Average rate on a 30-year mortgage in the US falls to 6.85% this week, first decline in a month

posted in: All news | 0

By MATT OTT, AP Business Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The average rate on a 30-year mortgage in the U.S. fell this week for the first time in a month, but borrowing costs for homebuyers remain elevated.

Related Articles


Wall Street is on hold as the countdown ticks toward Friday’s jobs report


The number of Americans filing for jobless benefits last week rises to highest level in eight months


Pampers maker Procter & Gamble to cut up to 7,000 jobs as companies are buffeted by higher costs


Women’s sports bar The Sports Bra set to expand to four new cities


Inflation data threatened by government hiring freeze as tariffs loom

The long-term rate dipped to 6.85% from 6.89% last week, mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said Thursday. A year ago, the rate averaged 6.99%.

Borrowing costs on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages, popular with homeowners refinancing their home loans, also came down. The average rate fell to 5.99% from 6.03% last week and 6.29% a year ago, Freddie Mac said.

Mortgage rates are influenced by several factors, from the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy decisions to bond market investors’ expectations for the economy and inflation. The key barometer is the 10-year Treasury yield, which lenders use as a guide to pricing home loans.

Bond yields have retreated the past week but broadly have been trending higher since hitting 2025 lows in early April, reflecting investors’ uncertainty over the Trump administration’s ever-changing tariffs policy and worry over exploding federal government debt.

The 10-year Treasury yield was 4.39% in midday trading Thursday, down from 4.54% a week ago.

Suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO killing said he ‘had it coming,’ according to prosecutors

posted in: All news | 0

By MICHAEL R. SISAK

NEW YORK (AP) — Six weeks before UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was gunned down outside a Manhattan hotel in December, suspect Luigi Mangione mused about rebelling against “the deadly, greed fueled health insurance cartel” and said killing the executive “conveys a greedy bastard that had it coming,” prosecutors revealed Wednesday.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office quoted extensively from Mangione’s handwritten diary — highlighting his desire to kill an insurance honcho and praise for Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber — as they fight to uphold his state murder charges. They also cited a confession they say he penned “To the feds,” in which he wrote that “it had to be done.”

Mangione’s lawyers want the state case thrown out, arguing in court papers that those charges and a parallel federal death penalty case amount to double jeopardy.

They also want state terrorism charges dismissed, have asked for the federal case to go first and say prosecutors should be barred from using evidence collected during Mangione’s arrest, including a 9mm handgun, statements to police and the diary.

Manhattan prosecutors contend that there are no double jeopardy issues because neither case has gone to trial and because the state and federal prosecutions involve different legal theories.

His lawyers say that has created a “legal quagmire” that makes it “legally and logistically impossible to defend against them simultaneously.”

The state charges, which carry a maximum of life in prison, allege that Mangione wanted to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” that is, insurance employees and investors. The federal charges allege that Mangione stalked an individual, Thompson, and do not involve terror allegations.

Mangione, 27, has pleaded not guilty in both cases. No trial dates have been set.

Mangione’s “intentions were obvious from his acts, but his writings serve to make those intentions explicit,” prosecutors said in Wednesday’s filing. The writings, which they sometimes described as a manifesto, “convey one clear message: that the murder of Brian Thompson was intended to bring about revolutionary change to the healthcare industry.”

They quoted excerpts in which Mangione discussed options for the attack, such as bombing UnitedHealthcare’s headquarters, before deciding to target the company’s investor conference in Manhattan. He wrote about plans to “wack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention” because it was “targeted, precise and doesn’t risk innocents.”

UnitedHealthcare, the largest U.S. health insurer, “literally extracts human life force for money,” Mangione wrote, envisioning the news headline, “Insurance CEO killed at annual investors conference.”

The company has said he was never a client.

Mangione is due back in state court June 26, when Judge Gregory Carro is expected to rule on his request for dismissal.

His lawyers asked Tuesday for his handcuffs and bulletproof vest to be removed during the hearing. They called him a “a model prisoner, a model defendant” and said the security measures would suggest to potential jurors that he is dangerous. Carro has not ruled on that.

Mangione’s next federal court date is Dec. 5, a day after the one-year anniversary of Thompson’s death.

Surveillance video showed a masked gunman shooting Thompson from behind as he arrived for the conference Dec. 4 at the New York Hilton Midtown. Police say “delay,” “deny” and “depose” were scrawled on the ammunition, mimicking a phrase commonly used to describe how insurers avoid paying claims.

Mangione was arrested Dec. 9 at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, 230 miles (about 370 kilometers) to the west, and he is being held in a federal jail in Brooklyn.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has called the ambush “a killing that was intended to evoke terror.”

Related Articles


Jury deliberations begin in Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes retrial


Crews clean up 2,000-gallon fuel spill in Baltimore’s harbor


Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in religious-rights case over unemployment taxes


Supreme Court blocks Mexico’s $10B lawsuit alleging US gunmakers have fueled cartel violence


Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination’ in employment, in a case from Ohio

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in April that she was directing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for “an act of political violence” and a “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America.”

The killing and ensuing search for Mangione rattled the business community while galvanizing health insurance critics who rallied around him as a stand-in for frustrations over coverage denials and hefty bills. Supporters have flocked to his court appearances and flooded him with mail.

Mangione “demonstrated in his manifesto that he was a revolutionary anarchist who would usher in a better healthcare system by killing the CEO” of one of the biggest U.S. companies, prosecutors wrote. “This brutal, cowardly murder was the mechanism that defendant chose to bring on that revolution.”

Jury deliberations begin in Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes retrial

posted in: All news | 0

By JENNIFER PELTZ and CEDAR ATTANASIO

NEW YORK (AP) — Jurors started deliberating Thursday in Harvey Weinstein ’s New York sex crimes retrial, tasked with deciding — again — a case that encapsulated the #MeToo movement.

The seven-woman, five-man jury is considering two counts of criminal sex act and one count of rape, each relating to a different accuser and a different date. In this case, the criminal sex act charge is the higher-degree felony. The jury got the case after a juror was replaced by an alternate after she couldn’t come to court due to illness.

Weinstein, 73, has pleaded not guilty.

Nearly eight years ago, a series of sexual misconduct allegations against the Oscar-winning movie producer propelled the #MeToo movement. Some of those accusations later generated criminal charges and convictions in New York and California.

The New York conviction from 2020 was subsequently overturned, leading to the retrial before a new jury and a different judge.

Jurors heard more than five weeks of testimony, including lengthy and sometimes fiery questioning of Weinstein’s three accusers in the case.

Jessica Mann said he raped her in 2013, when she was trying to build an acting career. Miriam Haley accused him of forcibly performing oral sex on her in 2006, when she was looking for work in entertainment production.

Kaja Sokola, who wasn’t involved in Weinstein’s first trial, told jurors that he forced oral sex on her, too, during 2006. At the time, she was a teenage fashion model trying to break into acting.

Related Articles


Crews clean up 2,000-gallon fuel spill in Baltimore’s harbor


Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in religious-rights case over unemployment taxes


Supreme Court blocks Mexico’s $10B lawsuit alleging US gunmakers have fueled cartel violence


Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination’ in employment, in a case from Ohio


Wall Street is on hold as the countdown ticks toward Friday’s jobs report

“They all had dreams of pursuing careers in the defendant’s world, the entertainment industry,” prosecutor Nicole Blumberg told jurors in her closing argument Tuesday. She contended that Weinstein let the women think he was interested in their careers when what actually interested him were their bodies, and “he was going to have their bodies and touch their bodies whether they wanted him to or not.”

Weinstein chose not to testify. His defense called other witnesses, including some former friends of Sokola’s and Mann’s.

Weinstein’s attorneys argued that all three accusers consented to Weinstein’s advances because they wanted help with their Hollywood aims. All three stayed on friendly terms with him afterward, a point the defense emphasized.

“It’s transactional, folks. Yes, he wants to fool around with them, and yes, they want something from him,” defense lawyer Arthur Aidala said in his summation Tuesday.

The Associated Press generally does not identify people without their permission if they say they have been sexually assaulted. Sokola, Mann and Haley have agreed to be named.

Governments scramble to understand Trump’s latest travel ban before it takes effect Monday

posted in: All news | 0

By CHRIS MEGERIAN and FARNOUSH AMIRI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Governments of 12 countries whose citizens will be banned from visiting the United States beginning next week scrambled Thursday to understand President Donald Trump’s latest move to resurrect a hallmark policy of his first term.

The ban that Trump announced Wednesday takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Monday, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Trump, who signaled plans for a new ban upon taking office again in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him.

Some of the 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in the Republican president’s first term. The new ban targets Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

There will also be heightened restrictions on visitors from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. North Korea and Syria, which were on the banned list in the first Trump administration, were spared this time.

While many of the banned and restricted countries send few people to the United States, Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela had been major sources of immigration in recent years.

Trump tied the new ban to Sunday’s terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect, who is accused of turning a makeshift flamethrower on a group of people, is from Egypt, which is not on Trump’s restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa.

The travel ban results from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on “hostile attitudes” toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk.

Visa overstays

Trump said some countries had “deficient” screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of those remaining after their visas expired.

Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump’s proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries.

While Trump’s list captures many of the most egregious offenders, it omits others. Djibouti, for example, had a 23..9% overstay rate among business visitors and tourists in the 12-month period through September 2023, higher than seven countries on the banned list and six countries on the restricted list.

The findings are “based on sketchy data and a misguided concept of collective punishment,” said Doug Rand, a former Biden administration official at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Reactions

Venezuela’s government had already warned its citizens against traveling to the U.S. A video released last week by the foreign ministry told Venezuelans the U.S. “is a dangerous country where human rights of immigrants are nonexistent.”

“If you are thinking about traveling, cancel your plans immediately,” it urged.

But the decision is a significant blow to Venezuelans, who were already limited in their U.S. travel plans since the governments broke off diplomatic relations in 2019.

The announcement stunned the family of María Aldana, who has long worked multiple jobs in Caracas to support her brother’s dream to study engineering in the U.S. The family has spent more than $6,000 to finance his goals.

Related Articles


Elon Musk is gone, but DOGE’s actions are hard to reverse. The US Institute of Peace is a case study


New German leader plans to discuss Ukraine and trade with Trump in Oval Office visit


Trump banned citizens of 12 countries from entering the U.S. Here’s what to know.


Trump EPA moves to roll back rules projected to save billions of dollars and thousands of lives


Trump says after Xi call that US and China will resume trade talks

Aldana, 24, said her distraught brother, who enrolled at a Southern California university two years ago, called the family crying.

“We did it all legally,” Aldana said.

The African Union Commission, meanwhile, appealed to the United States to reconsider “in a manner that is balanced, evidence-based, and reflective of the long-standing partnership between the United States and Africa.”

International aid groups and refugee resettlement organizations took a harsher tone: “This latest proclamation is an attempt to further eviscerate lawful immigration pathways under the false guise of national security,” said Sarah Mehta, the American Civil Liberties Union’s deputy director of policy and government affairs for immigration.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired Cornell University Law School professor and expert in immigration law, said the ban is likely to withstand legal challenges, noting the Supreme Court eventually allowed a ban to take effect in Trump’s first term. Trump’s invocation this week of national security, along with exceptions for green-card holders, athletes and others, could also help the ban stand up in court.

Shock in Iran

The news came as a shock to many in Iran despite the decades of enmity between the two countries. Reports suggest thousands of university students each year travel to America to study, and others have extended families living in America, some of whom fled after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the shah.

“My elder daughter got a bachelor’s degree from a top Iranian university and planned to continue in the U.S., but now she is badly distressed,” Nasrin Lajvardi said.

Tensions also remain high because negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program have yet to reach any agreement, but Tehran resident Mehri Soltani offered rare support for Trump’s decision.

“Those who have family members in the U.S., it’s their right to go, but a bunch of bad people and terrorists and murderers want to go there as well,” he said.

‘America has to cancel it’

Outside the former U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, a Taliban guard expressed his disappointment.

“America has to cancel it,” Ilias Kakal said.

Travel agents there said the ban would have little practical effect as Afghan passport holders have faced problems for years getting U.S. visas.

Since the Taliban took over the country in 2021, only Afghans with foreign passports or green cards were able to travel to the United States with any ease, they said, while even those applying for special visas due to their work with U.S. forces in Afghanistan were facing problems.

First term ban

During his first term, Trump issued an executive order banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency.

The order, often referred to as the “Muslim ban,” was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.

Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.

Amiri reported from the United Nations. Associated Press writers Regina Garcia Cano, Rebecca Santana, Jon Gambrell, Ellen Knickmeyer, Omar Farouk, Nasser Karimi, Elliot Spagat, Elena Becatoros and Danica Coto contributed to this report.