Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Stocks tumbled in early trading on Monday as oil prices soared above $100 per barrel in response to the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 720 points, or 1.5%, while the S&P 500 dropped 1.3%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq declined 1.2%.
Indexes fell worldwide on Monday as the spike in oil prices rippled through global markets. Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 index plunged 5.2%, while pan-European STOXX 600 index slipped 1.7%.
Oil prices soared as traders feared a prolonged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a trading route that facilitates the transport of about one-fifth of the global oil supply.
U.S. crude oil prices topped $100 per barrel on Monday, marking a staggering 54% increase since late last month.
Oil prices climbed as high as nearly $120 per barrel overnight, but retreated after the Financial Times reported Group of Seven (G7) finance ministers would meet to discuss a possible coordinated release from their respective strategic petroleum reserves.
The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. soared to $3.47 on Monday from $2.99 a week earlier, AAA said.
In a social media post on Sunday night, President Donald Trump downplayed the rise in oil prices.
“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!” Trump said.
Soon after the war with Iran began on Feb. 28, U.S.-Israeli forces killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran. His son Mojtaba Khamenei was chosen on Sunday to succeed him.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Mark Zuckerberg (R), CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Mark Zuckerberg took the stand on Wednesday in a landmark Los Angeles trial alleging that major social media platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive for children and teens.
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 lawsuit was brought by a now-20-year-old woman identified as “Kaley” and her mother, who allege she was exposed to addictive design features as a child. Her lawyers claim she got hooked on social media apps starting as young as age 6. She says features like auto-scrolling got her addicted to the platforms — ultimately leading to anxiety, depression and body image issues.
In opening statements, the plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier told the jury the case was “as easy as ABC,” which he said stood for “addicting the brains of children.”
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 are held liable for product design.
Zuckerberg has appeared before Congress multiple times to address concerns over youth safety and online harms, but Wednesday marks the first time he will testify before a jury on these claims.
Several parents of children who died by suicide or accidental harm linked to online trends are expected to attend the proceedings. Some previously watched Zuckerberg apologize during a 2024 Capitol Hill hearing, where he acknowledged families who said social media contributed to their children’s deaths.
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.
Zuckerberg’s appearance follows testimony last week from Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who disputed characterizing Instagram use as an “addiction,” while acknowledging what he described as “problematic use.”
Mosseri testified that there’s always a tradeoff between “safety and speech,” saying users don’t like it when they remove options from Instagram.
The Los Angeles trial is part of a broader wave of litigation targeting social media companies. Meta is also facing a separate child safety lawsuit in New Mexico, while lawsuits brought by school districts — modeled after tobacco litigation in the 1990s — are expected to head to trial later this year.
Social platforms Snapchat and TikTok were previously named in the lawsuit but reached settlements with the plaintiffs last month.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a press conference following the Federal Open Markets Committee meeting at the Federal Reserve on December 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — An inflation report to be released on Thursday will offer a look at price increases for the first time in nearly two months, after the 43-day government shutdown impaired data collection.
The fresh data is set to arrive amid an uptick of inflation over recent months that has coincided with a flurry of tariffs issued by President Donald Trump. Economists expect that acceleration of price increases to have continued last month, forecasting a jump in year-over-year inflation from 3% in September to 3.1% in November.
The report will detail the latest price movements for high-profile items like coffee, beef and eggs.
In September — the most recent month for which data is available — the price of coffee soared nearly 19% and the price of beef jumped about 15%, when compared to the same month a year prior.
The year-over-year price of eggs dropped nearly 5% in September, offering a bright spot for consumers.
The federal government will issue partial price data for October, but the release will not include a figure for the overall rise in prices that month, since officials failed to collect sufficient information during the government shutdown, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) previously said in a statement.
The latest snapshot of price increases comes at a wobbly period for the U.S. economy, landing in a period marked by sluggish hiring and elevated inflation.
Two major economic data releases earlier this week flashed warning signs, some analysts previously told ABC News.
The U.S. added 64,000 jobs in November, which marked a significant decline from 119,000 jobs added in September, the most recent month for which complete data is available, the BLS said in a jobs report on Tuesday.
The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.6% in November from 4.4% in September. Unemployment remains low by historical standards but has inched up to its highest level since 2021.
A retail sales report on Tuesday also sounded a cautionary note about consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity. Retail sales were left unchanged in October from September, meaning performance remained flat despite the ramp-up of the holiday season, U.S. Census Bureau data showed.
Last week, the Federal Reserve cut its benchmark interest rate a quarter of a percentage point in an effort to boost the sluggish labor market. The move amounted to the third rate cut this year, bringing the Fed’s benchmark rate to a level between 3.5% and 3.75%.
Interest rates have dropped significantly from a recent peak attained in 2023, but borrowing costs remain well above a 0% rate established at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Fed is stuck in a bind, since the central bank must balance a dual mandate to keep inflation under control and maximize employment. To address pressure on both of its goals, the Fed primarily holds a single tool: interest rates.
The pressure on both sides of the Fed’s dual mandate present a “challenging situation” for the central bank, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said at a press conference in Washington, D.C., last week.
“There’s no risk-free path for policy as we navigate this tension between our employment and inflation goals,” Powell added.
The Fed will meet again to adjust interest rates next month. The odds of interest rates being left unchanged stand at about 75%, while the chances of a quarter-point rate cut register at 25%, according to CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.
U.S. President Donald Trump listens during a ceremony for the presentation of the Mexican Border Defense Medal in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump this week issued an attention-grabbing proposal cracking down on Wall Street in an effort to lower home prices and ease affordability woes.
In a social media post, Trump said he would move to ban large institutional investors from “buying more single-family homes” and he urged Congress to codify the policy into law. Trump accused industry behemoths of buying up properties and shutting average Americans out of the housing market.
“People live in homes, not corporations,” Trump said in the post on Wednesday.
Several analysts who spoke to ABC News are skeptical that the proposal would meaningfully reduce home prices nationwide.
Institutional investors own a small fraction of single-family homes and many of those properties are occupied by renters, they said, meaning the ban would do little to address the supply shortage at the root of the affordability crisis.
“In the scheme of things, we’re talking about such a small number of homes,” Marc Norman, associate dean at the New York University School of Professional Studies and Schack Institute of Real Estate, told ABC News.
The median price of an existing home in November stood at $409,200, the National Association of Realtors, or NAR, said last month. Prices have surged 24% over the past five years, according to NAR data.
The average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage is 6.16%, hovering near its lowest level in 15 months, Freddie Mac data showed. But mortgage rates remain well above sub-3% levels recorded as recently as 2021.
Trump aims to address sky-high prices by shutting institutional investors out of the market for single-family homes, which in theory could alleviate the supply-demand crunch and put downward pressure on prices.
“I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to codify it,” Trump said in a social media post.
Trump did not detail the steps he planned on taking to move forward with the ban. The White House did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said in a post on X he would introduce legislation meant to codify the proposal.
Congress has previously put forward bills aimed at limiting the role of institutional investors in the market for single-family homes. In 2023, Democratic members of the House and Senate introduced a bill that would have imposed an excise tax on hedge funds that own a large number of single-family residences.
Shares of some major industry players fell in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s announcement. Blackstone, Invitation Homes and American Homes for Rent saw their stock prices fall between 4% and 6% on Wednesday.
The National Rental Home Council, or NRHC, a trade group working on behalf of the single-family rental home industry, issued a statement commending “the administration’s focus on ensuring Americans have access to a diverse mix of housing options.”
“We look forward to engaging with the White House and other policymakers in this important discussion,” the NRHC said.
The snag, these analysts said, is that institutional investors do not hold a big slice of the market.
Institutional investors own about 450,000 homes, which amounts to roughly 3% of the single-family market, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, or GAO, found in a study last year that analyzed data from 2022.
“The big question here is: Are large-scale institutional investors crowding out prospective homebuyers?” Jake Krimmel, senior economist at realtor.com, told ABC News Live. “The answer is ‘no.’”
Institutional ownership is concentrated in some regions, particularly in the Sun Belt, according to the GAO.
Institutions own 21% of homes in Jacksonville, Florida, and 18% of homes in Charlotte, North Carolina, the GAO found. In Atlanta, institutions own 1 out of 4 homes.
Analysts who spoke to ABC News disagreed about whether the ban on institutional ownership could lower prices in those highly concentrated markets.
Some said the elimination of a key source of demand could push down prices, while others cautioned the move would likely have little effect in those places, since an injection of new supply has already helped ease price pressures in many of those areas.
“In some select markets, this will have some bite,” Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, a professor of real estate at Columbia University Business School, told ABC News. “Overall, it’s not such a big deal.”
