By LORNE COOK

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union is working on the assumption that the United States will impose a 15% tariff on most EU exports from Friday, even though the two sides have yet to complete a key document clarifying how the agreement will operate.

Related Articles

With growing urgency, more US Jews urge Israel to ensure ample food deliveries to Gaza

Russian missile and drone attack hits Ukrainian capital Kyiv, killing 9 people and wounding 124

Trump envoy arrives in Israel amid rising Gaza death toll of Palestinians seeking aid

Today in History: July 31, Phelps sets Olympic medal record

Canada will recognize a Palestinian state in September in latest push against Israel’s Gaza policies

Last weekend, U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reached a political agreement that would see 15% duties imposed on around two-thirds of EU produce, worth around 380 billion euros ($434 billion).

The tariffs are set to enter force on Friday, but as of Thursday the two sides were still working on a joint statement that would lay out the terms of their understanding, European Commission spokesman Olof Gill said. The document wouldn’t be legally binding.

“It is the clear understanding of the European Union that the U.S. will implement the agreed across the board tariff ceiling of 15%,” Gill said. The commission negotiates trade terms on behalf of the the EU’s 27 member countries.

Carve outs were agreed for a range of “strategic” goods like aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, some drug generics or natural resources. Gill said that “it is also our clear understanding that the U.S. will implement the exemptions to the 15% ceiling.”

“The U.S. has made these commitments. Now it’s up to the U.S. to implement them. The ball is in their court,” Gill said.

European wine and spirits won’t escape the 15% levy on Friday, but may do later as negotiations on additional exemptions to the new tariff regime continue, he said.

Before Sunday’s meeting, Trump had threatened the bloc with 30% tariffs, which the EU’s top trade official said would effectively mean the end of trade between them. Over the last three months, the commission drew up retaliatory measures worth tens of billions of euros to enact should the talks fail.

Those countermeasures are due to take effect on Aug. 7, but Gill said that “if everything goes as expected,” they would be frozen.

“If we have reached a deal, we don’t need the retaliatory tariffs,” he said.

By Kevin Hardy, Stateline.org

Worried about large numbers of workers without a nest egg, Nevada this month launched a new retirement program for private sector workers who lack access to one.

The program requires employers with six or more employees to participate — unless they already sponsor an employee retirement plan.

Employees, who can opt out, are automatically enrolled in an Individual Retirement Account, or IRA, through regular paycheck deductions.

Nevada State Treasurer Zach Conine hopes the new program, created by lawmakers in 2023, will boost financial literacy and ultimately reduce state costs on social services as more people save for retirement. He said about 500,000 workers were expected to be eligible under the plan — nearly a third of the state’s civilian labor force of 1.68 million.

“We don’t care broadly if someone stays on the Nevada plan or goes out and gets their own retirement savings plan,” said Conine, a Democrat who is running for state attorney general. “We care that people are saving for retirement.”

Related Articles

How a Michigan program that gives new mothers cash could be a model for rest of US

Trump administration cancels plans to develop new offshore wind projects

Trump plans to revive the Presidential Fitness Test for American schoolchildren

Virginia Giuffre’s family expresses shock over Trump saying Epstein ‘stole’ her

Kamala Harris will release ‘107 Days,’ a behind-the-scenes look at her historic presidential run

Nevada is among a growing number of states creating automatic retirement programs for employees of private employers. These programs, known as auto-IRAs, target employees without access to retirement programs through work, aiming to address what groups such as AARP characterize as a national retirement crisis.

So far, 20 states have created retirement programs for private sector workers, according to the Center for Retirement Initiatives at Georgetown University. Those programs are generally overseen by state treasurers and appointed boards. Private contractors administer the investment funds, which can fluctuate with financial markets.

AARP says more than 1 million Americans have enrolled in auto-IRA programs launched by states in recent years. But the group, which advocates for Americans aged 50 and older, says nearly half of private sector workers — 56 million people — still lack access to a retirement plan through work.

“In the long term, this is a problem we need to deal with. But in the short term for those individuals, this is a real crisis,” said David John, senior policy adviser at the AARP Public Policy Institute. “This is something that they are going to be facing soon, and our goal is to make sure that as younger people come along, they are much better prepared than some of the people who went before them.”

While anyone can open a savings or investment account, workers are far more likely to participate in retirement programs funded through simple payroll deductions, John said. And state auto-IRAs require little effort from employees and employers.

“Yes, anyone can go to a financial institution and open an IRA. But the bottom line is, they don’t,” he said.

Unlike state pension programs for public workers including teachers, these auto-IRAs are the sole possession of the worker. That means they are portable, and employees can even rely on those funds for emergency expenses at times, John said.

Some financial services firms have objected to these programs, arguing that they compete with private sector retirement providers.

So far, more liberal states have led the way on auto-IRA programs: Oregon launched the nation’s first in 2017, quickly followed by Illinois and California. But John said there’s growing interest in more conservative states: Nevada’s legislation was sponsored by Democrats, but ultimately signed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo.

“This is not a partisan political issue,” John said. “We are seeing strong interest in a number of red states.”

Launching new programs

In launching its new auto-IRA, Nevada elected to join an interstate consortium of public auto-IRA plans founded by the Colorado Department of the Treasury. By pooling resources and reducing overhead costs, officials say states can offer lower plan fees to savers.

“Relatively, it’s a lot of work to set one of these things up, but it’s a lot less work if you’re not first,” Conine said.

The Nevada treasurer’s office expected the launch of the program to cost about $1.2 million over two fiscal years — funds that were borrowed from the state and are to be paid back through the collection of retirement participant fees over time.

Colorado Treasurer Dave Young sees the state’s retirement program as both a social and financial cause: It helps workers save for a more dignified retirement and keeps the state from spending more on services in the long run, he said.

“If we don’t take this on and get more people saving for retirement, there’s this massive tax bill awaiting taxpayers to fund safety net services, and why would we do that to our taxpayers?” said Young, a Democrat. “Why not change the trajectory for people? It’s relatively actually a simple solution.”

A 2023 report from payroll and benefits company Gusto found the biggest boost in participation came among Coloradans earning the least. Before the mandate, 10% of employees earning $15,000 to $25,000 per year participated in a retirement plan — a share that nearly doubled to 19% afterward.

Gusto also found more small employers started offering 401(k) plans after the state’s program launched in 2022.

Colorado has signed up about 72,000 workers with more than $100 million in savings. About 20% of eligible employees choose to opt out, said Hunter Railey, executive director of the Colorado retirement program.

The state program requires all employers in operation at least two years with five or more employees to participate or offer their own retirement plan.

Railey said it’s an easy process to sign up employers and workers, though an initial challenge was identifying the state’s smallest employers. The state used its unemployment system database and explains the program requirement directly to businesses.

“The final step there is really just communicating effectively that these are required programs, and that failure to comply with this does carry penalties at some point,” Railey said. “…By and large, we found that most if not the overwhelming majority of businesses, if they receive a notice for their business, are going to take action.”

Pennsylvania State Treasurer Stacy Garrity, a Republican, has advocated for a state auto-IRA program. Legislation creating a program passed the Democratic-controlled state House by a single vote along party lines and now awaits action in the Republican-controlled state Senate.

Garrity, who also leads the National Association of State Treasurers’ retirement and pensions committee, said an auto-IRA plan would benefit Pennsylvania businesses, workers and taxpayers.

“These are people we all depend on every day, like the mechanic who keeps our car running and the waitress that tops off our coffee,” she said in a statement to Stateline. “Two million hardworking Pennsylvanians without access to workplace retirement plans deserve to have the same opportunity to save.”

The opposition

While state retirement programs are growing, they have faced industry opposition.

State chapters of the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents 600,000 small businesses across the country, have opposed some measures. In Pennsylvania, the federation said 84% of surveyed members opposed creation of an auto-IRA, arguing not all employees could afford to invest in retirement and that the new plans imposed too heavy a burden on small businesses.

The organization did not respond to requests for comment.

The National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, which represents financial services providers in every state, says states should encourage private-sector options rather than setting up competing programs.

“If we don’t take this on and get more people saving for retirement, there’s this massive tax bill awaiting taxpayers to fund safety net services, and why would we do that to our taxpayers?”

– Colorado State Treasurer Dave Young

In a statement, Kevin Mayeux, CEO of the association, said access isn’t the only barrier to retirement savings. Many Americans, especially lower-income workers, must balance retirement savings against competing financial priorities including child care and rising costs of living.

The organization said it supports states’ interest in retirement savings, but that lawmakers should focus on private-sector options. Those could include multiple employer plans and pooled employer plans that make it easier for small employers to offer retirement plans at competitive rates.

“In short, NAIFA does not oppose efforts to improve retirement security; we welcome them,” Mayeux’s statement to Stateline said. “But we believe that empowering private-sector solutions, not replacing them with state-run programs, is the path to long-term success.”

But early success among participating states is inspiring more adoption, said Angela Antonelli, a research professor and executive director of the Center for Retirement Initiatives at Georgetown University.

In addition to amassing more than $2 billion in savings for workers, the state programs have encouraged employers to offer their own retirement plans, Antonelli said.

“It’s a huge return on the investment. It’s money well spent,” she said.

Antonelli said many participating workers are younger and will likely move into other jobs or careers over time. The hope is they will continue saving, either through the state-sponsored plans or retirement plans offered by future employers.

While she’s encouraged by the growing interest and adoption of these plans, Antonelli said she hopes to see Congress eventually act by requiring employers to offer retirement plans. A bipartisan group of U.S. House lawmakers reintroduced legislation on the matter in Washington this year, but it has not progressed.

“The goal is to have more states adopt these programs,” she said. “And I think the question is, is there a tipping point at which the federal government will now decide to step in?”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Noam N. Levey, KFF Health News

President Donald Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills.

Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed in July, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident.

At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in.

Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients’ bills, as well. New federal guidelines for COVID-19 vaccines, for example, will allow health insurers to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket.

The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees.

Related Articles

Are tattooed beachgoers at risk for skin cancer?

Trump administration is launching a new private health tracking system with Big Tech’s help

Here’s what to know about CTE, the brain disease the NYC shooter blamed for his mental health issues

Eagan residents express concern over elevated lead levels, timeline of events

FDA vaccine chief leaving agency after less than 3 months

And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. In July, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports.

That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates.

“For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “The Trump administration is just throwing them off.”

White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration’s health care policies will affect Americans’ medical bills.

The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. “You won’t even notice it,” Trump said at the White House after the bill signing July 4. “Just waste, fraud, and abuse.”

But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans’ financial security.

“These changes will hit our communities hard,” said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty.

Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. “When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,” she said. “Medical debt wrecks people’s lives.”

For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. “People will not seek out the treatment they need,” she said.

Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to “make America affordable again” and “expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.”

Polls suggest voters were looking for relief.

About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey, outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt.

Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block.

Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Caswell and other researchers found, for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers’ credit scores in states that implemented the expansion.

“We’ve seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people’s financial well-being,” Caswell said.

Trump’s tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated.

The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don’t renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces.

This aid — enacted under former President Joe Biden — lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills.

Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn’t pay their medical bills.

The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people.

But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped.

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By TERRY TANG and AMELIA THOMSON-DEVEAUX

WASHINGTON (AP) — Slightly less than half of U.S. adults believe that Black people face “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of discrimination in the United States, according to a poll. That’s a decline from the solid majority, 60%, who thought Black Americans faced high levels of discrimination in the spring of 2021, months after racial reckoning protests in response to the police killing of George Floyd.

Significant numbers of Americans also think diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, also known as DEI, are backfiring against the groups they’re intended to help, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, including many people who belong to those groups.

The findings suggest Americans’ views on racial discrimination have shifted substantially since four years ago, when many companies launched efforts to promote diversity within their workforces and the products they sold.

Since then, many of those companies have reversed themselves and retreated from their diversity practices, a trend that’s accelerated this year under pressure from President Donald Trump, a Republican who has sought to withhold federal money from schools and companies that promote DEI.

Now, it’s clear that views are changing as well as company policies.

Claudine Brider, a 48-year-old Black Democrat in Compton, California, says the concept of DEI has made the workplace difficult for Black people and women in new ways.

“Anytime they’re in a space that they’re not expected to be, like seeing a Black girl in an engineering course … they are seen as only getting there because of those factors,” Brider said. “It’s all negated by someone saying, ‘You’re only here to meet a quota.’”

Reversal in views of racial discrimination

The poll finds 45% of U.S. adults think Black people face high levels of discrimination, down from 60% in the spring of 2021. There was a similar drop in views about the prevalence of serious discrimination against Asian people, which fell from 45% in the 2021 poll — conducted a month after the Atlanta spa shootings, which killed eight people, including six women of Asian descent — to 32% in the current survey.

There’s no question the country has backtracked from its “so-called racial reckoning” and the experiences of particular groups such as Black people are being downplayed, said Phillipe Copeland, a professor at Boston University School of Social Work.

Americans’ views about discrimination haven’t shifted when it comes to all groups, though. Just under half of U.S. adults, 44%, now say Hispanic people face at least “quite a bit of discrimination,” and only 15% say this about white people. Both numbers are similar to when the question was last asked in April 2021.

Divisions on the impact of DEI on Black and Hispanic people

The poll indicates that less than half of Americans think DEI has a benefit for the people it’s intended to help.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults say DEI reduces discrimination against Black people, while about one-third say this about Hispanic people, women and Asian people. Many — between 33% and 41% — don’t think DEI makes a difference either way. About one-quarter of U.S. adults believe that DEI actually increases discrimination against these groups.

Related Articles

Ranchers say expanding herds to take advantage of record retail beef prices isn’t so simple

Virginia Giuffre’s family expresses shock over Trump saying Epstein ‘stole’ her

Arkansas teacher charged with killing couple who were hiking in Devil’s Den with their kids

Fireflies are lighting up summer skies. But the glowing bugs are still on the decline

A key US inflation gauge rose last month as Trump’s tariffs lifted goods prices

Black and Hispanic people are more likely than white people to think DEI efforts end up increasing discrimination against people like them.

About 4 in 10 Black adults and about one-third of Hispanic adults say DEI increases discrimination against Black people, compared with about one-quarter of white adults. There is a similar split between white adults and Black and Hispanic adults on assessments of discrimination against Hispanic people.

Among white people, it’s mostly Democrats who think DEI efforts reduce discrimination against Black and Hispanic people. Only about one-quarter of white independents and Republicans say the same.

Pete Parra, a 59-year-old resident of Gilbert, Arizona, thinks that DEI is making things harder for racial minorities now. He worries about how his two adult Hispanic sons will be treated when they apply for work.

“I’m not saying automatically just give it to my sons,” said Parra, who leans toward the Democratic Party. But he’s concerned that now factors other than merit may take priority.

“If they get passed over for something,” he said, “they’re not going to know (why).”

About 3 in 10 say DEI increases discrimination against white people

The poll shows that Americans aren’t any more likely to think white people face discrimination than they were in 2021. And more than half think DEI doesn’t make a difference when it comes to white people or men.

But a substantial minority — about 3 in 10 U.S. adults — think DEI increases discrimination against white people. Even more white adults, 39%, hold that view, compared with 21% of Hispanic adults and 13% of Black adults.

The recent political focus on DEI has included the idea that white people are more often overlooked for career and educational opportunities because of their race.

John Bartus, a 66-year-old registered Republican in Twin Falls, Idaho, says that DEI might have been “a good thing for all races of people, but it seems like it’s gone far left.” It’s his impression that DEI compels companies to hire people based on their race or if they identify as LGBTQ+.

“The most qualified person ought to get a job based on their merit or based on their educational status,” Bartus said.

Brider, the Black California resident, objects to the notion that white people face the same level of discrimination as Black people. But while she thinks the aims of DEI are admirable, she also sees the reality as flawed.

“I do think there needs to be something that ensures that there is a good cross-section of people in the workplace,” Brider said. “I just don’t know what that would look like, to be honest.”

The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.