Talk of the Town
(NEW YORK) — Gasoline prices in the United States hit their highest level in four years on Tuesday as negotiations over the Iran war appeared to show little signs of a resolution.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(NEW YORK) — The Federal Reserve on Wednesday will issue its latest announcement on interest rates as gasoline prices in the U.S. reach their highest level in four years. The move marks what may be the central bank’s final decision on borrowing costs under the leadership of Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
The policy announcement is set to arrive at an uneasy moment for the central bank. The Iran war set off a rapid acceleration of price increases, posing a challenge for policymakers bedeviled by elevated inflation and sluggish hiring.
Investors overwhelmingly expect the Fed to leave rates unchanged on Wednesday, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.
A standoff between the White House and Congress, meanwhile, has cast doubt over succession plans for Powell as his term comes to a close next month.
President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Fed, Kevin Warsh, has faced a bipartisan stonewall in the Senate Banking Committee over a federal criminal investigation into Powell.
The Department of Justice moved to drop the probe last week, paving the way for Warsh to advance in a committee vote. If his nomination advances, Warsh would face a confirmation vote on the Senate floor.
The investigation into Powell focuses on alleged false testimony to Congress about an office renovation. Powell, who was appointed by Trump in 2017, has rebuked the probe as a politically motivated effort to influence interest-rate policy.
Powell’s term as Fed chair ends on May 15, but he said last month he would stay in the position until Warsh is confirmed.
Even after his successor is confirmed, Powell could remain on the Fed’s 12-member policymaking board until 2028, retaining a role in the central bank’s interest-rate policy. Powell has not indicated whether he intends to remain on the board.
Elevated price increases have coincided with a slowdown of economic growth, threatening to intensify an economic double-whammy known as “stagflation,” which poses difficulty for the Fed.
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 raises the likelihood of a cooldown in economic performance.
The Fed held interest rates steady last month at its first meeting since the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran drove up gasoline prices and risked a wider bout of inflation.
The central bank’s move marked the second consecutive time it has opted to maintain interest rates at current levels since the outset of 2026. Before that, the Fed cut interest rates a quarter-point three straight times.
Warsh, a former Fed official, is currently a fellow at a conservative think tank called the Hoover Institution, which is based at Stanford University.
During his term as a Fed governor in the late 2000s and early 2010s, Warsh gained a reputation as an interest-rate “hawk,” meaning he generally preferred higher interest rates as a means of ensuring low and stable inflation.
In recent months, however, Warsh has voiced support for lower interest rates, rebuking the Fed’s concern about inflation risk posed by a flurry of new tariffs issued last year.
Markets peg a roughly 80% chance of interest rates holding steady for the remainder of this year, according to the CME FedWatch Tool.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(NEW YORK) — Stocks closed significantly lower on Friday as the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran showed little sign of an imminent resolution that would end one of the worst global oil shocks in decades.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 790 points, or 1.7%, while the S&P 500 fell 1.6%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq dropped 2.1%.
The session on Friday marked the end of a woeful week for the major stock indexes. The Dow declined 1% this week, while the S&P 500 fell 2%. The Nasdaq decreased 3%.
Late Thursday, President Donald Trump postponed U.S. attacks on power plants in Iran in an apparent effort to avoid escalation of the Middle East conflict.
In a post on social media on Thursday, Trump said he was “pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction” until April 6.
In the event of such an attack, Iran has said it would carry out strikes against energy infrastructure in neighboring countries, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency state media.
Wall Street appeared to find little solace in the reprieve from large-scale tit-for-tat attacks on infrastructure.
Iran continues to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for oil delivery. The strait facilitates the transport of about one-fifth of the global supply of crude oil and natural gas.
Global oil prices stood at about $113 a barrel on Friday, marking a staggering 61% rise since war with Iran began a month ago.
Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), earlier this week said the current oil crisis had surpassed the combined effect of worldwide energy shocks in the 1970s.
The global economy faces a “major, major threat,” Birol said at an event in Canberra, Australia, noting that no country would be “immune to the effects of this crisis if it continues to go in this direction.”
U.S. Treasury yields climbed on Thursday, suggesting concern about economic instability and inflation stemming from the Iran war.
The yield on a 10-year Treasury bond, or the amount paid to a bondholder annually, stands at about 4.45%, marking a nearly half-percentage point jump from a month earlier.
On Friday, bond yields soared close to levels reached in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs last April, when the 10-year Treasury yield peaked at around 4.5%.
Since bonds pay a given investor a fixed amount each year, the specter of inflation risks higher prices that would eat away at those annual payouts.
In turn, bonds often become less attractive in response to economic turmoil. When demand falls, bond yields rise.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(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.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.