President Donald Trump said Thursday he made no progress in a lengthy phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the Russia-Ukraine war, which wages on after more than three years of fighting.
US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.
Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images
Key Facts
Trump said he talked with Putin about the war, adding, “I’m not happy about that” before telling reporters he made no progress with Putin, presumably on a peacemaking deal that could suspend or end the war.
Trump, who campaigned on ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, has become less involved in dealmaking between the two countries since February, when he and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy engaged in an Oval Office shouting match.
The U.S. was one of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters following Russia’s invasion in 2022 and has since distanced itself from the country under the Trump administration, which recently paused weapons shipments to Ukraine and cited concerns of decreasing U.S. stockpiles.
Trump noted he and Putin discussed Iran, which had multiple nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the U.S. last month after Russia warned against escalation in the Middle East.
Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you’ll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here.
Big Number
$66.9 billion. That is how much money in military assistance the U.S. provided Ukraine from Russia’s 2022 invasion to March 2025, according to the State Department.
What To Watch For
Russia appears unlikely to end its invasion of Ukraine unless Ukraine surrenders or the U.S. is able to establish a peace deal between the two countries that gives significant concessions to Russia. Vice President JD Vance told reporters the Russia-Ukraine war was “not going to end anytime soon” after the U.S. and Ukraine signed a minerals deal designed to provide compensation for the financial support the U.S. has provided.
Key Background
Trump and Zelenskyy’s relationship soured earlier this year after the two traded critical remarks in February, bringing relations between the U.S. and Ukraine to their lowest point in years. Trump falsely claimed Ukraine started the war with Russia and received backlash from Zelenskyy, who said the president was living in a Russian-made “disinformation space.” Trump then accused Zelenskyy of being a dictator and being uninterested in putting an end to the war. Trump and Zelenskyy had an Oval Office meeting alongside Vance and members of Trump’s Cabinet a little over a week later, with the two ending peace talks early following the combative discussion. Zelenskyy scrutinized Trump’s increasing communication with Putin, saying the Russian president has been an unreliable diplomat after citing failed deals with Putin. Trump said Zelenskyy disrespected the U.S. in the meeting and suggested the U.S. could fully withdraw support from Ukraine’s defense efforts.
Trump advisor Stephen Miller has made headlines for spearheading many of the administration’s most controversial policies, but his influence was also felt nearby at the Supreme Court during its most recent term, as the legal group he founded played a role in some of the court’s biggest cases—underscoring how Miller has been able to shape right-wing politics beyond the executive branch.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller speaks to the media outside the White House on May … More 30.
Getty Images
Key Facts
Miller—a top Trump official overseeing the government’s immigration agenda—founded America First Legal, a right-wing legal group that has likened itself to a conservative version of the American Civil Liberties Union, bringing dozens of lawsuits since 2021 that advance right-wing interests.
The group represented parties in one major case at the Supreme Court this term, Affordable Care Act dispute Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, and filed amicus briefs urging the court to take a particular position in five other argued cases.
America First Legal and the White House confirmed to Forbes that Miller has not worked with the organization since joining the Trump administration in January.
The Supreme Court cases reflect Miller’s time at America First Legal, however: the organization had already filed at least one brief in a majority of its cases before the Supreme Court prior to Inauguration Day, and filings in two other cases came shortly afterwards in February.
The group’s president, Gene Hamilton, also previously served in the Trump administration as Deputy White House Counsel to President Donald Trump, though he left the White House to return to America First Legal in June.
The Supreme Court largely sided with America First Legal in cases where it filed amicus briefs, but dealt a blow to the organization in the one case where it was a party, ruling against client Braidwood Management’s effort to invalidate the task force deciding which preventive services are covered by insurance.
How Did The Supreme Court Rule On America First Legal’s Cases?
Despite its loss in the Braidwood case, America First Legal was on the winning side of four cases it filed briefs in this term. The Supreme Court agreed with the group’s arguments that the court should uphold state bans on gender-affirming care for minors, allow parents to opt their children out of being exposed to LGBTQ books in schools, rule in favor of a woman who argued she was discriminated against for being straight, and revive a lawsuit against the Palestine Liberation Organization. The fifth case the group weighed in on did not go in its favor, as the court rejected arguments that it should strike down the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service obligation to provide telecom services to underserved communities.
Who Is Stephen Miller?
Miller is one of Trump’s longest-serving advisors, initially joining his team during the 2016 presidential campaign and remaining at the White House throughout Trump’s first term. After founding America First Legal during Joe Biden’s presidency, Miller rejoined Trump as he returned to the White House, becoming the president’s deputy chief of staff of policy. He’s garnered the most attention and controversy for being a key architect of Trump’s harsh immigration policy and mass deportations, with the advisor reportedly recently pushing immigration officials to meet a quota of at least 3,000 arrests per day. But Miller’s influence over the White House and Trump’s agenda is more wide-reaching, Bloomberg reports, with the advisor also overseeing issues like the Trump administration’s attacks on top universities. “He’s probably as influential as any single person in the White House,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich told Bloomberg about Miller.
What Have America First Legal And Stephen Miller Said?
America First Legal has praised the Supreme Court’s rulings in cases that went its way this term, framing the court as siding with the organization after it filed briefs in each case. It touted one instance in which Justice Clarence Thomas noted the group’s brief in his opinion concurring with the court’s majority, claiming it reflected “the unmistakable impact of America First Legal’s ability to provide solid footing for the courts to uphold the rule of law for all Americans,” America First Legal Vice President Daniel Epstein said in a statement about the court’s ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. In that case, a woman claimed she was discriminated against for being straight. Miller has not commented on the court’s rulings through America First Legal since joining the White House, though the Trump advisor has spoken out on social media and in media appearances in favor of several major decisions this term, such as the Supreme Court’s ruling on transgender healthcare and the court’s decision that restricted lower judges’ ability to block Trump administration policies nationwide. “With today’s action, the Supreme Court has said President Trump can fully deliver on the mandate the American people gave him in November,” Miller told Fox News about the court’s ruling on nationwide injunctions, which America First Legal did not participate in.
Who’s Bankrolling America First Legal?
Tax filings show America First Legal has received sizable donations from a number of known groups that contribute to conservative causes since its founding in 2021, including the Bradley Impact Fund and Conservative Partnership Institute, where Trump’s former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows holds a leadership role. The organization has also received more than $3 million from DonorsTrust, a donor-advised fund linked to conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo, whose groups have played a key role in right-wing lawsuits and judicial appointees. America First Legal received $1.5 million in 2023 from a foundation linked to Mike Rydin, a former construction software entrepreneur who’s become a major conservative donor, helping Meadows’ Conservative Partnership Institute expand its operations and buy real estate around Capitol Hill. Rydin is still helping to bankroll America First Legal, as the group is now advertising the donor will match up to $2 million in donations through the end of July. Tax filings have not yet been released showing how much America First made in 2024 or so far in 2025, but its most recent filings also indicate the organization had a need to bolster its donations: It ended 2023 with a deficit of $661,379, after taking in $9.4 million in donations but spending $10.3 million. Miller appears to have still benefited handsomely from his involvement with America First Legal, however, reporting $508,659 in income from the group on his White House financial disclosure.
Surprising Fact
America First Legal lost to the Trump administration at the Supreme Court in the Kennedy v. Braidwood Management case. The administration took over the lawsuit and kept the Biden administration’s position that the Preventive Services Task Force should stay in place.
New Jersey granted temporary liquor permits to two of President Donald Trump’s golf clubs Monday—but is requiring alcohol profits be held in separate accounts and barring their payout to Trump’s companies—as the state’s investigation into whether his convictions disqualify the businesses from pouring enters its second year.
President Donald Trump sips a glass after making a toast at the United Nations during the 72nd … More session of the General Assembly in 2017. (AFP PHOTO / Brendan Smialowski)
AFP via Getty Images
Key Facts
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to hush-money payments during the 2016 campaign, crimes each punishable by up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
New Jersey law bars anyone convicted of crimes “involving moral turpitude”—including “dishonesty, fraud or depravity” severe enough to typically be punishable by more than a year in prison—from holding a liquor license, according to a state handbook, first reported by Forbes in June 2024.
After Trump’s conviction, New Jersey’s Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) declined to renew the liquor licenses at his Bedminster and Colts Neck clubs, instead issuing a series of temporary permits—first for 90 days pending a hearing, then extended.
On Monday, with the latest temporary licenses set to expire, the ABC issued six-monthpermits, letting the clubs continue to serve alcohol but requiring liquor proceeds be kept in separate accounts, banning their payout to Trump’s companies and demanding extra records on the clubs’ ownership, according to copies of the permits obtained by Forbes.
Losing the liquor licenses would be one of the few direct penalties Trump could face from his felony conviction.
“We are pleased with this latest extension of our licenses and look forward to working cooperatively with the ABC to ensure that our valued members and guests continue to enjoy the finest services and amenities at our world-renowned clubs,” a spokesperson for the Trump Organization told Forbes in a statement.
Contra
The Trump Organization contends Trump’s conviction shouldn’t matter because he isn’t listed as a holder, officer or director on any New Jersey liquor license, according to a statement provided after Forbes’ initial report.
Key Background
New Jersey regulators determined in 2024 that Trump holds a “direct beneficial interest” in the clubs’ liquor licenses, because he receives profits from them, countering his argument that the conviction shouldn’t matter. Court records and Trump’s financial disclosures show he is the sole owner of the clubs through a series of LLCs held by a revocable trust, of which he is also the sole beneficiary and sole provider of assets. The Trump Organization confirmed in an April regulatory filing in the United Kingdom that, as president, Trump retains control over his businesses. Other states, however, reached different conclusions: A spokesperson for California’s alcohol regulator, for example, previously told Forbes because Trump transferred the license for his Los Angeles-area club to Donald Trump Jr. in 2017, he is no longer part of the license—even though he remains the sole beneficiary of the underlying business.
Why Hasn’t New Jersey Made A Final Decision?
The ABC does not appear to have publicly explained why it’s taken more than a year to decide if Trump’s felony convictions should cost his clubs their liquor licenses.
Crucial Quote
“Profiting from a liquor license is a privilege, not a right granted by law,” Allison Inserro, a spokesperson for the New Jersey attorney general, told Forbes. She added the special conditions were “consistent with the division’s obligation to ensure that all liquor licensees comply with the law.”
Big Number
$49.2 million: That’s the income Trump reported from his Bedminster and Colts Neck golf clubs in his June 2025 financial disclosure, which appears to cover all of 2024.
News Peg
Trump’s conviction in May 2024 made him the first former U.S. president to become a felon.
Surprising Fact
Golf markers featuring the presidential seal have appeared at five Trump courses, including Bedminster, a potential violation of federal law barring its use for commercial purposes.
Tangent
Trump’s Bedminster club received a 32 out of 100 health inspection score in May, the lowest grade in Somerset County, and was issued a “conditionally satisfactory” C grade after it was flagged for 18 violations, including all three requirements in the “food protected from contamination” category. On a subsequent reinspection, the club earned a B grade with a score of 86—the lowest score possible to still receive that grade.
Forbes Valuation
Forbes estimates Donald Trump is worth about $5.3 billion, with crypto making up the bulk of his wealth.
The House voted to pass President Donald Trump’s megabill Thursday, which cuts more than $1 trillion in Medicaid and federally funded health care programs over the next 10 years, and is now heading to Trump’s desk—meaning states and recipients could start seeing real changes or funding cuts as soon as next year, experts say.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., arrives as House Republicans work to pass President … More Donald Trump’s signature bill of tax breaks and spending cuts by a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, July 2, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
Key Facts
The bill would limit how states fund Medicaid programs, including a phased reduction in provider taxes starting 2026, and the introduction of work requirements which would take effect in 2027—changes experts say could force states to cut services, reduce enrollment or find new funding within the next few years.
Leah Rosenstiel, an assistant professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, told Forbes the bill won’t implement all its Medicaid changes at once, but said some states could be forced to rethink their Medicaid financing strategies almost immediately.
Rosenstiel said the existing 6% limit on taxes that states can impose on health care providers—which is how they raise revenue and pay for federal reimbursement—would phase down to 3.5% by 2032, with states losing more money for Medicaid.
Leighton Ku, a health policy and management professor at George Washington University, told Forbes the Medicaid provisions—including work requirements for Medicaid expansion states—are expected to begin by 2027, with coverage losses “really hitting home” in 2028 and 2029.
Some states—like Alaska, which doesn’t use provider taxes—would see little immediate change, where others that lean heavily on provider tax revenue could be forced to cut Medicaid services or find alternative sources of funding within the next year or two, according to Rosentiel and Ku.
What Changes To Medicaid Will Happen First?
The most immediate impact on Medicaid would be changes to provider taxes, which would also change the way states work with health care providers to help finance their Medicaid programs, according to Ku. He told Forbes, “Some of those changes are supposed to go into effect as soon as legislation is passed” and that “We would begin to see some changes in the next year, in 2026.” Ku also said work requirements for Medicaid expansion states would follow suit in 2027. The bill would cut Affordable Care Act marketplaces, leaving nearly 12 million Americans without health insurance by 2034, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.
What Can States Do To Protect Medicaid Funding?
Rosenstiel told Forbes states have always had “a lot of flexibility when it comes to Medicaid,” and that wouldn’t change under Trump’s bill. “If a state government wanted to reduce spending on roads and put that money toward Medicaid, they’re free to do that. States can also, of course, choose to adopt Medicaid expansion or choose to not adopt Medicaid expansion,” Rosenstiel said. She said the majority of states will have to make changes to their provider taxes if the bill were enacted. “Medicaid is so much money, and the states receive so much money from the federal government for Medicaid—I would be really surprised if state leaders weren’t already at least starting to think about what they would want to do even if some changes don’t go into effect until a year or two from now,” she said.
A little-discussed portion of the billionaire President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” hands a lucrative break to ultrawealthy Americans in the form of a tax policy for private jet purchases.
An under-the-radar provision of Trump’s spending bill lands a massive potential tax advantage for … More the ultrawealthy as part of a provision which would cost an estimated $378 billion.
Patrick McMullan via Getty Images
Key Facts
Part of the spending package that just passed the Senate is the permanent restoration of the 100% “bonus depreciation” federal law, which allows businesses to write off the full amount of qualifying items in the year of purchase.
Bonus depreciation was originally a part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, but phased down from the 100% level beginning in 2023 and was set to permanently expire by 2027, according to Thomson Reuters.
The bonus depreciation policy applies to a slew of qualified, physical business expenses which depreciate over time, such as machinery and company cars, but the policy is often associated with big-ticket luxury items, such as private aircraft, and its institution last decade led to a boom in jet sales.
That means that unlike standard business accounting procedures in which capital investments are spread across multiple years and are never fully written off, the full value of qualified property could be written off year one.
A $10 million plane could now be a $10 million deduction in that same year, noted the aviation industry publication Flying magazine.
“For someone interested in buying a jet, whether new or used, this is a very big deal,” Matthew Bere, managing director of aviation at the Oklahoma-based bank BOK Financial, said this week, saying he expects the megabill’s passage to “spur a lot of activity in aircraft sales.”
Chief Critic
This is an “example of oligarch friendly rules,” says Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies progressive think tank. Collins described the bonus depreciation provision as a “massive tax break for billionaires and centi-millionaires” from the “private jet lobby” in a Tuesday post.
Big Number
$378 billion. That’s how much the permanent establishment of 100% bonus depreciation would cost taxpayers over 10 years, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Crucial Quote
“The all-at-once tax deduction could potentially reduce” jet buyers’ taxable income by “millions of dollars in a given year,” explained Bere.
How The Senate Made This Deduction Permanent
The version of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” passed by the House in May only extended the 100% bonus depreciation through 2029, while the Senate made the deduction permanent. The private aviation industry celebrated the change, and charter plane provider FlyUSA described the legislation as “a power-packed provision that could change the game for private aircraft acquisition.”
Key Background
The private jet friendly bonus depreciation provision adds to heavy criticism from Democrats and nonpartisan watchdogs who say the bill will disproportionately help the rich and hurt the poor. The bill will lower the lowest 20% of American earners’ incomes by 2.9% while the top 1% of earners will get a 1.9% boost, according to the Yale University Budget Lab. “This bill gives another tax break to the ultrawealthy — so they can buy another private jet,” Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said this week. Environmental groups frequentlycriticize private jet usage for its outsized emission, and U.S. departures account for 65% of private jet flights globally, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation.
Kyle Khan-Mullins and Lily Ogburn contributed reporting.
WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 22: U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to the media on May … More 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The tax and spending legislation, in what has been called the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” Act, redirects money to the military and border security and includes cuts to Medicaid, student loan programs, and other domestic programs. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Getty Images
The House of Representatives on Thursday approved President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” that would make unprecedented changes to federal student loan programs. Republican lawmakers approved the bill on a narrow party-line vote, with all Democrats opposing the measure. The bill now heads to President Trump, who is expected to sign it on Friday afternoon.
Never before has Congress passed legislation that would take away benefits and relief from current student loan borrowers and college-bound families on such a massive scale. Borrowers currently in repayment on their student loans or pursuing student loan forgiveness, as well as prospective students hoping to attend college or enroll in a graduate program, will now have fewer options to pay for school or manage their existing student debt.
The bill would also impose new restrictions and paperwork requirements for Medicaid and nutritional benefits, which are expected to result in millions of Americans losing access to healthcare and food stamps. GOP lawmakers argued the cuts were necessary to address alleged waste and fraud, and to help offset the costs associated with massive tax cuts. Democrats countered that the bill would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest people, raise the cost of living for everyone else, and endanger the nation’s fiscal health by ballooning the deficit.
“Republicans broke their promise to voters to lower costs, instead radically reshaping the way American families pay for the basics while sidelining the federal enforcement officials who hold big corporations accountable for treating families fairly,” said Mike Pierce, Executive Director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, in a statement earlier this week. “This bill will drive patients deeper into medical debt, borrowers deeper into student debt, and working families deeper into debt to pay for higher energy costs, higher grocery bills, and more expensive cars and trucks.”
Republicans, however, praised the legislation. “The One Big, Beautiful Bill is one big, beautiful win for the American people,” said Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) in remarks on the House floor early Thursday. “Americans struggled under crushing inflation driven by the Biden-Harris administration’s outrageous spending. Even worse, the Biden-Harris administration spent billions on reckless student loan repayment pauses, forcing Americans who never set foot on a college campus to cover the costs of elite Ivy League degrees.”
Here’s what student loan borrowers need to know about the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” and what comes next.
Major Changes To Student Loan Repayment And Forgiveness
When the Senate narrowly passed its own version of the bill earlier this week, there were some doubts as to whether the House would approve it, given some very significant differences between the Senate bill and the legislation approved by the House in May. But the Senate version of the bill ultimately won the day.
The legislation will phase out most current income-driven repayment plans by July 2026. The SAVE plan, as well as ICR and PAYE, would no longer be an option for any borrower, including those who are now in repayment under those plans. Those who are enrolled in SAVE, ICR, or PAYE would, at some point between July 2026 and 2028, have to either enroll in IBR or a new income-driven plan created by the bill called the Repayment Assistance Plan. Switching to IBR could result in significantly higher monthly payments for many borrowers, particularly those who had been repaying their student loans under PAYE or SAVE. While RAP could be more affordable for some compared to IBR, the tradeoff would be an additional five to 10 years in repayment before the borrower could qualify for student loan forgiveness. Borrowers who lose access to their current repayment plan and fail to make a selection would be forced into a Standard plan, which could be unaffordable for many.
Parent PLUS borrowers who have already consolidated their loans and are currently enrolled in any income-driven repayment plan would be able to maintain access to the IBR plan. But all other Parent PLUS borrowers would have a fairly limited window to act. They would have one year to consolidate their loans, or they could wind up being completely cut off from income-driven repayment and any possibility of eventual student loan forgiveness.
The GOP bill would also suspend new regulations enacted under the Biden-Harris administration that expanded access to student loan discharge programs associated with school misconduct. And it would slash most of the funding allocated to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency created to oversee and regulate the financial services sector, including the student loan servicing industry.
More Limited Student Loan Options Starting Next Year
For prospective students and college-bound families, the “Big, Beautiful Bill” would fundamentally change the landscape for higher education financing. For college students, Stafford loans would remain capped. Parent PLUS loans would still be available, but with severely reduced limits (a $65,000 lifetime cap). And any parent who already has a Parent PLUS loan, and then takes out a new Parent PLUS loan in 2026 or later, could become completely ineligible for any income-driven repayment program or student loan forgiveness, including through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
For graduate and professional students, financing options would also become more narrow. The bill eliminates the Graduate PLUS program, a federal student loan option that helps fund attendance at graduate and professional schools. Increased Stafford loan borrowing limits would partially offset the elimination of this option, but with lifetime caps of $100,000 for graduate students and $200,000 for professional students, it may simply not be enough to cover the full cost of expensive advanced degrees. Critics have argued that some prospective students may turn to riskier private student loans, or decide against going to medical or law school altogether, which would make existing shortages in high-need areas (like rural hospitals) even worse.
And new borrowers who take out any federal student loans starting in July 2026 – regardless of whether they are graduate or undergraduate students – would have only two repayment plan options: a Standard plan on a 10 to 25 year term depending on the loan amount, or the RAP plan, which requires 30 years in repayment before the borrower could qualify for student loan forgiveness.
Student Loan Forgiveness Under PSLF Is Intact But Still In Danger
If there’s any good news for borrowers, it’s that Congress left the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, or PSLF, untouched. PSLF offers student loan forgiveness to nonprofit and government workers in as little as 10 years. An earlier provision of the “Big, Beautiful Bill” would have locked new doctors and dentists out of PSLF, but this provision was dropped by the Senate before passage, and the House approved this modified version of the bill.
But the Trump administration is separately working on a major PSLF overhaul through a rulemaking process that allows the Department of Education to change existing regulations governing federal student loans. The department completed a three-day negotiated rulemaking session this week as it works to implement President Trump’s executive order issued in March that would restrict student loan forgiveness under PSLF for organizations that engage in activities with a “substantial illegal purpose.” Critics have argued that the proposed rules are illegal without approval from Congress, and would allow the Trump administration to weaponize the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program against nonprofit organizations and state and local governments whose policies and missions don’t align with the administration’s.
While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors are choosing to travel elsewhere—costing the economy up to $29 billion—and risking millions of jobs.
U.S. inbound tourism is in decline this year as millions of international visitors choose to travel … More elsewhere.
getty
Key Facts
Last month, a study from the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) that analyzed the economic impact of tourism in 184 countries revealed the U.S. was the only country forecast to see international visitor spending decline in 2025.
The WTTC projects the U.S. to be on track to lose $12.5 billion in international visitor spending this year compared to last year, according to the research.
It could be argued, however, that the actual losses will be significantly larger, given that Tourism Economics, a division of Oxford Economics, had originally forecasted the U.S. would see a 9% jump in international inbound travel in 2025.
A 9% increase would have equated to a boost of about $16.3 billion in revenue for the U.S. economy.
Instead, Tourism Economics has revised its baseline forecast to a year-over-year decline of 8.2%—a significant 17.2% variance from its original 9% increase.
From the anticipated $16.3 billion increase in revenue to a loss of between $8.3 billion (Tourism Economics estimate) and $12.5 billion (WTTC estimate), the U.S. is facing a shortfall of $25 billion to $29 billion this year.
Why Are International Travelers Avoiding The U.s. This Year?
“While other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the U.S. government is putting up the ‘closed’ sign,” Julia Simpson, president and CEO of WTTC, said in a statement. In its latest client note, Tourism Economics blamed “sentiment headwinds” for its projections of significant declines in visitation from Canada (-20.2%) and Western Europe (-4.9%) in 2025. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, travel bans, inflammatory rhetoric and harsh immigration policies have combined for a chilling effect on visitors—and there’s little indication of a reversal anytime soon. “Given we’re halfway through the year and we’ve seen these impacts, we don’t know when the stiffest headwind is, but I think it does stay sustained,” Aran Ryan, director of industry studies at Tourism Economics, told Forbes. “We’re generally assuming that this persists for a while and that some of it is going to persist throughout the end of the administration.”
Which Tourists Are The Most Missed By U.s. Destinations?
The significant decline in visitors from Canada is particularly costly, as Canadian tourists made up roughly one-quarter of all foreign travelers who came to the United States in 2024, according to the U.S. National Travel and Tourism Office (NTTO). Last year, Canadians spent $20.5 billion—nearly twice what Americans spent at McDonald’s restaurants in all of last year. And the Canadians show no signs of relenting. In May, Canadian visitation dropped 38% by car and 24% by air compared to the same month in 2024. It was the fifth consecutive month of steepening year-over-year declines, following double-digit drops in April and March. On first-quarter earnings calls in early May, executives from major hotel and travel companies noted that Canadians were still traveling as much as ever—just not to the United States. Hyatt chief executive officer Mark Hoplamazian called the phenomenon “a flyover.”
Have Trump’s Policies Impacted Americans Traveling Abroad?
In recent months, news outlets from CNN to USA Today to the BBC have reported an increase in anxiety among Americans fearing backlash or hostility when traveling abroad. In a snap survey conducted by Global Rescue in March after Trump’s address to Congress, 72% of 11,000 respondents—the majority based in the U.S. and Canada—believed Americans would be “perceived more negatively abroad in 2025 due to recent U.S. international policy proposals.” (The U.S. State Department’s “worldwide caution,” issued one day after the U.S. bombed Iran, which advises Americans to “exercise increased caution” while out of the country, is a separate issue.) Other outlets have reported that some Americans are more concerned about being detained or harassed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents when they re-enter the U.S., perhaps in retaliation for anti-Trump criticism on social media. During both Trump administrations, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has repeatedly warned Americans that agents have searched the electronic devices of U.S. citizens at the border, sometimes holding phones or laptops for weeks or even months. “All travelers crossing the United States border are subject to CBP inspection,” the Customs and Border Protection website confirms. “On rare occasions, CBP officers may search a traveler’s mobile phone, computer, camera, or other electronic devices during the inspection process,” adding that“less than 0.01 percent of arriving international travelers” have their electronic devices searched.But reports of the agency targeting individuals for anti-Trump sentiment persist. Last month, Turkish-American influencer Hasan Piker was reportedly detained for hours at Chicago O’Hare International Airport after returning from France. Piker claims federal agents asked him, “Do you like Donald Trump?” Last week, an American political consultant returning from a family vacation in Turks and Caicos was detained for 45 minutes in a holding room at the airport, the Los Angeles Times reported. The consultant said agents didn’t give him a reason for the delay but he “speculated that perhaps it was because of the Obama-Biden T-shirt packed in his suitcase.”
Can The Downward Trend Be Turned Around?
“This is a wake-up call for the U.S. government,” Simpson said. “Without urgent action to restore international traveler confidence, it could take several years for the U.S. just to return to pre-pandemic levels of international visitor spend.” Yet the Trump administration and Republican party do not appear to be taking note. A Senate committee led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) slashed the budget of Brand USA, the country’s public-private destination marketing organization, from $100 million to $20 million. The U.S. Travel Association said it is “deeply concerned,” claiming that “for every $1 spent on marketing, Brand USA adds $25 to the U.S. economy,” and warning such drastic cuts will “significantly impact every sector of our industry.”
1 of 7 | Republican Conference Chair Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., speaks with reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
July 2 (UPI) — House members are meeting to debate U.S. President Donald Trump‘s key Senate-passed domestic policy bill, with lawmakers still aiming for a July 4 deadline to pass it.
Members went over over a key procedural vote Wednesday morning after the House Rules Committee pushed the Senate version overnight, setting the stage for a possibly dramatic and uncertain floor vote to pass Trump’s broad tax and spending bill.
On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a joint statement with House GOP leaders that they will “work quickly” to pass the bill and put it on Trump’s desk “in time for Independence Day.”
“Don’t let the Radical Left Democrats push you around,” Trump posted Wednesday morning on social media. “We’ve got all the cards, and we are going to use them.”
The new version of the legislation, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” includes steeper cuts to Medicaid, a debt limit increase, rollbacks to green-energy policies, and changes to local and state tax deductions.
“All legislative tools and options are on the table,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Tuesday after the Senate vote.
It extends trillions in dollars in tax cuts, largely for the wealthiest Americans, but substantially cuts healthcare and other nutritional programs in order to partially beef-up border security and defense spending.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Trump’s Senate-passed bill would add at least $3.3 trillion to America’s debt over the next decade, which is a trillion-dollar increase from the bill’s last version.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has accused GOP lawmakers of “trying to rip away healthcare from 17 million Americans” with Medicaid cuts stemming from Republicans’ legislation.
Meanwhile, provisions stripped from the House included the sale of public land in over 10 states, a 10-year moratorium for states to regulate AI and an excise tax on the renewable energy industry.
“Every single House Democrat will vote ‘hell no’ against this one, big ugly bill,” Jeffries wrote.
On Wednesday, a GOP fiscal hawk was critical of the Senate’s new product.
It “violated both the spirit and the terms of our House agreement” in attempts to reduce the national debt, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told USA TODAY.
Any newer alterations in the House will again require Senate approval or force a committee conference of both the Senate and House to hash out a final version.
The initial version passed the House in a 215-214 vote in May and the Senate on Tuesday after a four-day “vote-a-rama” in a 51-50 vote that saw three GOP defections in the tie-breaker vote cast by Vice President JD Vance.
Meanwhile, the president is expected to meet at the White House with a handful of House Republicans to help bring his tax bill to the finish line. The hardline conservative House Freedom Caucus members also are expected to meet with Trump.
Rep. Mike Lawler, a moderate New York Republican, was seen Wednesday with other colleagues entering the West Wing, but it was not immediately clear which GOP lawmakers arrived.
It arrives in the face of what former White House adviser Elon Musk called in a June 30 X post “the biggest debt increase in history,” saying members of Congress who campaigned on spending reductions, “should hang their head in shame!” and added “they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.”
“It’s unconscionable, it’s unacceptable, it’s un-American and House Democrats are committing to you that we’re going to do everything in our power to stop it,” according to Jeffries.
He called out Pennsylvania Republicans Rob Bresnahan, Scott Perry and their California House colleagues David Valadao and Young Kim, whose districts in particular will be hard hit by Trump’s medicaid cuts.
“All we need are four Republicans, just four,” added New York’s Jeffries.
While he likes to provoke opponents with the possibility of serving a third term, Donald Trump faces a more immediate historical burden that has plagued so many presidents: the “second term curse”.
Twenty-one US presidents have served second terms, but none has reached the same level of success they achieved in their first.
Second term performances have ranged from the lacklustre and uninspiring to the disastrous and deadly. Voter dissatisfaction and frustration, presidential fatigue and a lack of sustainable vision for the future are all explanations.
But Trump doesn’t quite fit the mould. Only one other president, Grover Cleveland in the late 19th century, has served a second nonconsecutive term, making Trump 2.0 difficult to measure against other second-term leaders.
Trump will certainly be hoping history doesn’t repeat Cleveland’s second-term curse. Shortly after taking office he imposed 50% tariffs, triggering global market volatility that culminated in the “Panic of 1893”.
At the time, this was the worst depression in US history: 19% unemployment, a run on gold from the US Treasury, a stock market crash and widespread poverty.
More than a century on, Trump’s “move fast and break things” approach in a nonconsecutive second term might appeal to voters demanding action above all else. But he risks being drawn into areas he campaigned against.
So far, he has gone from fighting a trade war and a culture war to contemplating a shooting war in the Middle East. His “big beautiful bill” will add trillions to the national debt and potentially force poorer voters – including many Republicans – off Medicaid.
Whether his radical approach will defy or conform to the second term curse seems very much an open question.
No kings
The two-term limit was enacted by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1951. Without a maximum term, it was feared, an authoritarian could try to take control for life – like a king (hence the recent “No Kings” protests in the US).
George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson all declined to serve a third term. Jefferson was suspicious of any president who would try to be re-elected a third time, writing:
should a President consent to be a candidate for a 3d. election, I trust he would be rejected on this demonstration of ambitious views.
There is a myth that after Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke the de facto limit of two terms set by the early presidents, the ghost of George Washington placed a curse on anyone serving more than four years.
At best, second-term presidencies have been tepid compared to the achievements in the previous four years. After the second world war, some two-term presidents (Eisenhower, Reagan and Obama) started out strong but faltered after reelection.
Eisenhower extricated the US from the Korean War in his first term, but faced domestic backlash and race riots in his second. He had to send 500 paratroopers to escort nine Black high school students in Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce a federal desegregation order.
Reagan made significant tax and spending cuts, and saw the Soviet Union crumble in term one. But the Iran-Contra scandal and watered down tax reform defined term two.
Truly disastrous examples of second term presidencies include Abraham Lincoln (assassination), Woodrow Wilson (first world war, failure of the League of Nations, a stroke), Richard Nixon (Watergate, impeachment and resignation), and Bill Clinton (Lewinsky scandal and impeachment).
Room for one more? Trump has joked about being added to Mount Rushmore. Shutterstock
Monumental honours
It may be too early to predict how Trump will feature in this pantheon of less-than-greatness. But his approval ratings recently hit an all-time low as Americans reacted to the bombing of Iran and deployment of troops in Los Angeles.
A recent YouGov poll showed voters giving negative approval ratings for his handling of inflation, jobs, immigration, national security and foreign policy. While there has been plenty of action, it may be the levels of uncertainty, drastic change and market volatility are more extreme than some bargained for.
An uncooperative Congress or opposition from the judiciary can be obstacles to successful second terms. But Trump has used executive orders, on the grounds of confronting “national emergencies”, to bypass normal checks and balances.
As well, favourable rulings by the Supreme Court have edged closer to expanding the boundaries of executive power. But they have not yet supported Trump’s claim from his first term that “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President”.
Some supporters say Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. And he was only half joking when he asked if there is room for one more face on Mount Rushmore. But such monumental honours may only amount to speculation unless Trump’s radical approach and redefinition of executive power defy the second-term curse.
