Stocks tumble after Trump vows to hit Iran ‘extremely hard’ in coming weeks
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, March 31, 2026 in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Stocks tumbled worldwide on Thursday after President Donald Trump delivered a televised address vowing to hit Iran “extremely hard” over the coming weeks.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 600 points, or 1.3%, while the S&P 500 dropped 1.2%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq declined 1.6%.
The selloff followed losses across Asian and European markets. Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 index slipped 2.3% and the pan-European STOXX 600 fell 1.3%.
Oil prices, meanwhile, surged as traders feared a persistent supply shortage amid the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. U.S. oil prices climbed more than 10% on Thursday, registering at $112 a barrel.
Gasoline prices in the U.S. ticked up to $4.08 on average per gallon, marking a leap of $1.09 over the past month, AAA data showed.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Photo of Wall Street (Matteo Colombo/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Stocks slid on Monday morning in the first trading session since President Donald Trump announced a new 15% tariff on most imported goods, intensifying his effort to impose levies that were struck down by the Supreme Court.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 90 points, or 0.1%, while the S&P 500 dropped 0.1%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq declined 0.1%.
Cryptocurrency prices tumbled in early trading on Monday. The price of bitcoin fell nearly 2%, putting it at about $66,075.
Gold prices jumped to their highest level in three weeks as investors sought the safe-heaven asset amid heightened uncertainty.
In a social media post on Monday, Trump reiterated his criticism of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, Trump said, “accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior.”
Trump retains the power to levy a 15% tariff for up to 150 days under the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to address trade disparities with other countries.
Hours after the Supreme Court ruling on Friday, Trump said he would sign an executive order enacting a new 10% “global tariff,” invoking authority under Section 122. On Saturday, Trump escalated the tariff to 15%.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Job applicant with resume (Narisara Nami/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The U.S. economy lost jobs in February, marking a major reversal of fortunes for the labor market and nearly erasing all of the job gains delivered a month earlier, government data on Friday showed. The reading came in well below economists’ expectations.
The U.S. lost 92,000 jobs in February, according to the report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which marked a significant dropoff from 130,000 jobs added in the previous month.
The unemployment rate ticked up from 4.3% in January to 4.4% in February, the BLS said. Unemployment remains low by historical standards.
The new jobs report arrived as markets roil and gasoline prices surge in response to the war with Iran. The Middle East conflict cast fresh uncertainty over the economic outlook.
A hiring cooldown last year prompted interest rate cuts at the Federal Reserve and concern among some observers about the nation’s economic prospects. The U.S. added an average of about 15,000 jobs per month in 2025, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed.
Sluggish hiring has coincided with elevated inflation, threatening a period of “stagflation.”
Those economic headwinds helped set the conditions before the outbreak of war with Iran, which spiked oil prices and risked price increases for a host of diesel-fuel transported goods.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 785 points on Thursday as U.S. crude prices rose to their highest level since June.
Still, the overall economic picture remains mixed.
A government report in February on gross domestic product (GDP) showed the economy grew at a tepid annualized pace of 1.4% over the final three months of 2025. That reading indicated a dramatic cooldown from the strong annualized growth of 4.4% recorded in the previous quarter, U.S. Commerce Department data showed.
Price increases, meanwhile, have softened. In January, inflation fell to 2.4%, its lowest level in nine months. It remains slightly higher than the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2%.
The Iran war threatens to slow U.S. economic growth since oil-driven price increases could weigh on consumers and businesses, analysts previously told ABC News.
The potential combination of higher inflation and slower growth could also pose a challenge for the Fed, putting pressure on both sides of its dual mandate to manage prices and maintain maximum employment.
If the Fed opts to lower borrowing costs, it could spur growth but risk higher inflation. On the other hand, the choice to raise interest rates may slow price increases but risks a cooldown of economic performance.
The central bank held interest rates steady at its most recent meeting in January, ending a string of three consecutive quarter-point rate cuts. Policymakers will make their next interest-rate decision on March 18.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives to the Los Angeles Superior Court at United States Court House on February 18, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. (Jill Connelly/Getty Images)
(LOS ANGELES) — A landmark trial over social media addiction has drawn fresh scrutiny to a decades-old legal shield: Section 230.
The case, which began last Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on claims against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Plaintiffs argue the companies knowingly built features that encouraged compulsive use among young users, contributing to long-term mental health harm.
The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits nationwide to go before a jury, potentially setting a precedent for how tech companies could be held liable for product design. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is testifying in the case on Wednesday.
The companies deny the allegations, arguing that mental health outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond social media use. They say they have implemented safeguards aimed at protecting young users, including parental controls and accounts designed specifically for teens.
In a statement to ABC News at the start of the trial, a Meta spokesperson said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
Meta said that the company has made “meaningful changes” to its services, such as introducing accounts specifically for teenage users.
The tech giants are expected to challenge the plaintiff’s argument that there is a direct link between social media use and mental health issues. They may also invoke legal protection long-afforded by Section 230.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms and other sites from legal liability that could result from content posted by users because they are not deemed to be publishers.
Plaintiffs have sought to circumvent that legal immunity in part by arguing that the platforms are addictive, which amounts to a defect in a product.
Section 230 grants broad protection for internet platforms, saying: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Some tech giants, like Meta and Google, have supported reform of Section 230 that would raise the standard that platforms would need to meet in order to qualify for immunity. But the companies largely support preserving the law in some form to protect them from legal liability tied to user-generated content.
Section 230 has garnered backing from some free-speech advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The measure “protects internet users’ speech by protecting the online intermediaries we rely on,” EFF said in a blog post last week, praising Section 230 as “the legal support that sustains the internet as we know it.”
In 2023, the Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings that upheld Section 230, rejecting challenges from users alleging that harm had resulted from online posts.
One of the cases, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, concerned a lawsuit brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American woman who was killed in an ISIS terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. The lawsuit against Google, the parent company of YouTube, alleged that YouTube recommended ISIS recruitment videos to users. The high court ruled against the plaintiffs.
Many Democrats argue that Section 230 allows platforms to evade accountability for allegedly permitting harmful or misleading content, claiming the rule lets platforms off the hook for policing too little speech.
Republicans have taken issue with what they consider big tech censorship, saying the legal protection allows the platforms to police too much speech without facing consequences.
In December, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced the Sunset Section 230 Act, which would remove the legal protection from federal law within two years. A bipartisan group of seven senators has signed onto the bill but it remains well short of a majority.
ABC News’ Shafiq Najib contributed to this report.
