Converse pulls controversial ad, apologizes following backlash over alleged KKK imagery
(Getty Images stock photo)
(NEW YORK) — Converse has discontinued an advertisement following public backlash last week over what critics said appeared to be Ku Klux Klan symbolism and lynching in the shoe and apparel company’s ad campaign.
One of the images in the ad showed the bottom half of a person wearing a white, calf-length skirt-like garment that some critics said resembled a KKK robe, while holding a pair of black sneakers in one hand with their arm fully extended down by their side.
Critics said lighting in the photograph makes the shoes look as if they are dangling in the air next to the person in the white garment, resembling someone being hanged.
Shadows in the photograph also create a triangle-shaped light on the white robe that critics said further resembled the top peak of a Klan hood.
“We’re sorry. We understand why this image is deeply upsetting and recognize that we got this wrong,” Converse, who is owned by Nike Inc., said in a statement to ABC News Monday. “We removed it from our channels and are working to remove it everywhere it appeared. This should not have happened and we will do better.”
Civil rights attorney Lee Merritt, who represented the family of Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man who was chased and fatally shot by three white men while jogging in Georgia in February 2020, weighed in on the controversial promotional campaign.
“We keep having this conversation because corporations keep failing the same test,” Merritt said in a social media post. “Do better means catching this before it airs — not after we’re offended.”
Rep. Troy Carter, D-La., said in a statement that the advertisement was neither creative nor artistic.
“Black pain is not a marketing prop,” Carter said. “Lynching is not a creative concept. The Ku Klux Klan is not an aesthetic.”
The photos were part of a campaign to promote the Chuck 70 X sneaker. The advertisement was a collaboration with K-pop singer Karina, who is with the group aespa.
ABC News has reached out to representatives of Karina for a comment.
ABC News’ Sabina Ghebremedhin contributed to this story.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and NYC Congressional candidate Claire Valdez embrace during a primary-night watch party, June 23, 2026, in Brooklyn. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A trio of progressive Democrats sharply criticized billionaires on their way to victory in House primaries in New York City.
The clean sweep for candidates endorsed by far-left New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Tuesday drew attention to economic populism as affordability remains a top issue for voters ahead of the midterm elections.
In Manhattan and Brooklyn’s 10th District, incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman lost in a landslide to former comptroller Brad Lander, who vowed to “put working people first – not billionaires.”
Darializa Avila Chevalier, a community organizer, defeated incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat in New York’s 13th District, which covers upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Claire Valdez, a one-term state assemblymember, beat Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso in the primary race for New York’s 7th District.
Valdez and Chevalier, both of whom are democratic socialists, called for a four-day work week and a pause in the construction of AI data centers, among other measures.
To be sure, center-leaning candidates won Democratic primaries on Tuesday in upstate New York and Utah. New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill and Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who are both Democrats, won general elections last year with moderate campaigns touting their own plans to ease price woes.
Here’s what to know about economic proposals put forward by Lander, Chevalier and Valdez:
Tax on billionaires
All three of the victorious progressive House candidates support a tax on wealthy individuals.
Lander “strongly supports” the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, a bill proposed by Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren that would tax the net wealth of households with over $50 million, according to Lander’s website.
Lander also backs an ultra-wealth tax on individuals worth over $1 billion, as well as the Equal Tax Act, which matches tax rates for capital gains and ordinary income over $1 million.
Chevalier supports the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act and the Equal Tax Act. Similarly, Valdez has voiced support for taxing billionaires as means of funding social programs.
The top opponents in each of the three primary races held similar positions. Both Espaillat and Goldman had signed on to the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act and the Equal Tax Act. Reynoso said he would “fight to tax the rich – a lot.”
Proponents say wealth taxes could raise tax revenue from affluent Americans in a position to spare funds. Critics, on the other hand, warn wealthy individuals may move assets abroad or prove less likely to start businesses or other ventures.
For his part, Mamdani sought a two-percentage-point tax increase for residents making more than $1 million, which would have raised the tax rate for high earners in New York City from roughly 3.9% to 5.9%.
Instead, New York enacted a tax on second homes in New York City valued at $1 million or more.
Pause on construction of AI data centers
All three progressive House candidates back a moratorium on the construction of AI data centers.
Many of the nation’s largest companies have poured funds into the chips and data centers necessary to operate AI.
The data center projects have drawn ire from critics who say they drive up residential water and electricity bills in some areas, while offering limited job gains. Proponents of the sector point to its role in fueling economic growth and ensuring the competitiveness of U.S. tech firms.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y, have proposed the AI Data Center Moratorium Act, which would pause the development of data centers until the federal government imposes industry regulations.
Goldman, Lander’s opponent, signed onto the AI Data Center Moratorium Act. By contrast, Espaillat – Chevalier’s opponent – has not supported the bill. Reynoso’s position on a data center moratorium could not be immediately found.
On her campaign website, Valdez said she would “fight to hold major technology corporations accountable, protect our workforce from the harms of AI, and ensure that new technologies benefit communities, not just corporate executives.”
Four-day work week
Chevalier and Valdez support shifting from a standard workweek of 40 hours spread across five days to one lasting 32 hours across four days.
Such an approach, Valdez says, would reclaim the “economic gains of automation for workers.”
Spain, Iceland and South Africa are among the nations that have implemented a trial of the four-day workweek for select companies and workers.
In California and the U.S. House, lawmakers have introduced bills that would set the standard workweek at 32 hours.
The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, introduced in the U.S. House in March 2023, garnered support from eight members. Neither Goldman nor Espaillat was among the backers.
Reynoso’s position on a four-day workweek could not be immediately found, though last month he spoke in support of unionized Kickstart employees seeking a four-day workweek as part of their labor contract.
Some experts previously told ABC News that a combination of escalating market pressure and legislative activity could ultimately bring a nationwide four-day workweek standard; others said such an outcome would prove nearly impossible, at least anytime soon.
Labor law reform
The share of unionized workers has fallen nationwide in recent decades. All three of the New York City progressives say they want to reverse that.
Lander, Valdez and Chevalier each support the PRO Act, a labor law reform measure with strong backing among U.S. labor unions.
The legislation would ease the path toward forming unions and winning labor contracts. The latest version of the bill, known as the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act, boasts the support of 215 House members, including at least one Republican.
Both Goldman and Espaillat signed onto the PRO Act. Reynoso, meanwhile, vowed to “champion the PRO Act.”
On her campaign website, Chevalier calls for passage of the PRO Act, so that “everyone who wants a union can form one.”
A cargo ship remains anchored on May 16, 2026 in the Strait of Hormuz near Larak Island, Iran. (Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Global oil prices on Wednesday fell to their lowest level since before the outbreak of the Iran war.
Brent crude futures, the benchmark index for worldwide trading, dropped to $73.50 a barrel. That figure, which amounted to a nearly 5% decline on Wednesday, marked the lowest price since Feb. 27, the day before the Middle East conflict began.
Stock prices, meanwhile, ticked higher Wednesday after a down day Tuesday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 105 points, or 0.2%, while the S&P 500 increased 0.2%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq rose 0.2%.Gas prices fell below $4 per gallon last week, crossing the milestone as oil costs eased in response to negotiations between the U.S. and Iran to end the war.
The national average price of a gallon of gas stands at $3.92, marking a decline of 58 cents, or 13%, over the past month, AAA data showed. Gas prices, however, remain 94 cents higher than where they stood before the Iran war.
The Middle East conflict prompted the Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a maritime trading route that facilitates the transport of about one-fifth of the global oil supply. The standoff triggered one of the largest oil shocks ever recorded, sending gasoline prices higher.
Delegations from the United States and Iran arrived over the weekend at the Bürgenstock resort in Switzerland, where they began negotiations aimed at a war-ending deal based on a memorandum of understanding signed last week by both countries.
The memorandum in part called on Iran to allow commercial shipping to resume through the strait, and to do so toll-free for the next 60 days.
In a social media post on Wednesday, President Donald Trump said Iran told him that there would be “no tolls, no insurance costs” and “no other charges of any kind” for ships traveling through the strait.
Claims to the contrary are “troublemaking” false reports, Trump said in the post.
Houses with a ‘For Sale’ sign in a small new neighborhood in Gunnison, Colorado 6/18/20 (Nathan Bilow/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — U.S. Treasury yields soared in recent days as the Iran war stoked inflation fears, threatening to drive up borrowing costs for everything from mortgages to credit cards to auto loans.
The yields on 30-year bonds – the amount paid to a bondholder annually – touched their highest point since 2007. Ten-year Treasury yields peaked at about 4.69% on Tuesday, marking a roughly three-quarter percentage point jump from the start of the war on Feb. 28.
The yield on 10-year Treasuries retreated on Wednesday, registering at 4.58%. Still, yields exceed the level reached during a bond selloff in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs in April 2025.
Since bonds pay a given investor a fixed amount each year, the specter of inflation risks higher consumer prices that would eat away at those annual payouts. In this case, a global oil shock has pushed up energy prices which in turn has trickled into other costs, such as groceries.
As a result, bonds have become less attractive. When demand falls, bond yields rise.
“It’s really all about the Iran war and its inflationary impact,” Ted Rossman, a senior industry analyst at Bankrate, told ABC News.
High bond yields make borrowing more expensive for average Americans because Treasury rates influence the rates offered by lenders.
Long-term Treasury yields help set interest payments for mortgages, credit cards, car loans and just about any other type of borrowing, Patrice Carrington, a professor of real estate at New York University, told ABC News.
The reason for the rise in borrowing costs is that regulated lenders are required to hold reserve assets, often made up in part by U.S. Treasuries, Carrington added. When Treasury yields rise, it raises the costs incurred by banks holding Treasuries on their books. Lenders, in turn, offset those added expenses with higher borrowing costs.
“The bank will pass along that higher cost of capital to any consumer loan,” Carrington said.
The onset of this pain for consumers is exemplified by the housing market, where the average interest rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage stands at 6.72% as of Monday, Mortgage News Daily data showed. Mortgage rates have climbed three-quarters of a percentage point from pre-war levels.
“That’s a really big jump,” Rossman said.
Each percentage-point rise in a mortgage rate can impose thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in additional costs each year, depending on the price of the house, according to Rocket Mortgage.
Credit card rates, by contrast, have remained flat over the course of the Iran war, though at heightened levels, Rossman said.
The average credit card interest rate stands at 19.57%, just slightly below where it stood before the war began, Bankrate data showed. At the start of 2026, futures markets expected the Fed to likely cut interest rates at least once by the end of the year, which would put downward pressure on credit card rates.
As the Fed weathers a renewed bout of inflation, however, markets estimate about a 50% chance of interest rates remaining unchanged over the course of the year and a 37% chance of a rate hike, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment. Markets peg the odds of a rate cut this year at less than 2%.
As a result, credit card rates “are staying higher for longer” than many observers anticipated, Rossman said.
Analysts differed in their recommendations for consumers weighing whether to move forward now with securing a loan or wait for a potential decline in interest rates.
Liu Lu, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, said mortgage rates are unlikely to decline substantially in the near-term, meaning borrowers who can afford a loan at current rates may as well take the plunge.
“I wouldn’t bet on trying to catch the opportune moment,” Lu told ABC News.
Carrington, on the other hand, counseled patience for loan seekers.
Eventually, the economy will falter and the Fed will cut interest rates, pushing down borrowing costs, according to Carrington.
“We’re long overdue for a downturn,” Carrington said. “I absolutely think borrowers should wait.”
In the meantime, the impact of elevated bond yields on consumers isn’t entirely negative. The trend means better returns for investors who place their money into financial instruments such as money market funds or high-interest savings accounts, which are historically safer investments than the stock market.
