• It's a tough job market out there, and experienced workers are not exempt.
• Some older Americans just want a few more years of work to boost retirement savings or stay busy.
• The jobs that are available don't pay enough to make them worthwhile, job seekers said.

Gino Marconi is struggling to secure full-time work, and it's messing with his retirement plans.

Marconi, who's 64 and lives in Plantation, Florida, earned $60,000 annually as a sales representative for an outdoor supply company until two years ago, when he resigned due to the stress of working long days on the road. Marconi previously held engineering jobs that paid more.

Since then, he said he's applied to over 600 remote and in-person roles across various industries and skill levels. He suspects many positions have rejected him because he's overqualified, and he's removed the years he's completed some degrees and certifications from some applications.

Marconi said he hopes to retire in a few years and rely on Social Security income, but his plans could change if he's unable to find higher-paying work.

"My home is paid off, my cars are paid off," Marconi said. "But I need to keep going until I get back to work."

Are you an older American who is still working or looking for work? Please fill out this quick Google Form.

As many Americans reach retirement age, they don't find themselves coasting into their golden years as easily as they may have hoped. Instead, as hundreds of older Americans told Business Insider in responses to reader surveys about work and retirement, they find themselves once again on the job market. Maybe they got laid off or quit a career due to health issues. Either way, they need just a few more years to reach a comfortable financial position — and it's tough out there for job seekers.

To be sure, the unemployment rate for Americans age 55 and older was just 3% as of January, compared to 4% for all workers. But for people of all ages who don't have jobs, the hiring landscape has become more challenging in recent years. Excluding a two-month pandemic-related dip in 2020, US businesses are hiring at nearly the lowest rate since 2013, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

In response to his job search struggles, Marconi is working part-time with a transportation company for a hotel chain and said he's taken steps to become a full-time insurance agent. He said he's grown frustrated with the application process — he recalled getting stood up at an interview — but is remaining optimistic while cutting back on unnecessary spending.

"I don't know when I'll retire because Social Security is not going to be enough," Marconi said, adding he's pickier about the roles he applies for. "My wife used to say I should do whatever increases my income, but I'm not going to work as an engineer making no money."

Working later in life for extra security

Some older Americans told BI that even though they could technically retire, they're holding out because they fear their savings and retirement income won't be sufficient if unexpected costs arise.

David F., 67, has been looking for work since last October — when he anticipated he would soon be laid off from his aerospace industry job. The layoff ultimately came in January.

Of the nearly 1,700 submitted applications he's tracked since beginning his job search, only 4% have yielded interviews, and none have amounted to a job offer yet. He said he's frequently encountered ghost jobs or positions with similar job descriptions to previous roles but significantly less pay.

"They're either looking for a unicorn and never finding it, or there's not really a position there, but they want to look like they're hiring," said David, who lives in Washington and asked to withhold his last name due to ongoing late-stage job interviews.

David doesn't have a firm retirement goal, but he hopes to retire within the next 5 to 10 years, assuming he finds a suitable position. After working in project management for nearly three decades, David briefly retired but returned to work to bolster his finances when the pandemic caused economic uncertainty. He said he's looking for work now because earning additional income would help him live more comfortably and stress less about retirement savings.

"My situation is not desperate, and although I've made mistakes in my retirement savings in the past, I'm not making those mistakes," David said.

David said he also wants to keep working to stay busy. He's among the older Americans who desire to keep working for reasons other than finances.

"There are the people that love their job, working or even volunteering," said Deb Whitman, AARP's chief public policy officer, adding, "There's sort of a social connection, a sense of purpose and meaning that people get."

Some older Americans' jobs are more crucial. While they hope to retire in the next few years, it's far from guaranteed.

In December 2022, David Schanen was laid off from his network engineer job. Over the last three years, he's struggled to find high-paying work in his industry.

"There's a lot of work for things that I'm qualified for, but people are paying like $25 an hour," said Schanen, who's 64 and based in Seattle. He said his network engineer job paid about $200,000 annually.

Schanen said he hopes to sell the two side businesses he started over the past decade and retire sometime in the next couple of years. However, he said his real estate photography and virtual concert businesses have only generated roughly $100,000 in combined revenues to date — not nearly enough to make his significant financial investments in them feel worthwhile.

Schanen's uncertain retirement outlook is why he's continued exploring other job opportunities. About six months ago, he began driving for Uber about 40 hours a week. He said he's frustrated with the gig's pay, but that it's given him the flexibility to control his own working hours and dedicate time to his businesses.

"Right now what I'm doing is just kind of keep helping me stay afloat," he said.

• Some older Americans said they moved abroad because they couldn't afford a comfortable retirement in the US.
• They cited high costs for medical insurance and housing as reasons for their moves.
• Four retirees who moved to Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Spain shared how moving helped their wallets.

Amy Glenn felt like she had no choice but to leave the US.

Glenn, 72, said she couldn't afford life in Texas after years of teaching political science and economics at a university and over a decade of caring for her parents full-time. She feared her $1,200 in Social Security wouldn't be enough to live comfortably in the US.

In January 2023, she paid $165,000 for a house in Costa Rica. Each month, she spends $300 on groceries, $70 on electricity, and $80 on medications and doctor visits.

"I would have never bought this much property in the US, and that takes a huge weight off my mind because I know that I'm not going to be homeless," Glenn said. "The financial stress is gone."

Over the last few years, dozens of American expats have told BI their reasons for moving abroad. Many, including retirees, have mentioned higher US living costs as a major motivator for relocating to relatively cheaper countries like Mexico, Ecuador, and Spain.

Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that consumer prices have risen by over 23% since 2020. Inflation typically hits older Americans harder because they often depend on fixed incomes from retirement savings or Social Security.

Over 760,000 Americans abroad receive Social Security benefits yearly. Data from the Social Security Administration shows that Americans' average monthly Social Security benefit was $1,976 as of December 2024.

"We have a substantial number of people who don't have sufficient retirement savings to supplement their Social Security," David John, a senior strategic policy advisor at AARP, previously told BI. "Social Security is it for a substantial number of people. That means, essentially, that they may not have the kind of retirement that they dreamed of."

The predicament has left many older Americans considering moving abroad as the key to a fulfilling retirement.

Retirees want to live where costs are low and quality of life is high

Some older Americans have the financial means to live in the US but realize it may not be the best investment or align with the lifestyle they envision long-term.

Shawna Lum, a Spain-based relocation coach who has helped retirees move abroad, told BI that lower living costs are especially appealing to retirees on fixed incomes.

"Affordability is a huge reason my clients move abroad, especially retirees on fixed incomes," Lum said. "Many of them find that in countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama, they can live comfortably on their Social Security check — something that just isn't possible for them in the US."

Take Sandy Berenhaus, a clinical audiologist who retired from her consulting practice in 2024 at age 73. She had substantial savings and investments spread across multiple assets.

Although Berenhaus could have continued living in her $4,000-a-month luxury apartment in New Jersey — a two-bedroom, two-bathroom unit with its own indoor garage and a community pool — she knew that relying on Social Security as her main income might make retirement in the US financially challenging.

"My savings and investments might be viewed as 'substantial' by some but clearly stood the risk of being significantly depleted over time without making significant changes to my lifestyle, not to mention the occurrence of unforeseen emergencies," Berenhaus told BI. She added, "I'm not a millionaire. If I lose my Social Security, that's a big deal."

Beyond finances, Berenhaus said the divisive politics in the US began to turn her off. She wanted to live in a place where she felt she could truly enjoy life.

After consulting with Lum this year, Berenhaus packed up and moved to Barceloneta, a seaside neighborhood of Barcelona, Spain. She lives in a two-bedroom sublet with beach views and pays $2,000 monthly.

"Barceloneta is the perfect starting point for my next life chapter," she said. "Living here allows me to pursue many personal passions at a fraction of NYC prices. I have music, dance venues, and beautiful beaches at my doorstep. Plus, there are friendly locals and a huge array of similar-minded expats from around the world."

Healthcare costs have pushed some older Americans out

Stephen Vargha, now 66, left his job at a North Carolina television station in 2020. He expected to work for a few more years before enjoying his retirement in the mountains, where he bought a home in West Jefferson.

However, Vargha struggled to find work. Despite being open to a pay cut, he said he received "not a single phone call" when applying for jobs, which he said was worrisome. While doing the math for his retirement, he and his wife discovered their monthly health insurance premium of $1,930 — not including deductibles — would cost about $150,000 over the next seven to eight years.

Vargha and his wife decided the best action plan was to leave the US and move abroad, where they could better afford daily expenses and healthcare. He took his monthly Social Security income of $2,400 and relocated to Cuenca, Ecuador. He receives a net pension of $570 after taxes. He and his wife had about $850,000 in combined assets before leaving.

In Cuenca, a city in the Andes mountains, they bought a 1,200-square-foot condo for about $150,000. Vargha said each month, they spend $177 on health insurance, $22 on property taxes compared to $285 in the US, and $39 on homeowners' insurance compared to $145. Groceries are somewhat similar to the US, about $600 monthly, and they devote about $300 to restaurants and entertainment.

"We're able to do more than we ever could in the US when we were both working," Vargha said. "We ate out maybe once a week because that was all we could afford. We're now eating out eight to 10 times a month."

Brenda Price, 59, also said healthcare costs also pushed her to move abroad from Minnesota.

Price worked in international finance for most of her career and retired early at 55. She grew tired of paying over $1,000 in insurance premiums per month on top of an annual deductible of $10,000, in addition to $2,200 monthly plus utilities for a studio apartment.

"We would have been able to make it work, but it would have been a very different lifestyle because the costs are so much lower than they would have been in the US," Price said. "We were limited, and we couldn't spend much."

Price and her husband moved to Valencia, Spain, two years ago. They rent a 1,200-square-foot apartment with a balcony and terrace for $1,500 a month.

She said groceries cost 30% to 40% less, while health insurance is about $200 monthly. She said public transportation is about 40 cents a ride, while a museum visit runs her $2. She estimates they spend about $200 monthly on activities and about $300 on Spanish classes. She's also enjoyed the cost of travel, once flying to Morocco for about 80 euros, or $83.

"I am very much a budgeter, and I know what we have to spend and what we should spend," Price said. "We're very happy here, and we have no plans right now to leave."

• President Donald Trump endorsed a House GOP budget plan Wednesday.
• Republicans' outline would likely lead to billions in cuts to Medicaid, which insures 70 million.
• In an interview alongside Elon Musk that aired Tuesday night, Trump said he wouldn't touch Medicaid.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday endorsed a House Republican budget plan that could cut billions from Medicaid, just hours after pledging that the healthcare program for millions of disabled and low-income Americans would not be touched.

Republican leaders have called for massive spending cuts to finance trillions in tax cuts and other provisions. House conservatives won a major concession last week, passing a budget blueprint that ties the size of the proposed tax cuts to the size of spending cuts. If Republicans don't cut enough spending, their outline would likely not allow for all of Trump's promises, including ending taxes on tips and overtime pay.

During an interview alongside his senior advisor Elon Musk, Trump said he would not touch Medicaid. He has pledged not to cut Social Security or Medicare, the largest federal government programs, though his administration has recently targeted Social Security over fraud suspicions.

"Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched," Trump told the Fox News host Sean Hannity in an interview that aired on Tuesday night.

Senate Democrats criticized Trump's embrace of the House GOP blueprint.

"Last night, the president said, 'I'm not touching Medicare, Medicaid, the VA," Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin told reporters at the Capitol. "By this morning, he endorsed the House budget resolution, which paves the way for massive cuts to Medicaid."

Trump previously said he would "love and cherish" Medicaid, which insures over 70 million Americans, according to October data. The federal government covers most of the cost of the program, which was created in the same 1965 law that birthed Medicare, a separate program for Americans 65 and older.

The White House said the Trump administration remains committed to Medicaid while pursuing changes that could alter the program.

"The Trump administration is committed to protecting Medicare and Medicaid while slashing the waste, fraud, and abuse within those programs — reforms that will increase efficiency and improve care for beneficiaries," White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement on Wednesday.

Last week, the House Budget Committee released its budget draft, which outlined about $2 trillion in spending cuts. These included a proposed $880 billion in spending cuts from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would extend for a decade.

It's likely these cuts would target Medicaid. The program covers healthcare services for lower-income Americans of all ages, accounting for about $872 billion in spending in 2023.

Some GOP leaders have suggested implementing per-capita caps on Medicaid, which could save up to $900 billion, a House Budget Committee proposal said. Cuts to Medicaid would likely reduce services or prompt a search for other funding methods, which could affect millions of recipients.

Trump's statement comes as congressional Republicans tussle over how to best proceed with the special budget process that allows them to extend Trump's 2017 tax plan, fund stiffer immigration enforcement, and potentially pass a plan for no taxes on tips, all without requiring the support of a single Democratic lawmaker. Known as reconciliation, the process is likely Trump's best avenue to pass the bulk of his domestic agenda, given Republicans' thin majorities in Congress.

Senate Republicans have a competing plan, which does not include tax cuts. Under their proposal, the GOP would return to extending tax cuts and passing additional ones later this year. Senate Republicans were expected to move forward with their proposal before Trump posted Wednesday on Truth Social his praise of the House version of the bill in comparison with the Senate's.

• The Trump administration claimed the Social Security Administration gives payments to dead people.
• An SSA audit published in November 2021 revealed $298 million paid to 24,000 dead Americans.
• That's fewer deceased recipients than the "tens of millions" of people the administration suspected.

The Trump administration is searching for fraud in the Social Security Administration for what it believes are payments to dead Americans, but SSA audits reveal this isn't happening as frequently as the administration said.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Fox News interview that President Donald Trump has instructed Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency to find fraud within the SSA. She added that they suspect there are "tens of millions of deceased people who are receiving fraudulent Social Security payments."

While SSA audits over the past few years have found that a few thousand dead Americans have received Social Security payments, it was nowhere near as widespread. Business Insider analyzed three recent audits by the Office of the Inspector General at the Social Security Administration conducted since 2021. These determined that errors such as overpaying beneficiaries and paying dead Americans have amounted to billions in losses, though these are under 1% of total SSA benefits payouts.

The Social Security Administration did not respond to a request for comment.

Are you a government employee with a story to share? Reach out to this reporter on Signal at nshei0227.30. or email [email protected].

SSA audits reveal small overpayments with recommendations to fix those

A November 2021 audit by the Office of the Inspector General at the Social Security Administration found that the agency paid about $298 million to 24,000 people after their deaths despite their accounts being flagged for suspended payments through December 2019, far below the tens of millions posited by Leavitt. The audit traced this error to faults in policy and technician errors.

The SSA sometimes sends beneficiaries either too large or too small sums, though these improper payments are a small fraction of total payments.

A July 2024 report from the OIG determined that between fiscal year 2015 and 2022, only about 0.84% of the Social Security Administration's payouts were deemed improper. However, over that period, SSA distributed a whopping nearly $8.6 trillion in benefits, meaning even that small percentage of improper payments added up to $71.8 billion.

"Even the slightest error in the overall payment process can result in billions of dollars in improper payments," the audit said, noting that improper payments occur due to infrequently updated SSA records or beneficiaries' failure to report information.

Those improper payments are often clawed back after SSA identifies them. The audit said that at the end of fiscal year 2023, the SSA recovered over $4.9 billion in overpayments, though its uncollected overpayment balance sat at $23 billion.

The OIG has provided various recommendations for amending some improper payment issues, such as creating reports to identify cases of people who have died and establishing automation and data analytics procedures to better identify improper payments.

In a separate July 2023 audit, about 18.9 million people born in 1920 or before held Social Security numbers but no death records in SSA files, a concern Musk raised in a post on X. But the overwhelming majority of those aren't receiving benefits: The audit said that 44,000 of these people received SSA payments at the time of the review. The Census Bureau estimates there are over 100,000 centenarians in the US as of 2024.

After Musk said during a press conference in the Oval Office on February 11 that he and his team found "people in there that are 150 years old," PolitiFact reported that some people who have closely worked with the SSA suspected the reason for that anomaly in the records was that, in some coding systems, the absence of a birthdate is coded to 1875, the year a conference for determining international standards occurred.

On Monday, Michelle King, the SSA's acting commissioner who worked at the agency for over 30 years, stepped down after DOGE inquired about accessing sensitive SSA information containing Americans' personal details. King was replaced by Leland Dudek, who manages the SSA's anti-fraud office.

"President Trump has nominated the highly qualified and talented Frank Bisignano to lead the Social Security Administration, and we expect him to be swiftly confirmed in the coming weeks," Harrison Fields, principal deputy press secretary, said in a statement.

• Many older Americans continue working into their retirement years, even though they're millionaires.
• Americans are working later in their lives than ever, many for financial reasons.
• Older Americans told BI they could retire but want to keep their minds fresh and social lives full.

Jack Bishop, 81, can comfortably retire after five decades in the restaurant industry. However, he has no plans to.

The Air Force veteran opened restaurants in Panama City Beach over the course of over 50 years, weathering hurricanes and a fire. He still operates two locations of a seafood buffet.

Bishop, a father of two, said he often sacrificed vacations for his business, though he's taken joy in training student workers, many of whom he's paid tuition for. He's paid his managers and core staff for the months the business closes for the season, which he said reduced his turnover rate.

Bishop could retire — he's worth a few million dollars — but he said his connections to many restaurant providers and community members hold him back from retiring.

"My plan was to be retired at 55, but I felt like I was in my prime, and we were doing great," Bishop said, adding he waited until 70 to take his $4,000 monthly Social Security checks. "I wanted to keep my mind alive."

Are you an older American working past the US retirement age of 67? Email this reporter at [email protected].

Bishop is one of about two dozen older Americans who responded to Business Insider reader surveys on work and aging and said that even though they can retire, they have no desire to stop. For this story, BI spoke with six of them.

Some said work gives them purpose and a social life, while others said they have peace of mind that they can afford large emergency costs or long-term care. Though many older Americans told BI they retired early and relish not being in an office, some who chose not to retire have millions in the bank but said they wouldn't know how to enjoy retirement.

Deb Whitman, AARP's chief public policy officer, said the number of people 55 and older who work or seek work is twice as high as in the 1990s, with Americans overall working longer.

"One thing you're seeing about people working longer is this fear of holding onto the job that they have because they might have lost one before or fear that they'll be pushed out any day," Whitman said, adding that many older Americans experience age discrimination.

Working with seven figures in the bank

Michael Mosher, 74, worked as a lawyer, but his income was inconsistent over the years — he made $850,000 one year and lost $10,000 the next. He said much of his low seven-figure net worth came from real estate deals.

When the pandemic hit, Mosher lowered his caseload but didn't retire. He said he sometimes takes a month or two off work to travel, and he owns about 300 acres of pasture land with three dozen cows. He still lives frugally: He pays $500 monthly rent for his office, and his other expenses are about $1,000 monthly.

Mosher said if he were to retire, he would live comfortably on about $50,000 a year from Social Security and $50,000 to $75,000 from investments. He's considered downsizing his ranch, which would sell for between $2 million and $3 million. Still, he said he would only quit law once his brain starts going, adding he wants to preserve his reason for getting up every morning.

"You need to do something productive that engages your mind and body," Mosher said. "As long as my brain holds up and my back and knees don't go away, I'll be a lawyer or rancher. I have the ability now to control my docket with the lawyer part so that I can run the ranch and not vegetate."

Retiring, then unretiring

Anne Sallee, 68, thought she would enjoy her retirement. But after two years, she decided to go back to work.

"I consulted for free and volunteered in my community, but I can vividly remember the first time the doctor's office asked me if I was retired, and I said yes. It was a painful moment," Sallee said.

Sallee, who lives in Winter Park, Florida, worked as a jeweler and paralegal while raising her three children. She said she hadn't planned for retirement until the mid-1990s, but by the decade's end, she could support her children, pay rent, and save. After a divorce, she married a financial advisor and joined a women's investment club that taught her the basics.

After working up to a six-figure salary, she spent four years in local government roles in Oakland Park, Florida. After holding various other hospitality management roles, she retired at 65.

"I decided this was it. I was going to retire. But I quickly found myself bored," Sallee said, adding she had enough in savings to live comfortably for years. "I started doing a lot of volunteer work in my immediate community, helping people with whatever problems I thought I might have a solution for."

Sallee said she wanted to "see in people's eyes" how her work has helped them, prompting her to return to work. She had accepted the city's economic development coordinator position, which paid half of her last one. She said she didn't need the money, as she has over a million dollars in retirement savings. Sallee said she might retire in a few years if her job stops giving her excitement, but she suspects she will always be involved in something.

"I had to be up and dressed at a desk at 8 every morning, which was a shock to my system," Sallee said. "I was used to a little more flexibility in my day, but I've been here now two years, and I absolutely love it."

Reaching retirement age but in it for the long run

James Sullivan, 61, an infectious disease doctor in Chicago, said he has "every reason in the world to be carried out of the office dead."

Sullivan, who went into private practice in 1996 working with HIV patients, said he has about 500 patients, many of whom he's treated for decades. He said at one point, he worked 12 to 16 hours every day.

Sullivan lived very frugally throughout his career. In medical school, he lived with six roommates, paid off his student loans within six months, and bought cheaper primary homes in up-and-coming areas. He prioritized dividend stocks and index funds. He also never had children.

"I did well financially because I liked what I was doing," Sullivan said. "I enjoyed every minute of what I did, no matter how sad or how hard it was."

Despite some frustrations with how corporatized medicine has become, Sullivan said he cherishes spending an hour with each patient. He spends time with family at dinners, but he frequently works holidays and rarely takes vacations. Sullivan has about $10 million in assets, including a house and an investment property, and he invests in his partner's medical education and training and his siblings' families.

Sullivan said as someone who frequently interacts with lower-income patients, he wishes lower-income people could retire comfortably with good Social Security. Still, he plans to work until 75, if not later.

"When I get asked to see somebody in the hospital, and it's an interesting case, I get to deal with other smart people. We get to talk about it. We get to look things up constantly and learn," Sullivan said. "I'm not looking for weeks of quiet time. I'm not even sure I'd know what to do with that."

• Gen Xers are moving to retirement hot spots for better housing, lower prices, and warmer weather.
• Census data shows a rise in Gen X movers in Florida, central Texas, north Georgia, and Tennessee.
• Movers told BI they sought lower costs and taxes but faced high insurance and utility bills.

Gainfully employed Gen Xers are packing their bags for retirement hot spots.

They're not foregoing the daily grind; instead, 45- to 60-year-olds are increasingly moving their families to warmer locales to take advantage of abundant housing, sunshine, and lower taxes.

Matt Hickman wanted to live somewhere with easy ocean access, good weather, and vibes that echoed his native California. In April 2020, the 46-year-old and his family moved to Orlando, which he said was more affordable than where they had been living in Colorado; a five-bedroom house cost around $90 a foot.

"I said, 'You know what? If we move now in our forties, we can be set up so that we'll have our house halfway paid off by the time we get close to retirement, and we'll have beaten all the baby boomers who are going to move down to Florida and make it more expensive,'" Hickman said.

Have you recently moved to a new state or country? Please fill out this quick form.

Many in his generation seem to be on the same page. An analysis of Census data from 2020 to 2023, exclusively shared previously with BI by University of Virginia demographer Hamilton Lombard, shows that many counties in the south experienced large net increases in movers ages 45 to 54, particularly in Florida, central Texas, north Georgia, and Tennessee. Many New England, Missouri, and Idaho counties also experienced large increases. Meanwhile, much of California, the Midwest, and the Deep South — such as Louisiana and Mississippi — were in the red.

Some of the most popular counties for Gen Xers were those with older populations living in retirement communities — Gen Xers moved to "retirement destination" counties at a net rate of 5.1% between 2020 and 2023, compared to the US growth rate of 1.6%. Lombard suspected this trend was due to ample available housing in these areas and the generation's rising savings.

In interviews with half a dozen Gen Xers who moved further south, most said they appreciated the lower cost of living, slower pace of life, and work opportunities. Still, some said they hated the weather, paid exorbitant insurance premiums, or didn't enjoy the politics.

Hickman's family liked Florida for a time. They landed in a predominantly 55-and-up community, visited a theme park often, and went to the beach six months of the year, but the humidity started to weigh on them. Plus, their homeowners' insurance was $3,500 a year, property taxes soared, and they spent hundreds a month on utilities. As expenses — and bugs — piled up, they decided it was time for another change.

Hickman and his family landed in Atlanta, where they found a younger community along with cheaper utility and insurance bills.

Moving south to save money, but not everything is cheaper

Many movers told BI they moved south to save more in preparation for retirement, though some discovered prices are, in some cases, much higher.

Randy Foster, a music promoter, lived all over the Eastern Seabord but moved to Seattle in 2015. With rising prices in his area and nine months of no sun a year, he wanted to move south.

After a recent divorce, Foster, 55, settled in Florida's Bradenton-Sarasota area in 2022, where his cost of living fell dramatically. Though he now has a car in Florida, he estimates he's saved about 30% compared to Seattle.

"I decided that Florida offered more opportunity, more freedom for me, more freedom to choose," Foster said. "I spent a heck of a lot less on rent and all of my bills now than I did in Seattle."

While he paid $3,000 monthly for a three-bedroom Seattle apartment, he pays about $2,000 in Florida for a four-bedroom house with a yard. His electricity bill is about 50% more in Florida, though his other utilities stayed consistent.

He said he enjoys earning $160,000 annually in a state with no individual income tax. Though he said he only has about $30,000 saved, as he hasn't prioritized his retirement planning until recently, he believes he can continue saving more in Florida.

Escaping high taxes

Some movers said they left for Southern states with fewer taxes and better business environments.

Tracy Rockney, 57, worked in pharmaceutical regulatory affairs and built a consulting firm. The mother of three considered some southern states when deciding to leave Illinois but found Florida unappealing due to its humidity, hurricanes, and aging populations in the areas they considered. Her husband's college roommate encouraged them to move to Dallas-Fort Worth.

"We would rather live a community where there's a mix of races and cultures and ages," Rockney said.

In 2020, she moved to a Dallas suburb with her retired husband and their youngest daughter to limit her tax liability — Texas has 0% state income tax — and to improve her daughter's education quality. She sold the Illinois home for $795,000 and bought her current Texas home for about $1.1 million.

She's found the healthcare options better in Texas, and she said prices are generally lower than Illinois'. Rockney sold her business in August 2022 and left her most recent role as an executive vice president in late 2024.

She's appreciated lower grocery prices, though her water bill skyrocketed to $150 monthly. Landscaping costs are "really expensive," for which she budgets between $5,000 and $10,000 annually.

She appreciates Texas' many outdoor activities, and her husband is the youngest person in his skydiving group. She said Texas' business-friendly environment may help her when she starts up new entrepreneurial ventures.

"We kick ourselves and say we wish we'd done this move sooner," Rockney said. "I wish I'd done it maybe when starting my business in 2015."

Taking advantage of remote work

Some movers told BI they left the commotion of busier, more expensive cities for more rural areas while working remotely.

Elisa Suetake, 51, is hovering somewhere between retirement and work.

Suetake and her husband spent six years in San Jose, working in Silicon Valley. The couple would go to Hawaii three to four times a year but thought they could never work from there without getting cabin fever.

The pandemic, however, proved that wrong. In July 2021, they moved to Maui, tripling their property size for just $250,000 more than their San Jose home.

Their new property has a main house with five bedrooms, with an attached ADU, and there's an additional smaller structure with three bedrooms. They plan on remodeling and renting out the smaller house while keeping the attached apartment for guests.

Suetake said that neither she nor her husband are planning on retiring traditionally — they'll never stop working, but they will stop working for someone else.

"We're never bored. We're always learning something," Suetake said. "It's just that we don't have a dedicated income stream from a company."

• Many federal probationary employees have been let go, such as some OPM and Forest Service workers.
• BI looked at which states and agencies have the most federal workers who have been on the job for less than a year.
• Many work at the Department of Veterans Affairs and military departments.

The latest wave of federal government firings is focused on recent hires — thousands of whom work for military offices or live in California.

Workers are generally considered "probationary" if they have less than one year of experience in their current role; for some agencies the probationary period can be longer. These workers typically lack the ability to appeal their removal and have fewer protections.

As of May 2024, data from the Office of Personnel Management showed the government has more than 200,000 people in cabinet-level and independent agencies who have been working for less than a year.

Business Insider looked at the latest employment data from the Office of Personnel Management to get a rough sense of how many workers could be affected. As of May 2024, the OPM data showed the Department of Veterans Affairs had over 56,000 workers with less than a year of service, though the department has said many recent hires are exempt from the current cuts. Many other people work for military departments, with over 19,500 civilian workers in the Department of the Army.

The following chart shows departments and agencies with more than 1,000 civilian workers who had been there for under a year.

California and Washington, DC, are home to many federal workers with less than a year of service. OPM data showed that California had more than 15,000 people as of May 2024, DC had nearly 12,500 people, and Virginia had about 12,400.

While exemptions exist, including for many positions deemed critical, many people could be potentially susceptible. Some employees have been targeted for underperforming, though some have told BI they were fired even with strong performance reviews.

To be sure, agencies are handling probationary employees differently, and not all agencies have alerted staff of changes yet. Some agencies are preserving the overwhelming majority of their probationary workers, while others are letting go of larger shares.

"The probationary period is a continuation of the job application process, not an entitlement for permanent employment," an OPM spokesperson said in a statement. "Agencies are taking independent action in light of the recent hiring freeze and in support of the President's broader efforts to restructure and streamline the federal government to better serve the American people at the highest possible standard."

Some congressional representatives have argued that though federal law permits probationary employees to be fired due to performance, it doesn't permit mass firings without individualized performance reviews.

A statement from Everett Kelley, President of the American Federation of Government Employees, a federal workers union, said, "This administration has abused the probationary period to conduct a politically driven mass firing spree, targeting employees not because of performance, but because they were hired before Trump took office."

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

Who has already been affected

As of Friday afternoon, departments and agencies such as the Department of Education, US Forest Service, and General Services Administration have begun firing probationary employees.

The Department of Veterans Affairs said on Thursday the department let over 1,000 workers go. The department argued the cuts would save over $98 million annually, though the vast majority of probationary employees kept their jobs.

"Those dismissed today include non-bargaining unit probationary employees who have served less than a year in a competitive service appointment or who have served less than two years in an excepted service appointment," a news release said, adding that a majority of the probationary workers were exempt because "they serve in mission-critical positions."

A few dozen probationary OPM employees were laid off Thursday afternoon and instructed to leave the building within half an hour. One OPM worker who had been working there for under a year and was let go this week said they thought they would be building a longer-term career at OPM.

"I always heard that federal jobs were good, the benefits were good, the pay was good," they said.

Firings of probationary employees have also rocked the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Department of Energy, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dennis Lapcewich, the vice president of the Forest Service Council of the National Federation of Federal Employees union, told BI the jobs of about 3,400 probationary workers were cut.

Are you a federal employee who has been let go? Reach out to these reporters to share at [email protected] and [email protected].

• Older Americans are facing career setbacks due to caregiving for aging parents, impacting finances.
• Many quit jobs or reduced their hours, unable to afford nursing homes for their loved ones.
• Some told Business Insider they weren't able to land back on their feet after taking years off.

Many older Americans are facing a difficult choice: leave behind a career they've built for decades to care for their parents, or stay at their job and cover the high cost of care.

In the late 1990s, Maylia Tsen's parents moved from New York to live with her in Southern California. Tsen said her mother was facing several health issues and that her area offered better access to healthcare. Tsen continued to work full-time as a VP of sales and marketing, but eventually, it became too difficult to balance the role with her caregiving responsibilities. Around 2005, she left the job she'd spent years working toward, which she said paid more than $150,000 annually.

"I couldn't take full-time hours," said Tsen, 63. "I couldn't make that commitment because I never knew what was going to happen with them."

About two dozen older Americans told Business Insider in responses to reader surveys about work and retirement that they moved, quit their jobs, or switched to a part-time work schedule to care for their parents. Many made the decision because taking on caregiving themselves was the most economical option, as they couldn't afford the high costs of nursing homes or other long-term care for their parents.

They're now earning less since they reentered the labor market or are struggling to get hired in the industries they worked in before stepping away.

Are you an older American who has struggled to secure work due to caring for parents? Have you struggled in general to find a job recently? To share your story, please fill out this form.

The most recent data on unpaid caregiving from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that over the combined years of 2021 and 2022, about 9 million or 21% of 55- to 64-year-olds provided eldercare, referring to unpaid care provided by family or friends to those 65 or older. This demographic did about four hours on average of eldercare each day.

A 2021 AARP report found, based on a survey of 2,380 caregivers, that they spent on average $7,242 annually of their own money. Among the 1,415 working caregivers in the survey, 29% had to take paid time off from work in the past year because of caregiving.

"It's been a real financial challenge and burden," said Tsen. "Caregiving has taken a toll on me, financially, physically, and mentally."

Tsen's mother died 11 years ago, but she still cares for her 97-year-old father. To facilitate her caregiving, she's turned down higher-paying work in favor of lower-paying jobs that offered her the flexibility she needed. To pay the bills, she's had to draw upon her savings and retirement funds.

Struggling to land work after a pause

Some people have continued to face career obstacles after scaling back their caregiving responsibilities. D. Peterson, 65, applied for jobs unsuccessfully for a year and a half after taking three years off to care for her mother.

Peterson, who lives in Georgia and asked to obscure her first name to protect her family's privacy, often switched jobs and worked as a leasing consultant, administrative assistant, and real-estate agent throughout her career. She made enough to live comfortably but called herself a "poor money manager" and said she didn't prepare well for retirement. Because of her financial situation and her mother's health, she moved in with her in 2010.

At the start of the pandemic, she quit her job where she was earning $40,000 annually to care full time for her mom, who was in her mid-80s. Once her siblings became more involved with caretaking in 2023, Peterson looked for work — only to realize that landing a role with a three-year gap and being close to retirement age would be challenging.

She wasn't familiar with the new hiring technology like online interviews, and there weren't many administrative assistant roles remotely or in her area. The available ones had hundreds of applicants. And because she switched industries during her career, she said she couldn't prove her authority in one field as easily.

Peterson landed a job at a library a month ago, which pays $11 an hour, but she injured her ankle two weeks in and said she's applying elsewhere. She doesn't foresee herself being able to retire as she relies on her $1,600 monthly Social Security checks.

"I'm trying to save as much as I can and finally put myself on a budget, but my main concern now is my mom, who's losing her memory and eyesight but doesn't want to go into assisted living," Peterson said. "It's hard to stay motivated when you feel like you don't have the skills or face age discrimination."

The labor market has been difficult for job seekers in general, including for older Americans, some of whom have taken huge pay cuts after a layoff or voluntary departure. Additionally, even though the unemployment rate is historically low, hiring rates have slipped from more than 4% a few years ago to 3.3% and 3.4% in recent months.

Rita Choula, senior director of caregiving for AARP Public Policy Institute, told BI that more companies should aim to support caregivers. This can look like offering leave for caregivers or changes to company culture to normalize caring for an older adult.

"It's great that you have vacation leave, but we really want caregivers who are under enough stress to be able to take that time for them to rest and reset," Choula said.

Only finding limited work options

Older Americans told BI that caregiving meant sacrificing career opportunities that didn't work with their schedules, often adversely affecting their finances.

"Many employed caregivers face strain in managing both caregiving and work responsibilities simultaneously," the AARP report said. "These consequences can lead to reduced job security, fewer employment opportunities, and ultimately, lower retirement savings."

In 2017, Robin, who asked to use her first name for fear of professional repercussions, sold her condo in the DC area and moved into a nearby one-bedroom apartment with her legally blind mother. She had just been laid off from her government relations job.

Robin, 62, said caring for her mother has had lasting effects on her career and earnings. To help pay the bills, Robin said she worked various retail jobs, including as a cashier at Walgreens. She said this income wasn't sufficient, and she had to deplete much of her savings and 401(k).

"During that time, I was unable to hold anything more than a part-time job," she said.

In 2022, Robin's mother died, which allowed her to pursue full-time government relations roles. But, despite her roughly 20 years of industry experience, she said she struggled to land a job.

"Employers just see the gap on your résumé, and they don't realize that your time was spent productively, but in a very different way," she said.

In September 2022, Robin enrolled in the Senior Community Service Enrollment program, which helps unemployed older people find work. She said the program helped her land a part-time data analytics role with the National Council on Aging — which she started in October 2023 — and that she's interviewing for a full-time position with the organization.

"I'm really hoping the job comes through," she said, adding, "I definitely have to recover my finances."

• House Republicans unveiled a budget draft that potentially cuts critical Medicaid funding.
• The Budget Committee draft instructs the Energy and Commerce Committee to cut at least $880 billion.
• House and Senate GOP leaders aren't on the same page when it comes to advancing Trump's agenda.

Medicaid may be on the chopping block as the Trump administration prepares its budget blueprint.

The House Budget Committee's budget draft included a goal of about $2 trillion in spending cuts and allowed for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

The blueprint draft called for at least $880 billion in spending cuts from the House Energy and Commerce Committee over the next decade. This would likely mean large Medicaid cuts, potentially leading many Americans to lose their benefits. A Ways and Means Committee document outlining reconciliation options reveals over $2 trillion in potential Medicaid cuts, though some could overlap.

President Donald Trump has said Social Security and Medicare, which are the largest federal government programs, wouldn't be cut. Elon Musk has also accused "federal entitlements" such as Social Security of fraud.

The draft directed the Committee on Agriculture to reduce the deficit by $230 billion, which would mean cutting nutritional programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The most recent Medicaid enrollment data from October 2024 revealed over 72 million people were enrolled in Medicaid, while 7.25 million were enrolled in Children's Health Insurance Programs. Medicaid provides healthcare and long-term services coverage for lower-income Americans and is financed by both the federal government and states. In some states, over 30% of the population is covered by Medicaid. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicaid spending in 2023 was nearly $872 billion.

Some GOP leaders have proposed reducing Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, the amount the federal government pays to states based on factors such as a state's per-capita income. Others have proposed Medicaid per-capita caps, which an early House Budget Committee proposal said could save up to $900 billion. This shift would lead states to either cut back on Medicaid services or identify other methods for funding potentially billions in losses.

Figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have argued that Medicaid is ineffective, and some question whether it has improved people's health. Critics of the program have also said people relying on Medicaid could get insurance from other sources, such as their workplace. However, Medicaid expansions have been shown to improve care access, reduce mortality rates, and spark economic growth.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in recent days had already moved ahead with his border security, military, and energy package, as Republicans in the upper chamber had been waiting for their House counterparts to offer their budget proposal.

Graham is aiming to pass a second budget resolution extending the 2017 tax cuts later this year.

Senate Republicans can pass a budget reconciliation bill with a simple majority, or 51 votes, as they wouldn't have to meet the normal 60-vote filibuster threshold. The party currently holds a 53-47 majority in the upper chamber.

House GOP leaders see their budget framework as one that could pave the way for passing a reconciliation bill through Congress with the priorities of Trump and top conservatives in mind. Republicans have a razor-thin 218-215 majority in the House, so every vote will be critical, and they're looking to pass one bill with Trump's signature policy desires.

Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday told reporters that Graham's plan was a "nonstarter."

"We all are trying to get to the same achievable objectives," the Louisiana Republican said. "And there's just, you know, different ideas on how to get there."

GOP leaders have recently pushed for Medicaid cuts, leading to debates over how much to cut services many Americans rely on.

Other major points from the House blueprint included increasing the debt limit by $4 trillion, reductions in education totaling $330 billion, and allocating up to $300 billion in additional border and defense spending.

The Senate's plan calls for $150 billion in additional defense spending and a $175 billion boost for border security.

• Older Americans priced out of their homes sometimes turn to van life for affordability and freedom.
• High housing costs and fixed incomes have driven some older Americans to live in their vehicles.
• 2 Americans in their 70s explained why they adopted van life.

More and more older Americans are getting priced out of their homes — and some are turning to their vehicles as their new abodes.

Two older Americans in their 70s who live in their vehicles told Business Insider that even though they love the nomadic lifestyle, they couldn't make ends meet if they rented more traditional homes. Both said van life has allowed them to save more and work toward a more stable future.

Both said they adopted van life primarily because of the difficulties of facing an expensive housing market on a fixed income. They added that they enjoyed the freedom and adventure, wanting a change of pace from their day-to-day lives.

Are you an American experiencing housing instability or risk losing your home? Are you an older American with an uncommon housing situation? Reach out to this reporter at [email protected].

Both older Americans told BI why they took up van life, how they make it work, and what they've noticed about older Americans in their community.

Minivan Lee couldn't afford rent but loves the lifestyle

Minivan Lee, who asked BI to use her YouTube name, lives in her van in Arizona. Lee, 71, has been a nomad for eight years after living in Tucson for 45 years, where she raised four children. She became a single mother after her husband was killed by a drunken driver.

Lee worked in construction and for an architect before returning to school to earn her psychology and sociology degrees. She always made slightly above minimum wage but never earned enough to save much. She never owned a home and lived in various apartments, but she said she raised her children well with what she had.

"There was no career — it was just working," Lee said. "There was never a middle class for me. It was always lower class."

After researching van life, Lee bought a minivan once her children were grown. Lee said she found people across the socioeconomic spectrum, including some millionaires, adopting the lifestyle.

While she loved the lifestyle and freedom of living in her van, she said it was somewhat of a necessity. She estimates she would barely have any savings left over if she rented.

"Even though I did want to do this, there is no way right now that I would afford renting because, in the last four years, rents have gone sky high," Lee said.

Lee said most older Americans who she interacts with and who live on the road rely on Social Security or a small pension. She said she sees many women living in their vans and cars in Flagstaff, many of whom said they couldn't afford housing or were evicted. She's received dozens of comments on her videos from people writing they can't afford housing or food anymore and are buying vans as a last resort.

Lee said she is the "perfect candidate for small spaces." She has a stove, a small refrigerator, a makeshift bathroom, lighting, and many other necessities. She learned to do some maintenance work herself, from checking fluids to changing air filters.

"There is such freedom in that if I don't like what I'm seeing around me, or if somebody's smoking a cigarette and it's coming in through my van, I can move," Lee said. "If you're in a home, you can't."

She uses her phone as a hot spot, and she has a $10 monthly gym membership that doubles as her shower. Given that she only goes to a few places daily, she suspects she spends less on gas — she estimates about $110 monthly — than if she drove while living in a house. She pays $85 monthly for a storage unit, between $300 and $400 monthly for food, and $75 for car insurance.

Lee receives slightly over $1,000 monthly in Social Security, and with her earnings from YouTube and sales of her books on van life, she saves a few hundred a month. She said she has decent savings but added, "It's nothing like what it should be for my age."

Lee said she hopes to have her own permanent place one day, given she's unsure she can live comfortably in her van as she ages.

"It's certainly not going to carry me into my 90s," Lee said.

Lindy Moore was scammed and moved into her van but values her community

Lindy Moore, 77, a military veteran, worked as a programmer and accounting manager for over a decade. She also started a vintage clothing and antiques business. However, she couldn't afford her apartment after losing much of her savings in a housing scam nearly a decade ago, so she switched to living in her van for the last few years.

Moore, who lives in the Sacramento area, was close to paying off the mobile home, only to find out from the state that the park never had the rights to sell the homes. The park was shut down, and she didn't get any of her money back. She had no savings and nowhere to live except in her small minivan.

Moore lived for two years in the parking lot of a KFC where she worked. Then, she briefly lived in an apartment, but when her rent increased, she couldn't afford it with her income from Social Security, KFC, and Uber driving. Around the same time, she navigated two cancer diagnoses, and work became cumbersome.

She moved into her van full-time about five years ago and focused more on scaling her YouTube channel, where she covers life on the road. She also switched to working at Walmart.

"As you get older, you're just sitting there watching TV, your body has given out, and you can't do a lot of physical things," Moore said. "You're just waiting to die. I wanted a last adventure and didn't want to keep working all the time."

Moore said while some of her friends in vans have a house, many only have a vehicle. Some are in their 80s or 90s and have few other living options, she said.

"They just can't afford their rent, and their bodies aren't going to allow them to keep working," Moore said.

Still, she said the van life community has helped her stay confident and locate resources to live more comfortably, even though her YouTube channel doesn't bring in much money.

She said adjusting to living in her van came with mental challenges, such as receiving shaming comments from people. Another hurdle included learning to safely care for her belongings and protect her privacy. It took time to learn how to cook on a one-burner stove, stay warm or cool, and where to regularly access water.

Her expenses are way down compared to living in an apartment. Her rent was previously about $1,200 monthly. Now, her van is paid off, and her butane for her stove is about $120. She pays between $200 and $300 monthly for gas, below $10 monthly for water, and a few hundred dollars monthly in food since she said she stocks food in case of an emergency. She estimates that her total monthly spending stays below $1,000, including vehicle maintenance, and she doesn't travel.

Moore said this might be her last full year of van life, and after a recent heart surgery, she said she wants the stability of a tiny house.

• The end of USAID could mean more space for China to expand its global influence.
• The agency "assists US commercial interests," the Congressional Research Service said last month.
• Most of China's global investments come through the Belt and Road Initiative, not through aid.

The abrupt shuttering of the US Agency for International Development — a process the White House put into motion this week — is likely to benefit China on the world stage.

"The chaotic end of USAID will undoubtedly rebound to China's benefit, even if it is unlikely to change Beijing's international development strategy in the short term," Jeremy Chan, a senior analyst on the China and Northeast Asia team at the risk consultancy Eurasia Group, told Business Insider.

If USAID is shuttered, "there may be opportunities for other aid givers like China to exert soft power influence through dispensing aid," said Tai Wei Lim, a professor specializing in the political economy of Northeast Asia at Japan's Soka University.

USAID spent $32.5 billion in fiscal year 2024. Exact figures for China's foreign aid spending aren't fully public, but estimates from Japanese academics put the country's 2022 spend as high as $7.9 billion.

While China is far from the US's clout in terms of aid, the East Asian giant has been trying to expand its influence — politically and economically — beyond its shores, namely through its Belt and Road Initiative, as its economy remains in a long downturn.

Concerns about America's positioning without USAID have come amid intensifying geopolitical rivalry between the world's two largest economies.

On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump's administration slapped a 10% tariff on all Chinese goods — on top of prevailing levies. In response, China announced retaliatory tariffs on targeted US goods, including crude oil and machinery.

An America-shaped hole for China

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have called USAID wasteful and unaligned with American values. Nearly all USAID staff are set to be put on administrative leave starting Friday at midnight.

Founded at the Cold War's height, USAID has never operated as a purely altruistic agency.

USAID works with "strategically important countries" and "assists US commercial interests" by helping countries develop economically, per a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service last month.

Some US politicians have argued that USAID — or a similar aid program — is essential to matching China's foreign aid and investment efforts.

About half of USAID's 2024 spending went to humanitarian purposes or health and population purposes, such as funding HIV programs.

USAID has long garnered bipartisan support. In 2022, Sen. Marco Rubio — now the secretary of state — asked President Joe Biden to use his coming budget requests for USAID and other government agencies to counter China's "expanding global influence."

Now, politicians from both parties are highlighting the agency's role amid its uncertain future. All US foreign aid accounts for about 1% of the federal budget.

"Our assistance abroad helps fight disease and stop starvation and famine, but it's also a tool to stave off the expansionist reach of authoritarian leaders in China, Russia, and Iran," Democratic Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey told Bloomberg earlier this week.

"I have felt for a long time that USAID is our way to combat the Belt and Road Initiative, which is China's effort to really gain influence around the world, including Africa and South America in the Western Hemisphere," Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi told reporters on Tuesday.

China has been flexing its influence

For more than a decade, China has championed its flagship Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure project, through which Beijing has spent more than $1 trillion on gas pipelines, trains, and other trade and infrastructure projects globally. Much of the financing has been in the form of loans to the countries involved.

China has said BRI programs come with no political strings attached. But critics say China is trying to ensnare developing countries into debt traps — thus boosting Beijing's political leverage over debtor countries.

The China-based Green Finance & Development Center estimates that between 145 and 149 countries — about three-quarters of the world's total nations — are directly involved in BRI projects or have indicated interest in cooperating.

An analysis of 2023 data, the most recent year available, from the Green Finance & Development Center, which is based at China's Fudan University, showed how aid was geographically disbursed.

At the country level in 2023, China invested most heavily through BRI in Indonesia at $7.3 billion, followed by Hungary at $4.5 billion and Peru at $2.9 billion.

In Africa — where nearly every country has received Chinese investments — new roads, railways, and ports have been constructed over the past 10 years, while billions have been invested in energy infrastructure projects to give more residents electricity.

China overtook the US as Africa's largest trading partner in 2009. Africa typically imports electronics, machinery, and manufactured goods from China and exports fuel and metals.

In Asia, China has invested in new ports in Sri Lanka, high-speed rail in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, and infrastructure projects in Uzbekistan.

In September, China's leader, Xi Jinping, said China would commit more than $50 billion to Africa in financial aid. This was intended to strengthen Beijing's relationships with developing countries amid tensions with the US and other Western nations.

To be sure, China's aid efforts are probably not able to match the gargantuan hole left by USAID in the short term. Beijing has also moved its BRI focus from mega infrastructure deals to what it calls "small and beautiful" projects, analysts told BI.

But Beijing could shift its emphasis increasingly eastward, particularly to Africa and Southeast Asia, Eurasia Group's Chan said.

China is already winning some clout from the abrupt potential shutdown of USAID.

"China looks like the good guy on the international stage simply by doing nothing," Chan said.

"While Beijing's calls for stronger multilateral cooperation, more free trade, and improved global governance at the UN and Davos will do little to actually further multilateral solutions to pressing global issues — such as the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, supply chain resilience, or AI governance — China will win points at the US's expense by at least keeping up appearances of being a responsible global stakeholder," he said.

• USAID will cut nearly all staff, reducing its workforce from over 10,000 employees to 290.
• Trump and Musk have criticized USAID for being wasteful and supporting liberal causes.
• USAID spent $32.5 billion in 2024, focusing on health and humanitarian aid.

Federal workers are suing to stop the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, which faces cuts to nearly all of its over 10,000 staff by Friday.

The cuts would reduce employment numbers to 294, Randy Chester, vice president of the American Foreign Service Association at USAID, said in a press conference on Thursday announcing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and members of his administration that seeks injunctive relief to halt the cuts.

"The rest of the service will be furloughed and put on administrative leave, pending, but we assume there will be a reduction," he said.

One USAID employee who asked to remain anonymous told Business Insider that "the whole region of sub-Saharan Africa will be left with 12 staff members — or less."

The Trump administration's move to gut the foreign aid agency will also halt the contracts administered abroad by USAID.

On Tuesday evening, USAID announced it would put nearly all its staff on administrative leave beginning on Friday at 11:59 p.m., with exceptions to people with "exceptional circumstances," said Secretary of State Marco Rubio. USAID said it would arrange return travel with the State Department within 30 days.

"We're not trying to be disruptive to people's personal lives, we're not being punitive here, but this is the only way we've been able to get cooperation from USAID," Rubio, USAID's acting director, said Thursday from the Dominican Republic.

This comes after Donald Trump and Elon Musk both attacked the agency for being wasteful and backing liberal causes, with Musk calling it a "criminal organization" on X.

The American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents about 800,000 federal workers, filed a lawsuit with the American Foreign Service Association on Thursday, naming President Donald Trump, Rubio, Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent, the State Department, USAID,  and the Treasury Department as defendants.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs called the move by the Trump administration a constitutional and moral crisis.

The White House did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

USAID oversees programs in 65 countries focusing on medical assistance, food and nutrition, HIV treatment, and aid to people in conflict zones. Data reveals that USAID spent nearly $32.5 billion in aid in fiscal year 2024, with the most amount of aid sent to Ukraine, Jordan, and Ethiopia. Half of the funding went to either humanitarian or health and population purposes, while another $7 billion was spent on governance.

Foreign spending accounts for less than 1% of the US federal budget, though the US is the world's largest humanitarian aid provider.

Many leading Democrats and legal analysts have argued that shuttering USAID is illegal, as an independent agency can only be closed by an act of Congress.

Five days into Trump's term, the US froze billions in humanitarian aid intended for health, education, and anti-corruption purposes, among other purposes.

Trump has recently suggested his administration may try to shutter the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Justice.

• USAID distributed nearly $32.5 billion in aid in 2024, mainly to Africa and the Middle East.
• Many Republicans argue USAID is wasteful, while some Democrats say shuttering the agency is unconstitutional.
• Proposed USAID cuts may reduce aid to Ukraine, Jordan, and Ethiopia.

Proposed cuts to the US Agency for International Development could reduce assistance to Ukraine, Jordan, and Ethiopia.

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.

On Tuesday evening, USAID staff received an email saying that starting Friday, "all USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions, core leadership, and specially designated programs." The email added that essential staff would be notified on Thursday afternoon and that the agency would begin moving international staff back to the US within 30 days.

The US spends more on humanitarian aid than other countries by wide margins, though foreign aid spending is under 1% of the federal budget. The US provides some amount of aid to most countries, including nearly every country in Africa and Asia. Many polls have found a majority of Americans believe the US is spending too much on foreign aid, including for Ukraine.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

In 2024, the US donated over $5.4 billion in aid to Ukraine through USAID, most of which was through macroeconomic support to assist in its war with Russia.

The agency gave over $1.23 billion to Jordan last year, mostly through a cash transfer to the government in exchange for the country cooperating with US interests, such as providing intelligence support and housing Syrian refugees.

USAID also gave slightly over $1.2 billion to Ethiopia and nearly that amount to Congo amid continued conflict, climate shocks, and food shortages.

Other countries that received hundreds of millions of dollars from the agency included South Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen.

Of the $32.5 billion in spending, about one-quarter went to humanitarian purposes, while another quarter went to health and population. The agency allocated about $7 billion to governance and another $3.6 billion to administrative costs.

It devoted over $2.3 billion to fighting AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria globally, about $290 million to making vaccines and immunization more widespread, and nearly $188 million to international development and capital investment.

USAID, founded in 1961 during the Cold War, had three top partners in 2024: the World Bank Group, which received $4 billion; the World Food Program, which received $3.4 billion; and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which received $2.3 billion.

About one-quarter of USAID funding came from the Economic Support Fund, while $7.4 billion came from the State Department and global health programs.

Democrats and Republicans have been split on USAID's standing. While many Democrats say cutting USAID spending could have widespread negative impacts on millions of people in war-torn or developing countries — and could cost Americans thousands of jobs — Republicans argue USAID spending is often wasteful and not in the US's best interests.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk have attacked USAID and other foreign aid programs over the past few weeks. Musk called USAID a "criminal organization" in a post on X, while Trump told reporters on Sunday that USAID was "run by a bunch of radical lunatics."

Some legal analysts and Democratic politicians have argued that only an act of Congress can shut down an independent agency like USAID. Though Trump and Musk have said that there's fraud in USAID, some experts have pushed back on these claims.

"We don't have a fourth branch of government called Elon Musk, and that's going to become real clear," Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said at a press conference Monday outside the USAID headquarters. "This illegal, unconstitutional interference with congressional power is threatening lives all over the world."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was named USAID's acting director on Monday and has advocated for foreign assistance agencies to be more transparent about how aid is being implemented. Rubio said the Trump administration was reviewing each program to see if it makes the US safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

At the start of Trump's presidency, his administration froze billions in humanitarian aid, saying that many foreign assistance programs promoted liberal agendas or cost the US unnecessarily large amounts.

Are you a federal worker who wants to share your story with a reporter? Reach out from a nonwork email to [email protected].

• Older Americans with few regrets about planning for retirement shared their strategies.
• Common themes included living below means, achieving success at work, and taking affordable vacations.
• Some said they're not millionaires but have enough to live comfortably in their retirement.

Thousands of older Americans told Business Insider their biggest regrets. Some said they have very few.

Dozens of older Americans shared their feelings about retirement with BI through an informal survey of readers over the past few months. Many said they wouldn't have planned any differently for retirement, even if certain financial decisions would have made them wealthier. Common themes among respondents who had few regrets included navigating the corporate ladder well, living below their means, and making time for vacations without spending a fortune on them.

Read the stories of four older Americans who have few regrets about how they approached retirement.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

No regrets but an imperfect journey

George Lachman, 84, has few regrets about preparing for and enjoying his retirement — even though he said he wasn't too frugal.

Lachman taught public school in New York City for 32 years and retired at 55. He and his wife bought a modest home in 1969 for $32,000. When he sold it two decades ago, he made 12 times what they paid for it.

Lachman said they struggled to make ends meet early on, though they saved enough to send their daughter to private schools. He rarely invested outside his IRA, which he said became a "godsend" in retirement, and he often spent much of his savings on dinners out or clothes.

"When I retired, I expected to have a very comfortable retirement, and I looked forward to it," Lachman said. "I did a lot of traveling, and I spent my money wisely — or not so wisely sometimes. It didn't matter because I always had a check coming, and now I get Social Security as well."

He made more money when he retired from his investments and pension than his last year working. He chose a pension option tied to the stock market, which has grown to about $80,000 yearly. He has about $350,000 in his personal account and receives over $2,300 monthly in Social Security. In retirement, he said his investments have been relatively safe.

His wife died slightly over two decades ago, though he's kept himself busy for the last two decades. Lachman volunteered with mentally disabled patients and said his retirement income was enough to "keep me above water." He moved to Florida and purchased a $200,000 coop, which he said is now worth nearly double.

"I don't have any financial obligations other than supporting my daughter, who is always willing to take a few dollars here and there, but it's not a burden; it's a pleasure," Lachman said.

Discipline and patience

John Buffington, 64, said there's no reason to wish he had planned differently for retirement.

Buffington, who lives in Virginia, said his financial education began early, getting his first credit card before his teenage years. While in graduate school, he opened an IRA, and once he joined the Navy at 31, he only prioritized necessary purchases.

"I was disciplined and had the patience to maintain the consistency of what I was doing," Buffington said.

Because his Navy retirement pay wouldn't have been enough long-term, he left at 44 when he considered himself most marketable. He worked in IT services for hospitals and opened a 401(k) with a 5% match. He bought a commercial property with the money he kept in stocks and invested all rental money from tenants in the business.

Buffington said his main regret was staying in his house after his partner died six years ago instead of moving elsewhere. He said the house has not yet been paid off, and he has another 16 months until his mortgage is tackled.

He retired early at 62 and lives on income from the property, Social Security, and his veteran's benefits. His IRA has about $600,000, and his monthly income more than covers his monthly expenses.

Buffington said he intends to maintain the same level of restraint in retirement but plans not to deny himself what he wants. He set up an estate fund to partly pay for scholarships for LGBTQ+ people in the arts and sciences.

"I don't know how anyone can ever be bored with retirement," Buffington said. "I have less time now than I did when I was working."

Steady savings and comfortable living

Russell D'Italia, 79, called his career and retirement planning "close to perfect."

D'Italia, who lives in New Jersey, joined the Air Force, which helped him pay for law school through the GI Bill. He said he didn't have much financial education until turning 30.

He worked as a telecommunications and criminal attorney. He took advantage of 401(k) matching in his roles and often attended seminars on topics including how compounding works and navigating market volatility. He took his retirement package as a cash payout instead of a pension, and he worked for a few more years as a partner at another firm before retiring from law.

"I loved my work, which gave me continuing challenges while allowing me time to be with my kids," D'Italia said.

During his career, D'Italia, a father of two daughters, lived in modest apartments before buying a home where he lived for over 40 years. He and his wife kept their cars for long periods. They saved steadily — he estimated saving at least 20% a year of his salary by the end of his career — and he saved at least an extra 1% whenever he got a raise. He made some financial mistakes early in his career, including selling bonds after their price fell, but said he has few regrets overall.

D'Italia worked as a history and economics teacher after his law career, making substantially less than as an attorney. He said the extra money allowed him to not touch his savings, and despite the higher-than-expected workload, he said teaching was lower stress and allowed him to give back to his community.

Since retiring from teaching, he and his wife have traveled across South America, Europe, and the Caribbean. They haven't touched his wife's money, and he keeps nearly all his money in index funds. He has a seven-figure net worth.

Retirement as an 'intermission'

Spence Rice, 72, views his retirement more as an "intermission."

Rice, who lives in Idaho, worked in the airline industry for 50 years and navigated multiple company bankruptcies and mergers. He said at some points in his career, he had an income on Monday and nothing on Tuesday when a company went bankrupt. At points, life after a major layoff was bleak, he said, though he met his late wife of 29 years after moving for a job.

"It took a while for your finances to recover, but you had to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start over," Rice said.

Rice said he prioritized spending on travel, though he lived frugally in other aspects, knowing a layoff could come at any moment. When his wife died, he scattered some of her ashes in Antarctica, the final continent they needed to reach together.

"Do I wish I had more money? Yes, but I would not have done anything different," Rice said. "Would it be nice to have $5 million or $10 million? Yes, but I don't need it to live. I'm very comfortable with my life and how things have worked out."

Rice works when he wants for a local retail store that gives him the 20% more income he needs to live comfortably. He said working as a cashier lets him interact with new people and have a purpose, and he doesn't plan on retiring completely.

"I'm not the type of person who's going to go out and play golf every day or hang out with a bunch of people that don't want to do anything," Rice said. "You always hear about people who say they're retired and don't do anything, and then years later, they pass away because they're not keeping their minds active."

• BI spoke to 4 older Americans who retired comfortably with over $1 million in assets.
• Dozens of older Americans said they still maintain frugal habits despite having significant wealth.
• Still, some retirees said they regretted how they balanced saving too much with enjoying life.

Brian Loffredo, 68, still does his own yard work and watches his grocery spending despite having millions in the bank.

Loffredo, who lives in Connecticut, worked in retail management for decades but said finances were tight early in his career while raising four stepchildren. He recalled winters where he could "see the breath coming out of our mouths" because he couldn't afford heat.

As he navigated higher-paying jobs, including management roles where he worked 50 to 70 hours a week, he learned how to do home improvements himself to save money. In addition to smart investments and staying at one company for 26 years, these strategies helped him grow his wealth during difficult times — and he plans to keep them.

"You do what you have to do, you learn to do it yourself, and you can get it done," Loffredo said. "In the meantime, you're saving money that allows you to buy presents for the kids."

Loffredo could be seen as an example of a "millionaire next door," as described in a classic 1996 finance book. Many wealthier Americans live in middle-class areas and achieve their wealth through careful planning and investing instead of risky business moves or very high-paying jobs.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American who thought you retired well? Do you have any life regrets that you would be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

For many Americans like Loffredo, more money doesn't necessarily mean a drastic lifestyle shift. Business Insider heard from dozens of older Americans who retired comfortably but still remain frugal. Some older Americans told BI they're working while enjoying seven-figure net worths, whether for financial security or simply having something to do.

Some regretted over-saving and not enjoying their money when they were younger, but most said they would change little about their retirement strategies and believe they would not be who they are without making these sacrifices.

Loffredo hadn't thought seriously about investment strategies until 2000, a few years after his wife died. He watched financial cable news channels and read about diversifying his portfolio. He took $100,000 of his savings and day-traded it before taking the buy-and-hold approach.

After searching for areas with less costly real estate, he sold his 2,200-square-foot house for a 3,500-square-foot home that cost only $10,000 more. Despite a demotion from a six-figure income to about $60,000, his investments, including his 401(k) and IRA accounts, continued to grow.

"I could have bought a house for a million and a half, and my investments have made some money," Loffredo said. "I don't believe in wasting that kind of money, and every house you get that is more valuable costs you more to maintain it."

Loffredo retired in April 2021 and volunteers in the community. He recently splurged on a Corvette, though he continues living frugally in other aspects. He still sometimes waits until he has a coupon to get new clothes.

"Before you spend money, think about what that money could have earned if you hadn't spent it," Loffredo said. "Whether it's a frivolous vacation or a fancier car, is that more important to you than what that extra money might have earned?"

A magazine article sparked a financial awakening

Ken Curell, 73, recalls reading an article from a financial magazine decades ago arguing that people save money before spending it. Curell said except for wishing he had invested more in Roth IRAs, his retirement planning strategies worked well.

The Ohio resident served in the Air Force for over three decades. During this time, he married his wife and raised two children. He left active duty to fly for airlines until his retirement in 2012, and he taught his children how to fly planes.

"Angry perseverance for me was the impetus, the fuel, the ignition source for not giving up on flight and doggedly pursuing an avenue where I wanted to go," Curell said.

Curell said one of his major regrets was devoting too many hours to work. "My employers conditioned me to the idea of more time spent in the office and after-work-hours attention to work-related actions made me the better employee," Curell said.

Many older Americans who told BI they retired well wished they had worked less. In December, BI released a series on older Americans' retirement regrets, and a common theme was over-saving — being too frugal or putting in long hours without vacations.

Curell read extensively about retirement planning, investing in stocks, bonds, low-cost funds, and IRAs that have grown to seven figures. He said his portfolio is about 70% stocks and 30% bonds. In the early 2000s, amid pay cuts for pilots, he said he cut coupons and cut back on unnecessary expenses. He and his wife of 46 years, also an Air Force veteran, receive annuities that have made retirement planning less stressful.

"The first rule of thumb is to check your emotions at the door when you start dealing with your finances, making it purely about the numbers," Curell said.

Working too hard but celebrating the little things

Deborah Hrustich, 69, has rediscovered herself in retirement.

Hrustich, who lives outside Albany, worked 5 a.m. shifts as a neurosurgeon so she'd finish early enough to attend her three children's activities. She spent years sleeping five hours a night, working until she was 61.

Hrustich said she had few regrets about her spending, as she spent a lot on her children's activities but cut back on cars, clothes, and her home. She and her husband spent her money and saved his — they took extensive trips, bought Super Bowl and World Series tickets, and paid off their mortgage early.

They hired an accountant to manage their money, as she said neither of them knew how to properly invest. She said they had saved enough money to live until 100 and be financially stable.

"I don't think young people at 35 understand that you have to have money to retire, that you can't live on Social Security, but you want to balance that with fun times," Hrustich said. "If you dream of taking a trip somewhere, take it."

However, with millions saved for retirement, she said it took a few years to fully enjoy it. Her husband died suddenly three years ago, putting her retirement plans in flux. She also wished she would have taken more time for herself earlier in life.

"I never ate the last piece of cake," Hrustich said. "I always put the needs and wants of everyone else first."

She said it took two years after her husband's death to rebuild her life and surround herself with people who share her values. Hrustich volunteers as a caregiver for Alzheimer's patients and as a tutor, and she hopes to continue traveling.

Careful saving, tragedy in retirement, and bouncing back

Karen Jones, 69, didn't have stable work or actively save until her 30s. She worked as a customs broker while her husband stayed home with their children, and she started a customs brokerage and forwarding firm in Boise at 44.

"We were in our late 30s before we even thought of or cared about retirement, and we had a lot to make up," Jones said. "We maxed out our 401(k). If we had to make payments for two years for a couch, we didn't buy it."

She ran her company for 16 years, working long hours and saving much of her earnings. She and her husband stayed in the same house for 25 years, drove their cars for over 20 years, and bought a camper in cash. She planned to find a buyer for the firm after 10 years, but she ran it until she was 61 and retired at 64. She sold her company for about $700,000, including the payout for three additional years, and paid off her house and other debts.

"We were the only customs broker for a long time in Boise, but I treated my customers like there were a million of us around," Jones said.

Three days after her retirement, while preparing for a camping trip, her husband had a heart attack and never fully recovered. She spent two and a half years as his caregiver until he died, and she regretted not taking more time off while working to go on trips with family.

Jones teaches college courses, takes piano lessons, tends to her garden, and travels frequently. She earns about $5,000 a month from Social Security and investments and plans to move to Madrid.

"My finance guy keeps telling me to spend more," Jones said. "People save all their lives, and then they can spend it, but they don't know what to spend it on. Still, I don't think I have to worry about money."

• 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.

• President Donald Trump spoke virtually at the World Economic Forum on Thursday.
• During his speech, he accused banks like Bank of America of discriminating against conservatives.
• Bank of America responded, saying it has no "political litmus test." JPMorgan Chase said it "would never close an account for political reasons."

Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase denied President Donald Trump's claim that the bank discriminated against conservatives.

In a virtual appearance Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump called out Bank of America and other banks, including JPMorgan Chase, for refusing to serve 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," Trump said without including any specific instances of discrimination.

"You, Jamie, and everybody, I hope you're going to open your banks to conservatives because what you're doing is wrong," he said, referring to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

In a statement, Bank of America said it welcomes conservatives among its 70 million clients.

"We would never close accounts for political reasons and don't have a political litmus test," Bank of America wrote.

A JPMorgan spokesperson wrote in an email to Business Insider, "We have never and would never close an account for political reasons, full stop. We follow the law and guidance from our regulators and have long said there are problems with the current framework Washington must address."

Trump's comment came after Brian Moynihan, Bank of America's CEO, asked how the Trump administration would prioritize GDP growth and reducing inflation amid his dozens of executive orders.

Trump responded that his executive orders would do just that while encouraging companies to move in. He said he would work to bring the corporate tax rate down to 15% from 21%, provided companies manufacture their products in the US.

Trump's pushback comes after debates have accelerated surrounding debanking, or closing the accounts of people who are thought to pose a risk to the bank, such as money laundering or corruption. Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott is leading organization efforts on an upcoming debanking hearing.

The debanking debate goes back to the Obama administration, during which the so-called "Operation Choke Point" discouraged banks from engaging with payday lenders and gun sellers. In 2022, a banking regulator asked banks to pause "crypto asset-related activity."

State attorneys general in 2024 alleged major banks canceled accounts of people with conservative views. Last April, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach accused Bank of America of canceling accounts of gun manufacturers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement contractors, and Christian ministry groups.

"Bank of America's practice of cancelling the bank accounts of conservatives and even turning over information about customer's purchases to federal law enforcement undermines free speech, religious freedom and the right to privacy," Kobach said in the letter. "It's discriminatory and likely illegal. As state attorneys general, we will vigorously defend the constitutional rights of all Americans when they are threatened by big business."

Bank of America responded at the time that de-banking accounts sometimes happens when they fail to verify some documents or change an account's stated purpose.

"We would like to provide clarity around a very straightforward matter: Religious beliefs or political view-based beliefs are never a factor in any decisions related to our client's accounts," the bank wrote at the time.

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen also said on Joe Rogan's podcast that 30 tech and crypto founders have said their companies were cut off by banking regulators during the Biden administration.

On JPMorgan Chase's "The Unshakeables" podcast released on January 21, chair and CEO Jamie Dimon said of debanking, "There should be far cleaner lines about what we have to do, and we don't have to do." He added, "We need to fix it."

• A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's order to end birthright citizenship.
• The order has been challenged by multiple lawsuits that say it violates the 14th Amendment.
• In temporarily halting the order, the Seattle judge called it "blatantly unconstitutional."

A federal judge in Seattle temporarily halted President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to deny automatic citizenship for some people born on US soil, calling the move to end birthright citizenship "blatantly unconstitutional."

"I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that is a constitutional order," Judge John Coughenour of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington told the Trump administration's attorneys after hearing arguments Thursday morning, according to multiple news outlets in the courtroom. "It boggles my mind."

"I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is," the judge added.

The ruling was made in a case brought by four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. The case is among at least five lawsuits filed this week challenging Trump's birthright-citizenship order on the grounds that it violates the 14th Amendment.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department told Business Insider in a statement that the law enforcement agency "will vigorously defend President Trump's EO, which correctly interprets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

"We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation's laws enforced," the spokesperson said.

In the judge's ruling granting a 14-day restraining order, Coughenour wrote: "There is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Immigration and Nationality Act."

On Tuesday, attorneys general from 22 states and two cities across the country filed two separate lawsuits to block the order. A hearing has not yet been held for the first suit, which 18 states and the top law-enforcement officers of Washington, DC, and San Francisco have joined.

The lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon says the president "has no authority to amend the Constitution or supersede the Citizenship Clause's grant of citizenship to individuals born in the United States." It adds: "Nor is he empowered by any other constitutional provision or law to determine who shall or shall not be granted United States citizenship at birth."

The lawsuit also says: "United States citizens are entitled to a broad array of rights and benefits as a result of their citizenship. Withholding citizenship or stripping individuals of their citizenship will result in an immediate and irreparable harm to those individuals and to the Plaintiff States."

Trump signed the order targeting birthright citizenship, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," shortly after he was sworn into office Monday for a second presidential term. It was scheduled to take effect 30 days after its signing.

Birthright citizenship is a policy that automatically gives citizenship to anyone born in the US or US territories. Under Trump's executive order, federal agencies would be banned from issuing any documents granting citizenship to US-born children whose parents live in the country illegally, or in cases in which the mother was lawfully in the country temporarily — such as a student or tourist — but the father is neither a US citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.

The American Civil Liberties Union also brought a lawsuit on Monday that says at least 150,000 children would be affected.

Other immigration executive orders Trump signed after he was sworn in involved declaring a national emergency, sending the military to the US-Mexico border, shutting down the CBP One app from which immigrants seeking asylum could submit information, and restricting federal funding to sanctuary cities — which have limited cooperation with agents working to deport immigrants in the US illegally.

White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields told BI in a statement on Wednesday that the Trump administration is prepared to fight back against the lawsuits targeting his executive orders.

"Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump to advance his wildly popular agenda," Fields said. "These lawsuits are nothing more than an extension of the Left's resistance — and the Trump Administration is ready to face them in court."

• 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."

• Eighteen states sued to block Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship.
• The lawsuit claims Trump's order violates the 14th Amendment.
• Ending birthright citizenship could affect thousands of US-born children.

Attorneys general from 18 states, along with the top law enforcement officers of Washington, DC, and San Francisco, sued President Donald Trump on Tuesday to block his executive order to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

Trump's move to abolish birthright citizenship — a policy that guarantees citizenship to anyone born on US soil — is a "flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, says that the "principle of birthright citizenship has been enshrined in the Constitution for more than 150 years" and that Trump's order "expressly violates" the 14th Amendment.

Trump's order targeting birthright citizenship, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," was signed shortly after Trump was sworn into office for a second presidential term on Monday. It is scheduled to take effect 30 days after its signing.

Under the order, federal agencies are barred from issuing documents recognizing the citizenship of babies born in the US to parents who are in the country unlawfully or in cases where the mother was in the country legally, but temporarily, and the father was not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.

"President Trump's public statements make clear that he wishes to end birthright citizenship purely as a policy tactic to purportedly deter immigration to the United States," the lawsuit says. "Despite a President's broad powers to set immigration policy, however, the Citizenship Stripping Order falls far outside the legal bounds of the President's authority."

The lawsuit, filed by the group of states which includes New Jersey, New York, California, and Massachusetts, adds that if the "unprecedented executive action" moves forward, "both Plaintiffs and their residents will suffer immediate and irreparable harm."

"Every year, thousands of children are born in Plaintiffs' jurisdictions to parents who lack legal status or have a lawful status on a temporary basis," the lawsuit says.

The Trump administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Business Insider on Tuesday.

The executive order, if put into effect, would likely impact thousands of children in every corner of the US. The ACLU lawsuit brought on Monday, similar to the attorneys general suit, said that at least 150,000 children whose parents lacked legal status would not receive citizenship.

Using data from the 2022 American Community Survey, the most recently available data, the Pew Research Center calculated that among the 22 million people in households with an immigrant living in the US illegally, 1.3 million are adults born in the US to such immigrants.

Additionally, Pew found that about 4.4 million people under the age of 18 who were born in the US live with a parent living in the US illegally. Over 8% of households in Nevada, California, New Jersey, and Texas are inhabited by at least one immigrant in the US illegally.

Future generations of children could be substantially impacted by the abolition of birthright citizenship. A Pew analysis from 2018 using 2016 Census data found that about 6% of births that year were to immigrant parents living in the US illegally, or about 250,000 babies. This was down from about 390,000 babies in 2007 but still significantly higher than 30,000 in 1980.

When expanding the scope to foreign-born mothers, about 843,200 births in 2023 were to foreign-born mothers, or about 24% of all births, per the Annie E. Casey Foundation. This percentage is relatively in line with the past two decades.

The executive order targeting birthright citizenship was joined by other immigration- and deportation-oriented executive orders including declaring a national emergency, removing the CBP One app allowing migrants to submit information to seek asylum, and instructing federal agencies to select countries from which to suspend migrants if their governments fail to provide detailed information about their citizens.