more expansive than his first term, sweeping across industries and countries.
• Trump said that Americans might feel "some pain" with tariffs, but it's worth it to achieve US policy goals.

President Donald Trump's trade war has begun — and it's more expansive than his first time in the White House.

What makes Trump's current strategy unique is its scale. His first-term trade policies were more targeted than the sweeping tariffs across countries and industries this time around. Retaliation from China has been swift, with other countries promising action if Trump follows through on additional threats.

The trade tit-for-tat could spike costs for many goods people use every day, like medicine, cooking utensils, staple grocery items, automobiles, and appliances.

Business Insider examined data from the Tax Foundation and Peterson Institute for International Economics to compare in the table below trade actions taken by Trump during his first term with those in his second and corresponding retaliation.

While tariffs are common practice across countries and administrations to regulate the flow of goods and prop up local industries, Trump has a different approach. He's used them as a bargaining tool in both his first and second terms in an effort to achieve concessions from other countries toward his policy goals, such as strengthening the US-Mexico border.

"One goal isn't actually to go through with the tariffs," Mark Jones, a professor of political science at Rice University, said, "It's to change the behavior of another country."

Still, Trump has already followed through on two of his threats: sweeping tariffs on all Chinese imports and on steel and aluminum from any country. As a result, Jones said that Americans could begin seeing higher prices in as soon as six months because US businesses will have to pay a higher price, or will be unable to recreate foreign goods. For this reason, Jones said, the president's goals may be in conflict.

"On one hand, he wants to impose tariffs to protect American industry and to fight back against what he would consider to be unfair trade practices," Jones said. "On the other hand, he wants to bring down inflation in the United States. Those two policy agendas are, in some ways, mutually exclusive."

Trump's tariff playbook 2.0

Trump's first-term tariffs initially affected about $380 billion worth of imports, which is about 1.8% of America's GDP, Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, said.

In comparison, Trump's threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and the imposed ones on China, would impact $1.4 trillion of imports, or 4.7% of GDP.

"That's before we consider the promised reciprocal tariffs," York said, referring to statements from Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and others that they would retaliate in the event of tariffs against them. Those reciprocal tariffs would hit US exports, potentially undermining the very industries the US tariffs are trying to support.

"In the face of those higher prices, businesses are likely to do some combination of passing higher costs along to final consumers and cutting back on employment and investment," she added.

Jones said that the result of quick inflation and price increases could be that Americans "feel poor. Their salaries will not be going up, but they will be paying more for the same goods that they normally buy, or they won't be able to buy them."

To be sure, most presidential administrations — regardless of party — have imposed tariffs. Beyond being a source of revenue for the government, tariffs encourage foreign producers to keep their prices low enough to compete with domestically made products.

The White House released a fact sheet on February 11 saying that Trump's tariffs will strengthen America's manufacturing and called tariffs "an effective tool for achieving economic and strategic objectives." Trump acknowledged earlier in February that Americans would feel "some pain" as a result of his tariffs, but added that the pain will be worth it if the US achieves its policy goals.

Additionally, tariffs on China from Trump's first term and kept in place by former President Joe Biden yielded some positive results, Ryan Hass, the director of the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings, wrote in a February blog post. He said that the tariffs allowed the administration to "push back against Chinese transgressions" and strengthen American competitiveness.

Economists and policy researchers BI spoke with agree that Trump's second-term tariffs are a step up from his previous playbook. Many of the president's first-term levies were smaller, touched fewer industries, or were never enforced.

Throughout 2018 and 2019, the president placed 10% and 25% tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese products — including tech equipment and plastics. The tariff strategy resulted in a multibillion-dollar tax increase on goods and a reduction in trade between the two countries, per The Tax Foundation. China responded in 2019 by placing 10% retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion worth of US imports.

Trump also imposed and repealed metals tariffs on Canada throughout his first term, but did not apply sweeping tariffs. His last attempt to impose a tariff on aluminum was scrapped in the summer of 2020 to avoid retaliation from Canada. The White House also threatened a 5% tariff on $346.5 billion of imports from Mexico in 2019 as a means to curb immigration, but the tariffs were soon "indefinitely suspended" and never enforced.

With such broad tariffs on the table in Trump's second term, Jones said the strategy may not be worth the potential positives. He added that the president's first-term tariffs did not have tangible benefits for Americans' wallets, and the scaled-up 2025 plan could come at an undue cost for domestic businesses, consumers, and economic growth.

"There is a place for tariffs in the global economy," Jones said. "But an overreliance on tariffs simply to protect the domestic industries only ends up harming the economy."

• Trump plans to impose a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum on Monday.
• Canada, Mexico, and Brazil are key US steel suppliers; Canada, the UAE, and Mexico lead in aluminum.
• These tariffs would likely lead to higher consumer prices on cars, homebuilding, and household goods.

President Donald Trump is planning to double down on his tariff agenda with a 25% levy on all steel and aluminum imports — a move that would likely make building construction and car assembly more expensive.

"Any steel coming into the United States is going to have a 25% tariff," Trump told reporters on Sunday, adding the blanket tariff would also apply to aluminum. He said he would formally announce the tariffs on Monday but has yet to clarify when the measures would be imposed.

Census Bureau data showed Canada, Mexico, and Brazil were the main suppliers of steel and iron imports to the US in 2024 by dollar value. Iron can be used to produce steel.

In 2024, Canada, the United Arab Emirates, and Mexico were the main countries behind US imports of aluminum and bauxite — a material used to create aluminum — by dollar value.

One of Trump's main goals early in his second term has been limiting foreign trade with an eye toward bolstering domestic industries. Many economists have said the brunt of tariffs could fall on American consumers.

If the steel and aluminum tariff plan is implemented, Americans can expect various consumer goods, like pipes and cooking utensils, to become more expensive because of lower supply, higher demand, and steeper import costs. The travel and construction industries are also likely to be affected.

Aluminum is primarily used to manufacture automobiles, airplanes, kitchen appliances, cans, and electrical transmission lines, per the US Geological Survey. Steel is also used in automobile production, as well as in the construction of bridges, buildings, and homes.

The metals tariff proposal comes days after a set of new 10% tariffs were implemented on China, which quickly retaliated with a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas and a 10% tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery, and some vehicles. Additionally, the White House delayed a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico after Trump made a deal with the nations' leaders on border-protection measures.

Trump's plan for metal tariffs also follows other big news in the steel industry. Japan's Nippon Steel announced on Friday that it would drop its nearly $15 billion acquisition bid for US Steel, ending a yearslong battle over American steel production. Nippon Steel said it would instead "invest heavily" in US Steel.

The president's new focus on metals tariffs shouldn't come as a surprise. During his first term in office, he imposed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum. He later granted some duty-free exemptions to top trade partners such as Canada, Mexico, and Brazil. It's not clear whether he will do the same this time around.

The Trump administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• Crews removed signage from the US Agency for International Development building Friday.
• This comes days after Trump and Musk said they'd gut the foreign aid agency for "wasteful" spending
• USAID's future is uncertain amid a judge's Friday ruling to temporarily block the cuts.

At 2:30 p.m. on Friday, metal letters spelling "US Agency for International Development" clung to the side of 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C.

By 2:56 p.m., they sat in a pile next to the now-bare building.

Construction crews spent Friday afternoon removing all signage from the USAID headquarters after President Donald Trump said to "CLOSE IT DOWN" in a social media post.

Earlier that afternoon, someone taped over the agency's name on a nearby sign and logos on the building's windows.

Shortly before 2 p.m., a group of five construction workers were huddled outside the building. Two wore yellow harnesses. All of them had tape over a patch on their jacket.

None would comment to Business Insider on who they worked for.

Just after 2:30 p.m., a bucket crane hoisted one of the workers into the air and he began to pry the letters off the building before dropping them onto the crane. It eventually became a two-man job, taking around 15 minutes.

Once the building was bare, the construction workers ripped open a plastic garbage bag and, fighting with the DC wind, taped it over the building's logo.

This comes just days after the Trump administration moved to gut USAID — the government's foreign agency.

The proposed cuts mean that the agency could be forced to drastically shrink its workforce from about 10,000 to 294 employees. The agency announced Tuesday that it will put staff on administrative leave beginning on Friday at 11:59 p.m., with exceptions to people with "exceptional circumstances," per Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents about 800,000 federal workers, filed a lawsuit on Thursday in an effort to prevent the agency from being dismantled.

On Friday, a judge sided with the workers, partially blocking the shutdown.

But the agency's future remains uncertain. Both Trump and Elon Musk have previously said USAID is "wasteful" and supports liberal causes. Its gutting is the latest example of the Department of Government Efficiency's promise to slash the federal budget and reform the bureaucracy.

The Trump administration did not immediately respond to Business Insider's comment request.

DOGE's account on X celebrated the changes to the headquarters, posting photos of the now-bare building with the caption, "Unburdened by what has been," a reference to former Vice President Kamala Harris.

USAID administered civilian foreign aid and development assistance around the world, including various food, healthcare, and education initiatives. Data for fiscal year 2024 shows that USAID distributed nearly $32.5 billion in aid that year, much of it to Africa and the Middle East. The proposed operations cuts would likely reduce the most assistance in Ukraine, Jordan, and Ethiopia. Still, the multi-billion aid bill is only about 1% of the federal budget.

• The Bureau of Labor Statistics revises employment estimates annually with new data.
• This year's revisions could show much lower job growth in 2024 than previously reported.
• It's part of the BLS making employment estimates more accurate.

Friday's job numbers may not be what you expect.

The report is likely to show slower job growth from last year due to a regular update to the government's data — likely among the biggest payroll adjustments in years. But, if the numbers come as a surprise, they shouldn't raise alarm bells.

TL;DR: In the January jobs report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics revises the previous year's jobs figures with more complete numbers. This year, revisions are expected to show a double whammy of fewer jobs than previously measured and a larger overall population due to updates in Census Bureau numbers. It could all look like a weaker 2024 job market than previously measured.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics undertakes its benchmark revisions each year in the January employment report. The government recalibrates its basic estimates of job growth over the previous few years based on more complete data reported from businesses. This year's revisions are expected to show smaller job gains in 2024 than were previously reported.

The BLS has already provided an idea of how its new calibration will impact payroll data. A report released by the BLS in August showed that there were around 800,000 fewer jobs across the US economy in March 2024 than previously reported, a larger-than-usual decline relative to the earlier figure.

The headline monthly job growth numbers are based on a monthly survey of business establishments across the US. Any such survey measure represents an approximation of the underlying reality. The annual revisions recalibrate those surveys to more detailed but less timely measures of the full workforce based on administrative data like unemployment insurance records.

It's a bit like searching around for something in a dark room, versus turning on a light. While the initial jobs report gives the best and most timely estimate for employment across the world's biggest economy based on a relatively small sample of businesses, the revisions reflect additional and more complete information that takes a longer time to gather.

While these revisions happen every year, they've recently been relatively small. The below chart shows BLS payroll growth revisions for 2022 as reported in February 2023 and for 2023 as reported in February 2024. The revisions showed most months had larger job gains than reported earlier.

The household survey, which makes up the other half of the monthly jobs report, is also set to receive a major update.

That survey — which gathers information on Americans' socioeconomic health and provides the headline unemployment rate — will also be adjusted based on the Census Bureau's latest population estimates.

Updated Census estimates will likely result in a dramatic apparent uptick in population and employment after the Census Bureau improved how it measures immigration to the US, leading to a larger-than-usual adjustment to the underlying count of how many people live in the country. An apparent increase in employment between December and January would have more to do with those changes in the way the Census calculates population, not any real spike in the workforce. This also makes it difficult to compare household survey data accurately over time.

The likely upward jump in employment from the household survey and downward revision to payroll figures from the business survey could actually bring the two more in line with each other. For much of 2024, the business-derived employment figures suggested a rosier view of the labor market than those from the survey of workers. Combining the revisions together, we're likely to get a more coherent picture of a cooling but still decent job market.

Still, any substantial jumps in job numbers are likely a result of normal, regularly scheduled data recalibrations instead of unexpected economic conditions. Over time, recalibrations allow the Census and BLS to more accurately represent changes in America's workforce.

• Some Head Start centers are unable to access federal grants and are struggling to pay staff.
• The federally-funded childcare centers serve thousands of low-income families across the US.
• Maintaining childcare is vital for parents' jobs and financial stability.

Jennifer Bailey is worried about paying her staff.

The federally funded childcare center she runs in Madison, Wisconsin, is one of about 52 childcare providers reporting federal funding disruptions that have left them scrambling to cut paychecks and pay operational expenses.

Head Start, the program through which these centers receive funding, blames President Donald Trump's short-lived pause on federal grants and loans. A senior Trump administration official told Business Insider on Wednesday that the Head Start issues are due to a technical glitch in a government system and not a result of the president's action. The Department of Health and Human Services said Thursday it is trying to restore childcare funding access as quickly as possible.

Whatever the reason, the National Head Start Association said that as of February 6, these centers hadn't received the funds they needed to serve nearly 20,000 children from low-income families. The NHSA also said in a February 4 statement that the centers affected employ about 6,000 staff members.

Due to the way the payment system works, Head Start centers can typically only be reimbursed for immediate expenses. Some told BI they could be forced to temporarily close their doors — a move that will put thousands of employees out of work and parents in a childcare bind.

Bailey said her center, called Reach Dane, has opened a credit line with its bank because it's still waiting on $600,000 from Head Start that it needs to pay 250 employees and continue care for about 1,000 children. It's something Bailey said hasn't happened in her 25 years as a Head Start childcare provider. She's not sure what will happen next, but continuing business without federal grant money isn't sustainable.

"We don't want to continue to spend money from our reserves at this point because we're not sure if we have a guarantee of getting the funds," she said. "It's been very frustrating to navigate."

Childcare employees worry their federally-funded jobs are no longer secure

Just a small slice of the roughly 1,600 childcare and preschool centers funded through Head Start have reported funding disruptions. The program provides free or affordable childcare to families with a household income at or below the federal poverty line. While these childcare providers are not federal employees, the vast majority of Head Start's funding comes from government grants.

The affected centers — which serve children ages zero to five — reported receiving "pending" or "in process" messages when they requested to draw funds from their grant. Those BI spoke with said they haven't received communication from Head Start or the federal government on the cause of the disruption or any resolution timeline.

Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association, told BI that some childcare centers are draining their limited savings to pay people. Others, like Reach Dane, opened lines of credit in an effort to stay open. Mauer said making payroll is most centers' biggest concern, but rent, insurance, and food costs are also adding up.

"I just can't imagine a situation where the government is not paying millions and millions of dollars that it is contractually obligated to pay," Mauer said. She oversees all of the state's 39 Head Start childcare providers, and she said seven have experienced a freeze on funding. Those seven facilities serve about 3,000 children.

As of February 6, Mauer confirmed to BI that the centers she oversees are still locked out of funding and can't access the payment website.

Another childcare center in central Wisconsin, ADVOCAP, told BI in a statement Thursday morning that it hasn't received reimbursement from Head Start for its January expenses. The center serves 191 low-income families and said it would have to assess the implications for the future if the issue isn't resolved in the coming weeks. It added that the situation has "impacted the morale and stress levels" of employees.

Staffing childcare centers is a challenge on a good day, Bailey said. In 2022, the latest data available from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, turnover in childcare work was about 65% higher than other occupations.

Bailey and Mauer are not only concerned about Head Start employees missing paychecks, but they also said funding issues could impact staff retention.

"This uncertainty can make staff nervous," Bailey said. "And I do think that folks are worried about losing staff if they feel like the future of Head Start is not secure."

Low-income parents' financial stability hinges on childcare

Beyond impacting operational costs, Karen Schulman, senior director of state childcare policy at the National Women's Law Center, said that the issue could have a "ripple" effect on families that rely on Head Start centers. Steady childcare is vital for many parents to maintain stable work.

Twenty-three percent of parents reported being fired from their jobs due to lack of steady childcare, per a survey of 806 working US parents published in 2023 by the nonprofit ReadyNation. The vast majority of the parents surveyed said childcare challenges took a toll on their time and productivity at work, contributing to lower earnings and forgone promotions.

Schulman told BI that many of the parents who rely on Head Start childcare centers work roles without flexible hours. Losing childcare access, even for a couple of days, can be "devastating" and put them at risk of losing their jobs. For women and single parents especially, Schulman said losing childcare can have a long-term impact on their career and financial stability.

"Folks are scared," she said, adding "They just want to do their jobs and help kids care for kids and families. This is not the nonsense they want to be involved in."

Are you a parent, childcare provider, or federal worker impacted by funding disruptions? If so, reach out to this reporter at [email protected] or on the secure messaging app Signal at alliekelly.10

• Many immigrants living in the US illegally contribute tax funding to Social Security and Medicare.
• These individuals pay taxes via ITINs but lack access to federal benefits.
• Immigrants are vital to US tax revenue amid a declining birth rate and rising number of retirees.

Programs Americans rely on, like Social Security and Medicare, lean on tax revenue from both documented and undocumented workers, even though people living in the US illegally are ineligible to receive these benefits.

That's one reason policymakers are sounding the alarm about President Donald Trump's promise to deport millions of people living in the US illegally.

While those living in the US illegally do not have Social Security numbers, the IRS issues individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs), which help them to pay taxes. The main reason it's beneficial for them to do so is that a history of tax payments can help them along the path to citizenship.

However, ITINs don't provide legal immigration status, work authorization, or access to federal benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare. Many people working in the US illegally adhere to IRS requirements because noncompliance can put them at a higher risk of deportation for themselves or family members, said Cecilia Menjívar, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes in immigration policy. Paying taxes with ITINs can also help immigrants living in the US illegally build a work history and show strong moral character, which could help them later in any immigration case.

The Social Security Administration previously told Business Insider that Trump's deportation plans could cut $20 billion annually in lost tax revenue. This is of particular concern for many Americans as, in roughly a decade, Social Security payments could shrink due to dwindling funds.

Based on revenue from taxpayers with ITINs, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated that immigrants living in the US illegally paid $96.7 billion in US taxes in 2022. More than half went to the federal government, and the rest went to states and localities.

Some of this tax revenue also went toward welfare programs like SNAP, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment, housing assistance, and various tax credits, for which immigrants living in the US illegally don't qualify.

The role of the immigrant workforce in US tax revenue

America's birth rate is declining and the number of retirees claiming Social Security is ballooning, meaning immigrants are a significant piece of US workforce growth and keeping state and federal coffers full. As of July 2023, the most recent data available, there were over 11 million immigrants living in the US illegally, per the Center for Migration Studies. More than 8 million of those individuals are actively in the workforce.

The US tax system's emphasis on immigrant contributions isn't new. The ITIN system was created in the 1990s to allow foreign nationals to comply with tax law. Some ITIN-holders are living in the US illegally, others are student visa holders, spouses and children of those with employment visas, or survivors of domestic violence.

While many immigrant taxpayers have an ITIN, the IRS can't share ITIN information with other government agencies, and the identification numbers cannot be used by employers or the government to assess whether someone is undocumented.

An ITIN can be used to retroactively count toward a person's Social Security benefit amount if they later become a citizen, per the American Immigration Council. People can also use the number to open a bank account or obtain a driver's license.

To be sure, immigrants do not automatically gain access to retirement or welfare benefits once they obtain citizenship. A 1996 law prevents immigrants who become citizens from accessing certain aid for five years after receiving documentation.

Menjívar said immigrants — regardless of their citizenship status — consistently contribute more to taxes than they receive in benefits. As Trump continues to carry out his mass deportation plan, she expects the impact on immigrant workers will "reverberate" across the economy.

"If you remove several million people from contributing taxes and supporting local economies where they live through sales taxes and property taxes, it's all going to be affected," she said.

• China has imposed tariffs on some US goods in response to Trump's trade plan.
• Chinese authorities also announced a probe into Google and put two companies on its "unreliable entities list."
• Experts warn US tariffs on China may raise prices for electronics and other goods.

China hit back at President Donald Trump's trade plan on Tuesday morning with two tiers of tariffs on American goods.

China's Ministry of Finance said it would impose a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas and a 10% tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery, and some vehicles.

The announcement comes days after Trump said he would put a 10% tariff on all Chinese imported products, building on his campaign promise of a robust tariff policy.

In a statement announcing China's tariffs, the Ministry of Finance said the US' moves violate World Trade Organization rules.

"It is not only unhelpful in solving its own problems, but also disrupts the normal economic and trade cooperation between China and the US," the statement said. The tariffs will go into effect on February 10.

Chinese authorities also announced a probe into Google and put PVH Corp — the holding company for Calvin Klein — and Illumina, a US biotech firm, on its "unreliable entities list."

The State Administration for Market Regulation said in its announcement that Google violated antitrust laws. The regulator did not provide further details.

Meanwhile, China's commerce ministry said PVH and Illumina took "discriminatory measures against Chinese companies" and "seriously damaged" the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese firms.

None of the companies immediately responded to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Separately, China's Commerce Ministry and its customs administration announced export controls on strategic metals and minerals, including tungsten-related materials and bismuth-related materials, to "safeguard national security interests."

The US needs to 'solve its own fentanyl issue'

Trump has said his tariffs are a mechanism to hold China, Mexico, and Canada accountable for what he views as their role in the illegal flow of fentanyl into the US.

The president said China is "sending fentanyl to Mexico and Canada" and worsening the fentanyl crisis in the US. He suggested a 60% tariff on China on the 2024 campaign trail.

China has said fentanyl is the US' own problem and that Beijing would challenge the tariffs at the World Trade Organization.

"The US needs to view and solve its own fentanyl issue in an objective and rational way instead of threatening other countries with arbitrary tariff hikes," a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said on Sunday.

Vishnu Varathan, Mizuho's head of macro research for Asia excluding Japan, wrote in a Tuesday note that China's tariff move "ups the ante on an escalatory tit-for-tat trade conflict" if Trump lifts tariffs.

Trump has also placed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico — but later delayed the measures until March after reaching agreements to strengthen border protections with Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbam and Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Cutting a deal with China may be harder.

"The overarching geo-economic dimensions to US-China trade means that resolution will be far more fraught than is the case with Mexico and Canada," Varathan wrote.

Trump's approach to trade with China echoes his first term in office. Throughout 2018 and 2019, the president placed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese products, including tech equipment and plastics. In 2019, China responded by placing 10% retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion of US imports.

Some lawmakers and billionaires have urged the president to rethink his tariff plan, saying that it will cost small businesses and American consumers.

China is a major producer of US electronics, and it's likely that cellphones, laptops, and other devices could become more expensive.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• Programs like Medicaid and SNAP are means-tested and based on the poverty line.
• Some older Americans face a dilemma: working more can reduce crucial benefits.
• Navigating benefit thresholds is complex for retirees looking to boost their income.

Claudia Rufino, 72, tries not to make too much money.

She's one of millions of Americans that rely on programs like Medicaid and housing assistance, and she said earning a higher paycheck could reduce her benefits.

"I want to be contributing to society because that's the right way to do things," Rufino, who first retired in the early 2010s, previously told Business Insider. "But I get punished if I work too much."

Unretirement is growing among older Americans who hope to stay social and supplement what's in the bank. But some crucial social safety nets like Medicaid, SNAP, and rental assistance have income limits for providing aid, pushing many older adults like Rufino to make sure they aren't earning too much to cut off their benefits.

Rufino primarily lives on her $1,103 monthly Social Security and earns a few hundred dollars a month as a stipend working with foster children in Salt Lake City. She said the school district she works with recently offered her a higher-paid position, but she had to turn the offer down because it would put her income slightly over Utah's Medicaid threshold, spiking her out-of-pocket costs for care and prescription drugs.

She added that a higher paycheck could reduce her rental support benefits, pushing the cost of her means-tested housing unit beyond what she can pay. She wouldn't be able to afford rent in her area because she has very little savings, she added.

"Going back to work is not worth it for me in my situation," Rufino said. "I don't make enough money to make it worthwhile."

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American comfortable sharing your retirement outlook with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Some low-income older Americans struggle to navigate benefit thresholds

The share of Americans receiving government aid has increased over the past several decades. Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security made up 18% of total personal income in the US in 2022 — totaling $3.8 trillion — which is a 9 percentage-point increase from 1970, per a report published in September 2024 by the Economic Innovation Group. The report said that the aging US population and skyrocketing healthcare costs are the main reasons for the shift.

At the same time, the US poverty line has remained largely unchanged since the 1960s. The threshold, which is currently $15,650 annually for one person, is adjusted each year for inflation but does not account for local cost of living or changing economic conditions.

Qualification standards for safety nets like SNAP and Medicaid are largely based on this measure — Americans making up to 133% of the poverty line can receive individual Medicaid benefits in states that expanded the program under the Affordable Care Act, for example — but exact limits can vary by program and state. Millions of low-income Americans live slightly above those aid cutoffs, but can't afford essentials.

Judith Murray, for example, relies on her $1,311 monthly Social Security and $1,174 monthly SNAP allotment to get by in central Illinois. The 64-year-old said she has to stretch her monthly checks to cover basics for her seven-person household, which includes some of her children and grandchildren, and her fiancé, who recently lost his job: "It sounds like a lot of money, but it's really not." she told BI.

Murray said she's been low-income for her entire life and hasn't been able to build savings. She has been out of the labor force for several years and receiving disability benefits, but is now considering going back to work to help her family pay their housing and utility bills.

Still, Murray said she's worried that any changes to her current income would reduce her SNAP benefit and make it difficult to buy enough groceries for her household. She added that her monthly SNAP was reduced this month because of the annual Social Security cost-of-living increase she received, and her household is a few months behind on bills because her fiancé lost his job.

"It makes no sense," she said. "It is scary as hell for people to not be able to take care of their families."

Tim Shaw, director of the benefits transformation initiative at the Aspen Institute and the senior policy advisor for the Aspen Financial Security Program, said that benefit qualification thresholds can be stressful to navigate, especially for older adults reentering the workforce.

"Often eligibility for different programs like SNAP, Medicaid, SSI, housing, they're not the same," he said. "If a household qualifies for multiple benefits, they're trying to track the income limits of several programs at the same time, which can get really confusing and cause people to not take that new job or not take that raise."

Shaw added that some safety net programs, like SSI, which provides benefits to disabled Americans, have asset limits. People receiving SSI can't hold more than $2,000 in assets — like the value of their homes, cars, and savings accounts — without disrupting their benefits. Other programs, like SNAP, have both work requirements and income caps, which leaves beneficiaries walking a tightrope with how much they can earn.

Going back to work helps some retirees boost their income, but it's a trade-off

Although some low-income older Americans like Rufino and Murray feel caught in a benefits catch-22, others find that returning to the labor force is in their best financial interest. BI has heard from older adults who chose to work beyond retirement age or 'unretire' during their golden years as a way to stay active or supplement their savings.

Social Security retirement benefits also do not have the same income restrictions as poverty line-based programs — recipients can hold a part- or full-time job without it impacting their monthly checks.

Karen Smith, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, said that qualifying for safety nets isn't "an all-or-nothing game." She said staying in the workforce or going back to work can help older Americans stretch their savings longer and boost their monthly earnings. For some, she said this increased income can reduce or negate their need for safety nets altogether.

"I would say most people absolutely would benefit from going back to work," she said.

Murray isn't sure what she will do next. Because she's over age 60 and has been out of the workforce for years, she's concerned she won't be hired. Even if she does land a job, she said she needs every dollar of benefit support she receives to keep her family afloat.

"This is by no means an easy road," Murray said. "We still have birthdays to celebrate. We still have Thanksgiving to do and other holidays. When you see me out there buying a birthday cake with my SNAP benefit card, just to understand that I don't want to let my little ones down anymore than you do."

Are you struggling to navigate benefits thresholds? Are you open to sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• LA's wildfires put added pressure on the city's 2028 Olympic hosting gig.
• Historically, most host cities have faced costly overruns.
• LA could be in a stronger position than other cities because of its existing sports venues.

Los Angeles' wildfire rebuilding efforts could be at odds with another multibillion-dollar expense: hosting the Olympics.

The city's recovery efforts face a hard deadline ahead of the 2028 Summer Olympics. Historically, most host cities have faced costly overruns, and LA is already likely to face serious economic challenges in the wake of the fires.

However, Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economist at Smith College, told Business Insider that LA could be in a stronger position than other cities to handle Olympic costs because of the city's existing sports venues.

"I think the 2028 games will provide an opportunity for Los Angeles to show how it's rebuilt itself," Zimbalist said.

While many sports facilities were sparred from the fires, the city's economic losses could reach $275 billion, per the data platform AccuWeather. The estimate accounts for direct costs like emergency response and construction, along with indirect costs like lost employee wages, housing displacement, and hits to the local business scene and job market. Additionally, some experts estimate it could take the city years, or up to a decade, to rebuild.

Zimbalist said he thinks LA is in a good position to "break-even" economically as the Olympics host, in large part because it doesn't have to build any new sporting venues. This will significantly reduce the construction and infrastructure costs that often balloon host cities' spending.

The LA Olympics Games have an operating budget of $6.9 billion, according to the latest estimate provided by LA2028, the private committee responsible for putting on the Olympics and raising funding for the games.

The money is expected to come from International Olympic Committee funding and revenue generated from the Games — which are tied to things like international sponsorship income, ticket sales, and licensing merchandise. These funds will go toward hosting the sporting events and the opening and closing ceremonies, including investments in the city's airport and a downtown convention center.

LA2028 did not respond to BI's request for comment.

LA may be in a strong position to host 2028

If the costs of hosting the Olympics exceed the generated funds, LA has pledged to contribute $270 million to close the gap. If this isn't sufficient, the state of California has committed an additional $270 million, and if that doesn't cover it, LA would be on the hook for the rest. As of July, LA2028 was $1 billion short of its sponsorship goal.

Zimbalist said this insurance policy to cover some of its exposure in the case of a budget overrun is standard for every host city. As things stand, he doesn't expect the Games to go over budget, though he said it's "far from a sure thing."

"I don't see there being a public deficit here overall because there's so little building to be done," Zimbalist said.

While LA might be able to avoid drawing upon public funds, the Olympics are likely to cost US taxpayers. Zimbalist said LA is counting on the federal government to help provide as much as $5 billion in funds for transportation and security costs ahead of the Games. In comparison, the federal government's contribution to the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was about $2 billion when adjusted for inflation.

In 1984, the last time LA hosted the Olympics, Zimbalist said LA generally avoided negative economic impacts, which he said was driven by the availability of existing venues, significant IOC funding, and solid financial management from the city's Olympic committee. He said that LA could benefit from the same factors this time.

Host cities often lose money on the Olympics

Many Olympic host cities spend beyond their budget due to unforeseen expenses, construction costs, or an inability to produce enough tourism revenue, per the 2024 Oxford Olympics Study. And, with a higher number of events and athletes, the study reported that the Summer Games are especially expensive.

The Oxford Olympics Study — which analyzed the cost of past Olympics in 2022 US dollars — found that the Summer Games held between 1960 and 2024 went over budget by an average of 195%. In the past two decades, the most expensive Games was Rio 2016, costing $23.6 billion with a cost overrun of 352%, some of which was shouldered by taxpayers.

"When you add it all up, most cities end up with a deficit that could be on the order of $10 or $20 billion, sometimes more than that," Zimbalist said.

In December, Paris announced that it closed the 2024 events under budget, but this only included the operating costs of the Olympics during the 17 days they were held. When operating costs, capital costs related to the Games (like building sporting venues), and indirect capital costs (like investments in Paris's rail system) are all accounted for, Zimbalist estimated that the total spending approached $20 billion.

To be sure, Zimbalist said there are benefits to hosting the Olympics that economic indicators can't measure. While LA will likely still be recovering from the wildfires, he said the Olympics could provide the city with the opportunity to show its progress.

Have you experienced financial challenges due to a natural disaster? Are you open to sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• Natural disasters are increasingly threatening older homeowners' financial stability and savings.
• Many older adults' biggest financial assets are their fully paid-off homes.
• Rising costs, insurance issues, and disasters are derailing some Americans' retirement plans.

Linda Sims was away visiting family in October 2017 when her next-door neighbor called: Sims' house was on fire.

Within hours, the entire structure — and much of the surrounding northern California canyon — was wiped out by the Tubbs wildfire. The flames destroyed years' worth of Sims' and her husband's memories, possessions, and the house they planned to sell one day to add to their retirement savings. Had the couple been home that night, Sims is sure they would have died.

"We wanted to live in the country, but we paid a big price for doing that: financially, emotionally, and physically, with our health," she said, adding, "The disaster aged us."

As the US experiences more severe and frequent natural disasters, homeowners are scrambling to protect themselves. Older adults like Sims are in an especially vulnerable position, as disasters threaten their savings and largely paid-off homes.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American comfortable sharing your retirement outlook with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Over 60% of homeowners aged 65 and older have fully paid off their mortgages, per an analysis of 2024 Census data by the trade publication Construction Coverage. A report published in 2023 by the retirement firm Vanguard also found that 80% of Americans age 60 and over are homeowners, and housing wealth accounts for 48% of the age group's median net worth.

But many can't afford to downsize into retirement or rental housing and struggle with the rising costs of utilities and insurance, even with the house paid-off. For these people, climate events are derailing meticulously made retirement plans.

Disasters are a rising risk for older homeowners

Since the fire seven years ago, Sims, 81, and her husband moved four times because of rising housing costs. She told Business Insider that the couple had worked hard to save for retirement throughout their careers, but most of that money was invested in the house they lost in the fire. Despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars they received in insurance and settlement money, it didn't come near to covering the full cost.

With limited savings left, Sims recently moved in with one of her children so that she could reduce her housing costs to cover the steep price of the memory care her husband now needs. She said what she receives monthly in Social Security barely covers her daily essentials.

"There was nothing I could do but just watch the money flow out of my account that I had saved," Sims said.

The catastrophic financial impact of disasters isn't a new problem for Americans, but it is a growing one. Since 1980, more than 400 weather and climate events in the US have exceeded $1 billion in damages when adjusted for inflation, per the National Centers for Environmental Information. Many of those storms, wildfires, and extreme temperature waves occurred in the past decade.

The heightened risk has driven some home insurance companies to raise premiums, restrict coverage, or cut plans altogether. Several parts of California and Florida have been deemed "uninsurable." And, even for those with insurance, the payouts can be slow and pale in comparison to the damage.

"We lost half the value of our house or more because we didn't have enough insurance. Every two years, we went in and upped the insurance," Sims said, explaining that she tried to increase the total amount of disaster coverage on the house several times before the wildfire. "But that's all the insurance companies would allow in one of those areas."

For older Americans, losing their home can also mean losing their biggest asset, especially for those with houses in high-demand markets. A fifth of Americans 50 and older have no retirement savings at all.

With savings swept away by disasters, older adults struggle to start over

After building up a successful wholesale bakery business, Joe Steelhammer didn't expect to be living in his car. The 73-year-old lives in a suburb of Houston on his Social Security income, which he said isn't enough to pay rent.

Steelhammer told BI his financial challenges began when 2017's Hurricane Harvey swept through the area, flooding the property where he owned a house and a commercial kitchen. He had been working full-time baking cakes, quiches, and desserts for restaurants and hotels. His vegan chocolate truffle cake was especially popular, he said.

When the floodwaters receded, Steelhammer's home and kitchen were entirely destroyed. He said insurance provided some relief — but not nearly enough to cover his losses. He struggled to continue paying off the loans he took out to start his business, he added.

Although Steelhammer said he had carefully planned for his retirement years, the loss of his home and business completely drained his savings, and the COVID lockdowns prevented him from regaining a reliable income through baking. He said he recently tried to apply for low-income housing, with no luck yet.

"I had a decision to make: I could either afford rent or I could eat and pay my bills," Steelhammer said. "I chose the latter of the two, and I started living in my vehicle."

For older adults facing retirement losses from a natural disaster, it can feel impossible to start over.

Tim Shaw, director of the benefits transformation initiative at the Aspen Institute, suggested that people expand their savings portfolio, instead of putting all their money into a major asset, like a house. Even saving a small amount of money in an emergency account can help protect retirement savings and financial health if something unexpected happens, Shaw said, but he acknowledged that no one can fully prepare for an emergency.

"There's a big question now, especially if you live in an area with a high risk for these sorts of disasters, whether putting all of your money and assets for retirement into a home is the right choice, or whether there's usefulness in diversifying and putting some of that money into retirement savings instead," he said.

To be sure, natural disasters can impact people at any age or stage in their financial journey. Sims wishes more people understood the way a disaster can impact every facet of life, even those who feel prepared for aging.

"We budgeted and followed that budget, we knew exactly how much money we needed, and we planned on our needs for the future," Sims said. "But we didn't plan for a wildfire."

Have you experienced financial challenges due to a natural disaster? Are you open to sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• Trump's mass deportation plan could strain retirees' wallets.
• Immigrants in the country illegally pay taxes that support Social Security and Medicare but don't receive their benefits.
• Deportations could also increase healthcare costs and shrink the industry's workforce.

President Donald Trump's immigration policies could hurt retirees' wallets and make it harder for them to access healthcare.

Trump said his immigration crackdown would improve the economy and boost American jobs. However, some economists and financial researchers told Business Insider that dramatically reducing the immigrant workforce could drain Social Security and Medicare tax funding, spike housing costs, and contribute to broader inflation.

This comes as America's 65-and-older population is growing, and the birthrate isn't keeping up, meaning that the number of working-age taxpayers may not be able to support the growing demand for retirement benefits without population increases from continued immigration.

Trump's mass deportation plan aims to remove millions of immigrants living in the US illegally. On January 20, Trump declared a national emergency, allowing him to use Pentagon resources for the deportation efforts. He also has begun efforts to limit immigration at the US-Mexico border, and the federal government is reportedly planning to carry out deportation raids this week in major cities.

Trump's press team did not respond for comment by the time of publication.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American comfortable sharing your retirement outlook with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Mass deportations could strain Social Security and Medicare funding

Millions of Americans who rely on Social Security checks — which average $1,976 monthly — may face lower payments in the next decade if the Trump administration carries out large-scale deportations. Some economists told BI deportations could reduce Social Security funding because immigrants living in the US illegally pay the payroll taxes that fund Social Security while being ineligible to receive benefits.

Deportations could reduce the program's cash flow by $20 billion annually, per an actuarial estimate provided to BI by the Social Security Administration. While a small part of the roughly $1 trillion in benefits paid out a year, this could exacerbate an already dwindling Social Security fund set to dry up by the mid-2030s.

The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy determined immigrants living in the US illegally paid $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes in 2022. Additionally, the same group paid $6.4 billion in Medicare taxes that year but is not eligible for the benefits.

Deportations are likely to reduce healthcare options

Deportations could disrupt healthcare operations nationwide and drive up costs, and this would heavily impact older Americans.

Using 2021 Census Bureau data, the think tank Migration Policy Institute calculated that around 30% of the nearly 2.8 million immigrant workers in healthcare are not naturalized citizens, which includes legal permanent residents, people with temporary status, and those living in the US illegally.

A reduction in staff could come when the US needs more people in the field. The National Center for Health Workforce projected in November that demand for direct care workers — such as home health aides — and long-term care nurses could rise by 39% between 2022 and 2037, or nearly a million workers. Growth in demand for these roles is driven by the aging population and increasing longevity.

Older Americans would be disproportionately affected by rising healthcare prices. 2023 data from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys shows Americans 65 and older spent an average of about $8,027 per household on healthcare in 2023, more than any other age group, per 2023 data from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys.

To be sure, some conservative think tanks have argued that deportations could save the US money on reduced services for immigrants, such as welfare for older Americans.

Deportations could ding older Americans' budgets

Beyond impacting the retirement system, mass deportations could make everyday costs more expensive, especially for older Americans. Baby boomers were among the hardest hit by inflation in 2023, thanks to the generation's higher spending on healthcare and insurance, per a December report by Wells Fargo.

The housing market could also be rocked by deportations. Nearly a quarter of the construction labor force is living in the US illegally, per an analysis of 2018 and 2019 Census data from the Center for American Progress. For older adults, a reduction in the number of construction workers could make it more costly to repair their existing homes or downsize into smaller retirement housing. This comes as many baby boomers who own homes can't afford rising home repair costs, insurance premiums, and property taxes.

• Donald Trump took the stage virtually at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday.
• He made a series of promises and threats about corporate tax rates, tariffs, and more.
• He also criticized Europe over its lawsuits against Meta and Google.

President Donald Trump is back, and he's making sure the whole world knows it.

Trump's virtual appearance at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was full of promises, along with threats directed at CEOs, banks, and Europe more broadly.

Trump said his message to businesses worldwide was simple: Build in America or pay up.

"If you don't make your product in America, which is your prerogative, then very simply, you will have to pay a tariff," he said.

The president has threatened to impose a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, which he said could begin as early as February 1. Trump had proposed a 60% tariff on China during his presidential campaign, but he said earlier this week he was considering a 10% tariff on goods from the country.

Trump said he hopes the tariffs will incentivize both domestic and foreign companies to manufacture goods in the United States because "other nations take advantage of the US." He also sees tariffs as a means to pay down the national debt, lower inflation, and create jobs.

"Under the Trump administration, there will be no better place on earth to create jobs or build factories than right here in the USA," Trump said.

Still, some economists have told BI that tariffs on goods like cars, food products, and medicine could force companies to raise prices for Americans.

For those companies that do end up moving production to US shores, Trump offered a bottom-dollar tax deal of 15%, which he described as the lowest rate of any large country.

"My message to every business in the world is very simple: Make your product in America," Trump said. "We will do the low taxes. We're bringing them down very substantially even from the original Trump tax cuts."

In renegotiating trade deals with China and the EU, Trump said he's not looking for "phenomenal," just "fair."

He also criticized the EU's regulatory enforcement actions against tech giants like Apple, Google, and Meta (who were major donors to his inauguration and whose CEOs were prominent guests), saying the fines are a form of unfair taxation.

"Whether you like them or not, they're American companies, and they shouldn't be doing that," he said.

Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America, asked about how his administration would balance his many executive orders with continuing GDP growth and bringing inflation down.

"I think it's going to actually bring down inflation. It's going to bring up jobs," Trump responded, adding he would work to bring down the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15% if companies make their products in the United States.

"The 15% is about as low as it gets and by far the lowest of a large country," Trump said, adding it would "create a tremendous buzz." He added that he brought the corporate tax rate down from 40% to 21% in his first term. (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 cut corporate taxes from 35% to 21%.)

The president also called out big banks, accusing them of discriminating against conservatives.

"Many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America," he said. "I hope you're going to open your banks to conservatives because what you're doing is wrong."

In a public statement, Bank of America said it "welcomes conservatives" and would "never close accounts for political reasons and don't have a political litmus test."

The president also thanked Saudi Arabia after it announced it would invest $600 billion in the US, but Trump added he would ask for more.

"It's also reported today in the papers that Saudi Arabia will be investing at least $600 billion in America. But I'll be asking the crown prince, who's a fantastic guy, to round it out to around $1 trillion," Trump said, referring to Saudi Arabia's ruler, Mohammed bin Salman. "I think they'll do that because we've been very good to them."

"I'm also going to ask Saudi Arabia and OPEC to bring down the cost of oil."

He said that Saudi Arabia didn't "show a lot of love" by not lowering the price of oil already, which he said would have the added benefit of ending the Russia-Ukraine war "immediately."

"You got to bring down the oil price. You got to end that war," he said. "With oil prices going down, I'll demand that interest rates drop immediately. And likewise, they should be dropping all over the world. Interest rates should follow us."

At that, Steve Schwarzman, the CEO of Blackstone Group, said: "I'm sure the crown prince of Saudi Arabia will be really glad you gave this speech today."

• Trump's first day in office on January 20 included proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
• Trump's tariff plans could raise the costs of some medications for Americans.
• Additionally, Trump said on the campaign trail he would impose a 60% tariff on Chinese imports.

Tariffs are already a central feature of President Donald Trump's second-term agenda — and those could have a significant impact on what Americans pay for some medications.

In his inauguration speeches and Day One executive orders, the president detailed his plans for imposing sweeping tariffs on foreign goods, including a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada. Trump said the tariff policies could begin on February 1. It follows his tariff proposals from the campaign trail, including a 60% tariff on imports from China.

Some trade policy experts previously told Business Insider that broad tariffs on key trading partners like Mexico and Canada could increase the prices of goods imported from those countries. This could also stretch to key medical drugs like pain relievers, antibiotics, and cancer treatments, several of which are used in the US and manufactured abroad.

Countries like China, Canada, and Mexico not only make prescription and over-the-counter medicines, but they also supply drug ingredients. In many cases, foreign-manufactured medications are more affordable than those directly made in America — but prices and access could change with tariffs.

Trump has previously denied that his tariff policies will increase prices for Americans. Trump's press team did not immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.

What tariffs mean for your medicine costs

Under Trump's tariff plans, frequently used medications could become more expensive. Per the nonprofit organization KFF, importing some pharmaceutical drugs or ingredients from other countries has made some medicines more affordable in the US than if they were manufactured domestically due to lower production costs and cheaper labor.

In 2023, Mexico exported 165 of the 350 pharmaceutical products and drug ingredients designated as critical by the International Trade Administration. Although it was a small share of America's total pharmaceutical imports — about 1.5%, per the nonpartisan policy research firm Wilson Center — Mexico supplied key ingredients for medicines like pain relievers and antibiotics. Major pharmaceutical and vaccine companies like Pfizer and AstraZeneca also have operations in Mexico.

Canada, too, manufactures some generic forms of over-the-counter and prescription medications, like pain relievers. Per the Census Bureau, the US imported about $5.8 billion in pharmaceutical preparations in 2023.

Some states, like Florida, have previously proposed importing some prescriptions from Canada to increase affordability. The FDA signed off on imports from Canada to Florida on a range of drugs, including those used to treat HIV, AIDS, and diabetes, and other states are working to get approval to import drugs from Canada in bulk to lower high prices.

Trump proposed even steeper tariffs on China, which could affect drug prices. A 2023 report by the policy analysis firm Atlantic Council found that, between 2020 and 2022, US imports of Chinese pharmaceuticals grew by over $8 billion, and China remains one of America's major medical suppliers. China manufactures many healthcare products used by Americans like pain relievers, cardiovascular medicine, cancer treatments and immunosuppressives, cold and cough medicine, antibiotics, and bandages.

Tariffs and trade restrictions on foreign pharmaceuticals could also lead to higher prices and drug shortages if the US is unable to manufacture cheaper alternatives. Trump has suggested enforcing a "universal tariff" on all imported goods, which may impact other main suppliers of medicine, like Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, and India.

Details are unclear on how exactly Trump will impose these tariffs, and the legal authority he uses would likely determine how soon the US could see the prices of goods change. Still, tariffs are not the only avenue through which Americans' healthcare could be impacted. On Monday, Trump signed a range of executive orders — some related to healthcare — including plans to pursue actions that will "eliminate unnecessary administrative expenses and rent-seeking practices" that raise healthcare costs.

Are you changing how you approach healthcare costs with to the new Trump administration? If so, reach out to [email protected] and [email protected].

• Donald Trump has vowed to deport millions of immigrants in his second term.
• A recent analysis estimated that his plan could drain billions in Social Security tax revenue.
• Many older Americans rely on Social Security to afford essentials.

President Donald Trump's mass deportation plans could have a significant economic side effect: draining the Social Security fund.

As more Americans reach retirement age — many without adequate savings — Social Security can be a financial anchor. The checks average $1,976 monthly, and thousands of older adults told Business Insider they rely on the money to pay for essentials. However, the checks often aren't enough to live on.

Trump's vow to carry out a mass deportation of people living in the US illegally could make matters more difficult because the Social Security fund is largely financed by payroll taxes from American workers. The Social Security Administration told BI that deportations could cut annual cash flow by $20 billion — potentially reducing retirees' benefits over time.

Immigrants living in the US illegally, about 8.3 million of whom work, also pay payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare. They are ineligible to claim these benefits themselves.

What's more, the president's deportation agenda is likely to have far-reaching effects on the immigrant labor force in the US. On January 20, he signed an executive order declaring a national emergency at the US-Mexico border, which would allow him to receive Pentagon support for carrying out deportations. He has also taken steps to end birthright citizenship and restrict asylum and other paths for people to enter the country legally.

Trump's team did not respond to requests for comment.

BI broke down the impact of Trump's deportation plan on retirement benefits and what it could mean for retirees.

Deportations could limit funding for Social Security and Medicare

Some researchers are concerned that deportations could further constrict the already dwindling pool of Social Security funds. In 2022, immigrants living in the US illegally paid $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes and $6.4 billion in Medicare taxes, per the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. That same year, the Social Security Administration reported that it doled out benefits totaling over $1 trillion.

The $20 billion that the Social Security Administration estimated it could lose under Trump's deportation plans isn't an astronomically high number, but it still concerns many economists since the fund is already expected to dry up by the mid-2030s.

With Americans living longer and having fewer children, the number of retirees could quickly outpace the number of working-age adults, meaning more people would rely on Social Security as fewer people pay into it. Over the past several decades, immigration has largely helped keep that ratio in check, as immigrants tend to be younger and have more children, adding to the population and labor-force growth.

"Social Security works on a pay-as-you-go system, where today's workers pay for the benefits of today's retirees," Delia Furtado, an economics professor at the University of Connecticut, told BI. "This system works well when the population is growing because there are more workers contributing than retirees receiving benefits. However, with fewer births and people living longer, the system is in trouble."

How retirees may be affected

Older Americans could be affected by Trump's mass deportation plan in a number of ways.

If the Social Security fund is depleted or drained earlier than expected, many Americans could lose their main source of income.

Cecilia Menjívar, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in immigration policy, said deportations could also have a direct impact on both the availability and cost of elder care and the labor market over time.

"When employers don't have enough workers to do the work, they have to shut down," she said.

Menjívar added that mass deportations could also affect the healthcare and eldercare sectors.

A report by the Center of American Progress published in 2021 found that nearly 350,000 healthcare workers were living in the US illegally and working as personal care aides, nursing assistants, and home health aides.

Still, there are complex layers to the US retirement system, some of which would not be as deeply impacted by deportations. For example, Medicare — the main source of health insurance for many older adults — is partially financed by payroll taxes but also collects revenue from beneficiaries' premiums, so the program has more funding sources than Social Security.

• Universal basic income is recurring cash payments for participants, no strings attached.
• Traditional welfare restricts spending to specific categories, like healthcare or groceries.
• Basic-income policy could supplement welfare but likely wouldn't replace the existing safety net.

As America's cities look to alleviate poverty, universal basic income has been proposed by local leaders as a complement to existing welfare.

With a housing-affordability crisis and high healthcare costs, more Americans are leaning on government aid than in previous decades. Government transfers of funds from safety nets such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid accounted for about 18% of total personal income in the US in 2022, a 9-percentage-point increase from 1970, the equivalent of $3.8 trillion, per an Economic Innovation Group analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census data between 1969 and 2022.

Giving people no-strings-attached cash has been piloted in over 100 areas, including Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Chicago, as a supplement to existing aid programs. It offers participants cash to spend on whatever they choose, rather than being restricted to a specific category, as with SNAP and Medicaid.

Some economic-security advocates have told Business Insider that recurring cash payments give families a financial boost to pay bills and land stable work, and tech leaders like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman have suggested that basic income might become necessary as artificial intelligence disrupts the job market.

With Republicans set to hold a majority in Congress and President-elect Donald Trump about to return to the White House for his second term, the country's budget and policy priorities for welfare programs could change, shaping how benefits are funded and who qualifies.

BI looked at the distinctions between basic income and welfare, and what it means for future benefit programs.

How does UBI differ from welfare?

The US's welfare system — also known as the social safety net — consists of a series of federally funded programs that help lower-income people afford essentials. This includes SNAP for food, Medicaid for healthcare, housing vouchers, Social Security, and various programs for families with young children.

Largely, welfare is part of the federal budget, though most states have localized programs, too. Beneficiaries must have a household income near the federal poverty line and are restricted in where they can spend the benefit money. SNAP, for example, covers most food at the grocery store but cannot be used to buy personal-hygiene items like toothpaste or soap.

Basic income, by contrast, is a set of recurring cash payments that can be spent however participants choose. There are two main types of basic income: universal basic income and guaranteed basic income. UBI programs give payments to all members of a population, regardless of income, and don't have an end date. GBI programs give payments to a specific group of the population — such as people experiencing homelessness, single parents, or low-income artists — for a set period of time, typically one to five years. Most of the basic-income pilots in the US have been short-term GBI, not UBI. Other countries have also run GBI pilots.

Could UBI replace welfare?

Basic income is unlikely to replace the existing safety net because of funding and political challenges.

US GBI pilots are financed through a combination of government funds and philanthropy. Still, most of those programs are limited to a couple hundred people for a set period, meaning they cost funders a few million dollars.

Sustaining UBI across the country would require more significant funding through a value-added tax, a progressive tax system based on wealth, or a tax on resources, like a carbon tax. The Alaska Permanent Fund, for example, gives residents an annual stipend that's drawn from the state's oil revenue.

True UBI hasn't been implemented in the US, but some politicians have introduced basic-income policies. During his campaign for the 2020 Democratic primaries, the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed a "Freedom Dividend," which would've given $1,000 monthly to every American over the age of 18. The 2020 census found there were about 258 million Americans over 18, which would've made the total gross cost of that plan more than $3 trillion each year. Yang suggested the dividend be funded through a value-added retail tax.

For comparison, the Social Security Administration reported in 2024 that the benefits cost $1.5 trillion annually. The average monthly payments were $1,788 in November and are largely funded through payroll taxes. Seventy-two million older adults and people with disabilities currently receive benefits.

Any federal change to the social safety net would also need congressional approval. Many Republican leaders have opposed implementing ongoing basic income, arguing that it's not financially sustainable and gives people "free money."

"We were never designed to have the federal government supply a salary," Rep. John Gillette of the Arizona House of Representatives previously told BI.

Is UBI a better alternative to welfare?

In most of America's basic-income pilots, cash aid is seen as a supplement to welfare programs, not a replacement. GBI pilot leaders often consult with participants to ensure their basic income will not disqualify them from means-tested programs like SNAP or Medicaid.

Basic-income participants have told BI that the cash helps them afford essentials that might not be covered by traditional safety nets: such as a new crib for their baby, school supplies for their kids, steady childcare, and car repairs.

"Anyone who's had a child knows that this is not like a luxury income," a new mom in Michigan receiving $500 a month previously told BI. "This is just assisting us in our time of need."

Some Republicans and economists have argued against basic income, calling it a "welfare trap" and an "unconstitutional" use of public money. This has led to states such as Iowa and Arizona introducing basic-income bans and lawsuits against GBI programs in Missouri and Texas.

Research from recent GBI pilots suggests that basic income can help lower rates of domestic violence, aid participants in landing higher-paying jobs, and increase housing and food security. Some financial-security advocates also say that basic income can boost local economies by making it easier for lower-income people to maintain steady work and buy consumer goods.

"We are allowing folks to stabilize and to then plan for the future," Sukhi Samra, the executive director of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a national advocacy network, previously told BI.

To be sure, much of basic-income research is based on short-term trials. Basic income's financial impact on participants in the long run remains unclear, and some participants struggle to afford essentials after their programs end.

Traditional safety-net programs typically do not have an end date, and participants can continue to receive benefits as long as their household income meets qualification thresholds.