The Trump administration says the food stamp program is rife with fraud and waste. Is it?

2026-06-29T13:21:00-0400 / CBS News

By

Updated on: June 29, 2026 / 2:09 PM EDT / CBS News

Add CBS News on Google

The Trump administration says the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, is losing billions of dollars because of payment errors it characterizes as fraud, waste and abuse. But anti-hunger advocates say that description is misleading, and could threaten food assistance for millions of low-income families.

The Department of Agriculture on June 24 said that the food-stamp program’s payment error rate was 10.6% for fiscal year 2025 — almost double the 6% threshold established as acceptable under the Republicans’ 2025 “big, beautiful bill act” (OBBBA). The error rate last year amounts to more than $10 billion in improper SNAP payments across the U.S., the agency said.

SNAP provided $95.7 billion in benefits to American families during fiscal year 2025, meaning that payment errors accounted for roughly one-tenth of the program’s spending.

Fraud or a mistake?

Conflicting views on the prevalence of fraud in food stamps centers on what the SNAP payment error rate actually measures. Payment errors occur whenever households receive too much or too little in benefits, regardless of whether anyone intentionally broke the rules, and experts say such over- and under-payments are usually unintentional.

Fraud, by contrast, generally involves deliberate deception, such as trafficking benefits for cash or using stolen EBT card information.

The Trump administration has cited the payment error rate as evidence of waste in the program. The metric does not capture many of the most common forms of SNAP fraud, such as EBT card skimming or recipients illegally selling benefits for cash, according to the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA), which represents state and local human services agencies.

A 2024 report from the Government Accountability Office found that SNAP payment errors tend to stem from over- or under-payment issues, while describing food-stamp fraud as a separate, if related, issue.

Payment errors are “mostly unintentional because the policy is very complex, and there are a lot of reporting requirements” that households may not be aware of, Brian Jones, a SNAP quality control expert at APHSA, told CBS News.

Republicans argue that reducing both payment errors and fraud would save taxpayer dollars and help ensure benefits go only to eligible recipients.

“Every dollar in this program is intended to help feed eligible individuals in need,” said Rep. Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, in a June 25 House subcommittee hearing on “Combating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in SNAP. “That’s not where every dollar goes, not by a long shot.”

Anti-hunger advocates say that while focusing on fraud is important, erroneous food-stamp payments largely reflect changes in recipients’ personal and financial circumstances, such as getting or losing a job. Mistakes can also result from paperwork problems, such as missing addresses or phone numbers.

“We should not confuse payment errors with fraud,” Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the anti-hunger advocacy group Food Research & Action Center, or FRAC, said at the same hearing. “Fraud involves intentional wrongdoing — payment errors often involve complicated rules, changing work hours, missing paperwork, outdated systems or agency mistakes.”

Recouping overpayments

Under federal law, SNAP recipients must repay overpayments, with states typically reducing the monthly payment until the money is recouped.

“State and counties, those administering the program, should strive to have as low an error rate as possible because it is an indicator of strong administration of the program,” said Alexis Kuznick, policy director for APHSA. “States are working really hard to get their error rates much lower.”

To be sure, actual SNAP fraud is costly. The GAO pointed to earlier data showing the program lost about $1 billion a year to fraud.

A USDA report published in May flagged other potential fraudulent activity, including recipients with dummy Social Security numbers and duplicate enrollments, that could add up to roughly $3 billion in annual improper payments. However, the report described the findings as possible issues rather than confirmed fraud.

Ironically, states are “having to take folks off of their work on reducing, preventing or responding to fraud and move them over to the quality control side” to focus on reducing payment error rates because of the OBBBA’s requirements, Kuznick said.

Potential hit to state budgets

Under the OBBBA, the program’s payment error rate has become increasingly key to SNAP, a federally funded program administered by the U.S. states.

The new law mandates that states’ SNAP programs should maintain payment error rates below 6%. Those states whose food-stamp programs exceed that threshold will be on the hook for shouldering more of the program’s costs starting in October 2027.

According to the USDA’s report last week, only 10 states have SNAP payment error rates below 6%, with South Dakota at the lowest, at 2.5%. Alaska has the highest payment error rate, at 23%, the data shows.

Under the OBBBA, states with SNAP payment error rates between 6% and 8% will have to pay 5% of the benefit costs starting in late 2027. Those with error rates of 8% to 10% will have to pick up 10% of the benefit costs. And those with error rates over 10% will have to pay 15% of the costs.

In total, states could be on the hook for an additional $9 billion in SNAP spending, based on the most recent payment error rates released by the USDA, according to a new estimate from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, or CBPP.

“States have never before had to put up a share of the benefit costs, and based on the 2025 data, almost half the states are facing a cost-sharing requirement that’s going to cost them $100 million or more in the first year of implementation,” Katie Bergh, a SNAP expert at CBPP, told CBS News.

That could result in states having to either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere in their budgets, she said.

“We may even see some states withdraw from the program entirely,” Bergh added, citing an APHSA survey of all 50 state SNAP agencies that found 11% identified withdrawing from the food aid program as a potential risk due to higher expected costs.

States with SNAP payment error rates above 6% will have another year to reduce their errors and decrease the hit to their budgets. But states that aren’t able to drive down their error rates will likely need to make choices that could impact their residents, such as choosing between funding public services like law enforcement and education versus providing food aid.

Enrollment decline

The financial pressure comes as U.S. SNAP enrollment has already fallen sharply since President Trump signed the OBBBA into law on July 4, 2025.

About 37 million people were enrolled in SNAP as of March, the most recent data available, according to USDA figures. That represents a decline of almost 5 million people from a year earlier.

The sharp drop in SNAP enrollees is due to recent changes to the program under the OBBBA, including a new work requirement for “able-bodied adults” aged 64 or younger, whereas the previous regulation only applied to people 54 or younger. The new regulation restricts SNAP benefits to three months of aid every three years if people under 64 don’t work, volunteer or participate in job training at least 80 hours a month.

Some advocates, including the National Governors Association, a bipartisan group that represents the nation’s governors, as well as APHSA, are now lobbying lawmakers to delay the revised state cost-sharing rules by two years.

“We have been working hard to educate and inform leaders around what the impacts will be to states,” and to ask for additional time to implement changes, said Timothy Blute, chief policy officer at the National Governors Association. “Governors and states care deeply about program integrity and are working tirelessly to lower their error rates.”

Without time to fix the payment errors, many states are likely to face difficult decisions once the cost-sharing provisions kick in, Kuznick said.

“If an individual state can’t pay its share, what happens then? Those are the sorts of things that we have not encountered yet,” she said. “We know how critical food security is to people’s livelihoods and their ability to focus in school. You could see a widespread impact in terms of wellness outcomes overall.”

Edited by Alain Sherter

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s decisions expanding Trump’s firing power but preserving Fed for now

2026-06-29T19:09:01.651Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-cook-slaughter-carroll-ballots

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant win Monday by allowing him to remove the leaders of once-independent federal agencies at will, toppling a 1935 precedent in the process that could reorder the way the government functions.

At the same time, the court made it far harder for this or future presidents to remove members of the Federal Reserve — blocking the Trump administration, for now, from ending the tenure of Fed Governor Lisa Cook over contested allegations of mortgage fraud.

The decisions were the latest development in a series of controversies that erupted during the first months of Trump’s second term. He sought to fire critics within the government despite federal laws that protected them by requiring a president to show cause — such as malfeasance — before booting them from office.

Meanwhile, the court dealt Trump a personal defeat, letting stand the verdict against him for sexually abusing and defaming former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. By declining to hear Trump’s appeal, the court paved the way for Carroll to collect $5 million in damages.

In a separate ruling, the justices also allowed states to collect and count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, a decision that comes as Trump lobbies Congress to limit mail voting and pass a voter ID law.

Here are the key takeaways from the court’s major decisions Monday:

The Supreme Court handed down two opinions at the same time on Monday on the firing of government officials – one that was a loss for Trump and the other that was a win.

The more significant decision, decided 6-3 along conservative-liberal lines, centered on Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whom Trump fired from the Federal Trade Commission last year despite a federal law that requires presidents to show cause — such as malfeasance — before booting commissioners.

Trump had argued that, as the head of the executive branch, he should have the power to control the leaders of independent agencies within the federal government and that the law intended to shield those officials from removal violated separation of powers principles.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts largely agreed.

“Subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to removal by him,” Roberts wrote. “Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the president, and the president to the people.”

The second case, dealing with Cook, also touched on the president’s ability to remove an official — but under different circumstances. In that case, Trump attempted to dump Cook based on allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud.

The president announced the firing on social media last year, posting a letter that accused Cook of “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct” because she allegedly claimed two different homes as her primary residence in 2021.

Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has called the charges “manufactured.”

Slaughter, meanwhile, decried the ruling against her and called the major difference between the two issues.

“Somehow Wall Street is special and gets special treatment, but other than that, the agencies that look out for everyday Americans do not,” Slaughter said at a news conference Monday.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority could have taken a more limited way out of the Slaughter case. It could have ruled, for instance, that the power of the FTC has grown so vast since it was created in 1914 that it no longer qualified as agency that should be independent from the leader of the executive branch.

While the court did say those things, it also steered to a broad outcome by overruling a 1935 Supreme Court precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor v. US that allowed Congress to include restrictions on when a president may fire the leaders of certain independent agencies.

Roberts’ disdain for Humphrey’s virtually dripped off the page of his opinion.

“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Roberts wrote. “Humphrey’s has for decades been a result in search of a rationale.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, read an impassioned dissent warning that the decision could lead to “only chaos.”

Taking the rare step of reading from the bench — a sign of her strong disagreement – Sotomayor warned the decision would “fundamentally recalibrate the balance of power in the nation.”

Sotomayor wrote that the decision “undoes centuries of political practice” and would ultimately make the federal government worse.

Humphrey’s Executor dates back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tenure. Roosevelt fired an FTC commissioner, William Humphrey, in 1933 who had been appointed by President Herbert Hoover. Humphrey argued that his firing violated the law and his estate sought to recover his salary.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed at the time that his dismissal was improper.

In the decades since, the precedent has shielded some two dozen independent agencies from presidential interference, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the National Transportation Safety Board, among others. To fire the leaders of those agencies, presidents needed to show cause.

Now, they likely will not.

“Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the president would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work,” Roberts wrote. “Subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to removal by him.”

Though Cook won her battle in the fight over Trump’s ability to fire her, whether she wins the ultimate war over her job remains an open question – and one that is likely to return to the Supreme Court in the future.

The high court’s decision Monday dealt partly with the technical – yet hugely consequential – question of whether Cook should be allowed to remain on the Federal Reserve Board while she challenges the president’s bid to remove her. But the ruling, delivered in an opinion also penned by Roberts, made clear that there may be a world in which Trump can lawfully fire her.

Roberts and the four justices who signed on to his opinion (conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and liberal Justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) said federal law required Trump to give Cook adequate due process before firing her. The president’s decision to announce her ousting via a curt social media post, Roberts wrote, was insufficient.

https://www.cnn.com/

Supreme Court allows Lisa Cook to remain at Fed

1:21

Instead, the chief said, she “was entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due.”

Trump will now have to provide her with a chance to contest the allegations lodged against her. After that happens, lower courts will be able to scrutinize “the validity and sufficiency of such charges” with the benefit of having a more developed factual record in hand, Roberts wrote.

Without some form of review, the court said, the president would have power to remove Fed leaders “at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after. That would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment.”

That means that the case is all but certain to land back at the high court at some point. “The ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts,” Roberts wrote.

For now, while that review happens, Cook will remain in her job.

Trump quickly seized on the “strictly procedural basis” on which the court resolved the case on Monday, writing in a post on Truth Social that his administration “will take appropriate action immediately” to try to keep Cook off the board.

Looming large over Cook’s case were concerns from economists, politicians and others about the possibility of Trump triggering economic ruin if he was allowed to fire members of the Federal Reserve with little to no oversight.

Kavanaugh, who was put on the bench by Trump, made clear that he shares that anxiety.

He wrote in a concurring opinion that if the court permitted Trump to fire Cook for now, it would leave unanswered the question of whether the nation’s central bank is a truly independent body.

“Leaving that question open would create significant uncertainty about whether the Court might soon eliminate the Federal Reserve’s independence, and thereby expose the Federal Reserve to political influences and jeopardize the efficacy of U. S. monetary policy,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Even temporary uncertainty about the status of the Federal Reserve could spark … turmoil in the US and world economies.”

“I would not go down that road. I would not risk destabilizing the US economy,” he wrote in part.

Cook’s attorneys had leaned hard into the potential economic consequences of a win for Trump. It was clear that, in this case at least, the justices were listening.

Economists broadly agree that an independent Fed is essential for a stable US economy. The Federal Reserve addresses times of high inflation and high unemployment by swaying interest rates in either direction based on what economic figures show. A politicized Fed would mean the US central bank isn’t doing what’s in the best interest of the US economy.

Fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, however, disagreed with Kavanaugh’s premise that the Fed has been a good steward of the US economy. He wrote in a dissenting opinion that “many do not share the court’s rosy appraisal of the past century.”

“But if the court prefers an independent Federal Reserve Board, then its issue is not with the President but with the Constitution,” Thomas wrote.

In another high-profile move, the justices upheld state laws that count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day – which amounted to a repudiations of Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread fraud in mail voting.

The high court rejected Republican arguments that the practice, embraced by more than a dozen states, runs afoul of federal laws setting the November Election Day. Trump has repeatedly and falsely equated mail-in balloting and lengthy vote counts with “cheating,” even though he has voted by mail several times.

Writing for a 5-4 court, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett described the dispute as a “narrow” one, focused on the Mississippi law that counts “ballots postmarked by election day, but received up to five days later.”

“The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,” Barrett wrote, joined by Roberts and the court’s three liberals.

“Election fraud and its appearance are serious issues,” Barrett added. “Like other such issues, however, they must be addressed through the democratic process.”

Trump blasted the decision in a social media post, calling it a “tremendous loss.”

“NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPT FOR ILLNESS, DISABILITY, MILITARY DEPLOYMENT, OR TRAVEL!),” Trump wrote.

Just before the Supreme Court began handing down its opinion, it declined to take up Trump’s appeal in the Carroll case. Per its normal practice, the court did not explain its reasoning and no justice publicly dissented.

The court’s decision means the president will now have to pay Carroll the $5 million, which was awarded to her several years ago by a jury in New York after it found that Trump defamed her when he claimed she made up her story that he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s.

Trump transferred $5.5 million to a court-controlled account in 2023 following the jury verdict so Carroll is likely to receive the cash relatively quickly.

Trump, who has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, has claimed US District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw the civil trial, made numerous errors by allowing the jury to hear testimony from two women who alleged Trump sexually assaulted them years ago.

Trump also argued that the judge should not have let the jurors see the “Access Hollywood” tape, which captured Trump in 2005 on a hot mic saying he gropes and kisses women.

The appeal was rescheduled for months at the Supreme Court, which repeatedly set it for discussion and then yanked it from the agenda.

CNN’s Tierney Sneed, Bryan Mena and Abigail Roedersheimer contributed to this report.

Medicare to cover GLP-1 drugs for weight loss for the first time starting July 1. Here’s what to know.

June 29, 2026 / 3:39 PM EDT / CBS News

Some Medicare patients will be able to access to GLP-1 medication for weight loss for the first time starting July 1, paying a $50 monthly copay through a new program designed to make the drugs more affordable.

Called Medicare GLP-1 Bridge, the pilot program expands access to weight-loss drugs made by Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, including Zepbound, Foundayo and Wegovy.

“Medicare is not changing the law right now,” said Juliette Cubanski, vice president and director of Medicare policy at the health care research nonprofit KFF. “What it’s doing is taking advantage of a specific section of the law that gives the federal government the ability to stand up a temporary program.”

The program marks the first time Medicare will help pay for drugs prescribed solely for obesity, rather than limiting coverage to people taking GLP-1s for conditions such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Drugmakers have lowered out-of-pocket costs in recent months, but many patients still pay about $350 a month.

GLP-1 coverage through the bridge program will run between July 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027. After that 18-month trial, patients could lose access to Medicare coverage for GLP-1s used for weight loss unless the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issues an extension or Congress changes the law, according to Cubanski. It’s possible drug manufacturers could also lower their current direct-to-consumer pricing to match the $50 copay, she said.

“In the short term, we have this temporary program, and then no clear path forward yet as to what will happen at the end of 2027,” she said.

Who is eligible?

Medicare beneficiaries with Part D coverage enrolled in an eligible plan can get coverage through the Bridge program.

To qualify, a patient’s provider must submit a prior authorization request showing that the patient is being prescribed a GLP-1 for weight loss. Prior authorization is a process that clears the way for a pharmacy to fill a prescription.

Providers must also demonstrate that their patient meets certain clinical criteria related to their body mass index (BMI) and health conditions when they first start taking a GLP-1. They must either have:

• BMI of at least 35

• BMI of at least 30 plus a history of heart failure, uncontrolled hypertension or chronic kidney disease

• BMI of at least 27 plus prediabetes, a previous heart attack or stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease.

Patients are not eligible for coverage through the Bridge program if they already have a GLP-1 prescription under Medicare Part D for certain conditions, such as Type 2 diabetes and sleep apnea, according to Cubanski.

“Certainly, for patients who may think that they’re eligible for these drugs or are interested in exploring whether they’re eligible, a good first step is to talk to their clinician who can help them,” Cubanski said.

What drugs will Medicare cover?

Eli Lilly’s Foundayo, a daily weight loss pill, as well as Zepbound KwikPen, a weekly weight loss injection, are covered, along with Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy weight loss medication in injection and pill form.

How much will I have to pay?

Medicare recipients who meet the eligibility requirements will have to pay a $50 monthly copay to access the GLP-1 drugs. However, there are a few things to keep in mind. Because the program is being offered outside Medicare Part D coverage, the copay doesn’t count toward a patient’s deductible or yearly out-of-pocket cap.

“The good news is they don’t have to meet their deductible in order to qualify for the $50 copay,” Cubanski said. “But on the other hand, the $50 copay doesn’t count towards their $2,100 out-of-pocket cap.”

In addition, patients aren’t allowed to apply coupons or discounts to lower the price further.

How fear of a market meltdown may have quietly shaped the Supreme Court’s ruling to protect Fed independence

1:25 PM EDT, Mon June 29, 2026 / CNN

Video Ad Feedback

How fear of a market meltdown may have quietly shaped the Supreme Court’s ruling to protect Fed independence

Inside Politics

Manu Raju and the “Inside Politics” panel explain two Supreme Court decisions that prevented President Trump from immediately firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, but expanded his power to fire other independent agency officials. “The idea that the Fed is an arm of the president has the power to upend global markets… I think that’s what’s lurking in the back of their heads,” CNN Legal Analyst Elliot Williams says.

2:44 • Source: CNN

New York Stock Exchange opening bell to be rung from Oval Office for Trump Accounts launch

2026-06-29T16:19:53.939Z / CNN

By Aileen Graef

Updated Jun 29, 2026, 12:21 PM ET

PUBLISHED Jun 29, 2026, 12:19 PM ET

President Donald Trump sits at the Resolute desk after signing an executive order in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The New York Stock Exchange will be opened from the Oval Office next week to mark the opening of Trump Accounts, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Monday.

“We’re having a big opening bell ceremony next week where Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange are going to ring the bell from the Oval for the first time together, and they’re doing that to celebrate the accounts,” Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, said on CNBC.

CNN has reached out to the White House for further details.

Families will be able to start contributing to the accounts — which would provide parents of children born between 2025 and 2028 with $1,000 to invest — on July 4.

Hassett praised the accounts, which he said give every child born in the US “a stake in the game,” and suggested there’d be a political effect as well.

“It’s basically, I think, hard to be a socialist if you have capital, and so my view is that the political effect of this dynamic is going to be enormous,” Hassett said.

President Donald Trump and his allies have seized on the recent electoral success of several democratic socialist candidates to create a contrast with the GOP ahead of the November midterms.

Trump Accounts are IRA-style savings accounts for eligible children. They are like traditional IRAs in that money in the accounts will grow tax deferred. But the rules for Trump Accounts differ when it comes to contributions, withdrawals and approved uses of the money. Also, the money may not be tapped before a child turns 18.

The accounts didn’t initially plan for children in foster care — because they must be opened by an “authorized individual,”who is typically a parent or other family member named as a legal guardian — until child welfare advocates brought the issue to first lady Melania Trump’s office.

The first lady, who has used her second term to, in part, shine a light on children in the foster care system, appeared at the Treasury Department earlier this month to announce “Fostering the Future Accounts” and offer updated guidance that allows state child welfare agencies and foster youth representatives to set up the accounts for those children.

CNN’s Jeanne Sahadi and Betsy Klein contributed to this report.

Iran war has cost Americans $1,000 per household, economist estimates

June 29, 2026 2:27 PM EDT / CBS News

The Iran war has cost Americans roughly $1,000 per household in higher fuel, food and other expenses since the start of the conflict in February, according to an estimate shared last week by Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi.

Zandi’s analysis comes as government data shows inflation in May hit its highest level in three years, and with the U.S. and Iran yet to broker a lasting peace deal. The two countries exchanged military strikes over the weekend, threatening a fragile ceasefire. The sides will continue talks to end the conflict in Qatar on Tuesday, President Trump said on Monday.

What are Americans paying for?

According to Zandi, the biggest war-related expense for Americans has been gasoline, which peaked at $4.56 a gallon on May 21 before dipping back below $4 a gallon earlier this month. Since the war began on Feb. 28, Americans have shelled out an additional $300 on average to fill up their tanks, he found, an estimate that only factors in the higher cost of regular gas.

Higher diesel costs have also increased the cost of transporting products from farms, factories and seaports, leading to higher retail costs, Zandi said. He estimates the typical U.S. household has spent an extra $200 on groceries due to higher fuel costs since the start of the war.

Other war-related costs facing American households since the conflict started in February, according to Zandi:

• Higher interest rates —an estimated $150 on average inadded costs.As of January, many investors expected the Federal Reserve to cut its benchmark interest rate. But the surge in inflation stemming from the war has thwarted any plans by the central bank to lower borrowing costs, according to economists, with some forecasters even penciling in a rate hike later this year. That amounts to a missed opportunity for consumers and businesses, Zandi said.

• Higher airfare due to surging jet fuel costs —an estimated $100 on average in added costs. Airlines have partially passed their higher fuel costs onto travelers, Zandi noted.

• Taxpayer costs to support U.S. military operations —an estimated $250 on average in added costs. According to Zandi, the U.S. is spending an additional $50 million per day to conduct the war against Iran. A separate estimate from U.S. officials who spoke to CBS News in April placed the total U.S. price tag for the conflict at $50 billion. A Pentagon official in April put the cost of the Defense Department’s Operation Epic Fury at about $25 billion, although that figure did not fully account for damaged or destroyed equipment or U.S. military installations.

“My estimate that the Iran war has cost the typical American household $1,000 and counting is, if anything, conservative,” Zandi wrote. “The true cost is likely higher — meaningfully higher.”

Other researchers have also tried to tabulate how much the war has cost American households. Brown University researchers estimate that U.S. consumers have spent an additional $64 billion in total, or $486.41 per household, on gas and diesel alone since the start of the war. The Institute on Tax and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan think tank, puts the higher fuel costs at $427.50 per household.

In recent weeks, motorists have seen some relief. Gas prices are expected to continue to decline, though that hinges on the U.S. and Iran ceasing hostilities. On Monday, the national average for a gallon of gas was $3.86, down from $4.39 a month ago but up from $2.98 before the war started, AAA data shows.

Patrick De Haan, a petroleum expert at GasBuddy, thinks gas prices could fall below $3 by year-end or early next year, assuming the U.S. and Iran end the war.

According to a June Gallup poll, two-thirds of Americans reported experiencing financial hardship due to recent fuel price increases.

Edited by Alain Sherter

Aide who planned JFK Jr.’s secret wedding says Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s rumored MSG plans could be a decoy

June 29, 2026 / 2:23 PM EDT / CBS News

By Kelsie Hoffman

As speculation swirls and new clues emerge about possible plans for Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding, not everyone is convinced by the rumors involving Madison Square Garden.

“I don’t think it’s going to be at MSG,” said RoseMarie Terenzio, who was John F. Kennedy Jr.’s former chief of staff and planned his secret wedding to Carolyn Bessette nearly 30 years ago.

New York City Hall has confirmed an application has been filed for an event in or around Madison Square Garden on July 3. There was also a request for the streets around MSG to be closed around the date.

Terenzio told “CBS Mornings” that while she doesn’t think the wedding is happening at MSG and that it may be a decoy, she could see Swift doing something for her fans there.

“I overheard a girl on the train, she was sitting behind me talking to her mom … and she said, ‘You know, mom, Taylor has to invite us to do something to bring us into her wedding. We’ve been invested in her love life for so long.’

“And I think she has such an emotional connection to her fans and she understands that relationship so well that I think there will be something for the fans,” Terenzio said.

Despite social media, details surrounding the couple’s big day are surprisingly limited, which Terenzio credits to those close to the “Love Story” singer and Kansas City Chiefs star.

“Their effervescence as a couple — they’re always cheering each other on. I just think people are invested in giving them a beautiful wedding,” Terenzio said.

Even so, how do you keep an event of this scale that has garnered so much attention private?

“It’s intimacy. It’s people you know very well and you tell only them. And the other thing is decoys,” Terenzio said.

She explained that before JFK Jr.’s wedding, they left fake itineraries for Ireland around the office. The couple actually wed in a small, private ceremony on Cumberland Island, Georgia.

“The other thing is no text. No emails. Nothing in writing. All by phone or in person,” she said, adding, “While it’s difficult, it’s not impossible.”

She also said she thinks Swift and Kelce are capable of pulling it off, noting that Swift “just has such savvy about everything that she does.”

Terenzio said that if she were in charge of planning the couple’s big day, she would be “reinforcing the privacy aspect” to all guests.

“I would be calling and maybe even showing up in person to every single person’s place and, you know, giving them a little … ‘Keep your mouth shut. Make sure you keep your mouth shut.’”

Police must obtain a warrant when seeking sweep of cellphone location data, Supreme Court rules

2026-06-29T19:08:10.174Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics/cellphone-location-data-supreme-court

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the use of a “geofence warrant” to capture location data from cell phones in search of a robbery suspect constituted a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, a decision that means officers will have to obtain a warrant to access such data in the future.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for a majority that included both conservative and liberal justices. The court divided 6-3, with three of the court’s conservatives dissenting.

At a time when Americans store vast quantities of personal data in servers controlled by companies, the case raised thorny questions about the ability of police to access that information. In the end, the court steered out of the case with a relatively limited decision that will effectively require police to obtain a warrant when they’re requesting location information from a geolocation database.

“The Fourth Amendment must, as ever, protect against unjustified governmental intrusion on the privacy of the individual,” Kagan wrote.

A Virginia man, Okello Chatrie, appealed to the Supreme Court after police used the procedure to identify him as a suspect in a 2019 bank robbery. After their investigation went cold, police served Google with a geofence warrant to find a handful of people whose cellphones pegged them within 300 meters of the bank at the time of the robbery. Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea and reserved the right to appeal over the sweeping warrant.

The Supreme Court on Monday didn’t resolve Chatrie’s case. After all, the police in Chatrie’s case did, in fact, obtain a warrant. Instead, the majority concluded only that a warrant was necessary and then charged the lower courts with assessing whether the search police conducted in his case was consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Writing in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito described the court’s opinion as an “irresponsible escapade.”

“Although today’s decision will send seismic waves through our Fourth Amendment doctrine, not one iota of the majority opinion will affect the outcome of this case,” Alito wrote. “The court knows this and does not claim otherwise. Indeed, by refusing to review the one question that could have at least theoretically given Chatrie some hope of relief, the court carefully set the stage for its planned performance: striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age.”

The Fourth Amendment not only requires police to obtain a warrant for searches but demands that the warrant be “particularized,” that is, specific enough that it’s not effectively a fishing expedition for police. Chatrie’s attorneys argued that the warrant was not particularized in part because it required Google to parse through location data for millions of people to identify the small subset that were in the vicinity of the bank at the time of the crime.

“The potential for abuse is breathtaking,” Chatrie’s lawyers argued. “The government need only draw a geofence around a church, a political rally, or a gun shop, and it can compel a search of every user’s records to learn who was there.”

Police said Chatrie passed a note urging a bank teller in 2019 to “hand over all the cash” and demanded “at least 100k and nobody will get hurt and your family will be set free.”

After police identified Chatrie, authorities executed federal search warrants and found “robbery-style demand notes” in his bedroom, nearly $100,000 in cash and a 9 mm pistol. Police say Chatrie confessed to the robbery and was ultimately sentenced to more than 11 years in prison.

The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against him, holding that the warrant didn’t constitute a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes. After all, the court reasoned, when people allow tech companies to collect data they generally do so voluntarily. It is an argument that the Justice Department, which is defending the warrants, relied on heavily.

Chatrie “took no steps to protect his location from disclosure, such as pausing the Location History feature he had enabled or adjusting, deactivating, or forgoing his cellphone during his crime,” US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court.

The location data at issue in Chatrie’s case can identify a person’s location within three meters every two minutes.

But Chatrie’s attorneys argue that the logic doesn’t apply to his case, in part because of a 2018 Supreme Court precedent. In that case, Carpenter v. US, a divided court ruled that law enforcement generally needs to establish probable cause before accessing cellphone tower data to identify the movements of suspects. If authorities need a warrant to get cellphone tower data, Chatrie’s attorneys said, then surely they also must obtain one to get data that is far more reliable.

Google, which had received the majority of the warrants, changed its policy to shift how the data is stored.

Speaker Johnson sends housing bill to White House after Trump refused to sign measure

2026-06-29T19:33:50.523Z / CNN

By Ellis Kim, Morgan Rimmer

7 min ago

PUBLISHED Jun 29, 2026, 3:33 PM ET

A signing desk with the presidential seal sits on a stage at the US Capitol after President Donald Trump canceled a signing of a bipartisan housing measure on June 24, 2026.

Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters

Speaker Mike Johnson officially transmitted Congress’ bipartisan housing bill to the White House on Monday, according to a spokesperson, kicking off a 10-day countdown for the bill to become law, even if the president does not sign it.

After setting up for a large signing ceremony in the Capitol on Wednesday, President Donald Trump caught leadership from both the House and Senate off guard when he suddenly declared he would not sign the bill until Congress passes the “SAVE America Act,” a federal elections overhaul bill.

Trump’s fixation on the voter ID and proof-of-citizenship measure has further crippled an already-dysfunctional Congress, leaving Republicans unable to move on critical elements of their agenda.

Despite Senate Majority Leader John Thune and other senior members of the GOP conference insisting to the president that there is no path to pass the SAVE America Act, Trump has continued to demand action. Wednesday’s signing ceremony was only the latest piece of congressional business to be waylaid by the president’s pressure.

In the immediate aftermath, Senate and House Republicans expressed hope that the president would ultimately sign the housing bill, especially as vulnerable GOP members up for reelection planned to campaign on its passage ahead of the November midterms.

The housing bill, the “21st Century Road to Housing Act,” aims to tackle the country’s affordability crisis primarily through encouraging more housing supply. The bill also includes a first-of-its-kind limit on private equity by prohibiting large investors from buying single-family homes.

Johnson and Trump had a lengthy meeting Thursday, after which the House speaker said that the pair are “exactly on the same page” and that he would send the housing measure to the White House.

‘We have to have a big tent”: Why this top Democrat says he’s not worried about primary wins by Democratic Socialists

2026-06-29T17:48:10.784Z / CNN Politics

Manu Raju
By Manu Raju, CNN
Published 1:48 PM EDT, Mon June 29, 2026

“We have to have a big tent”: Why this top Democrat says he’s not worried about primary wins by Democratic Socialists

Inside Politics

Rep. Robert Garcia—the top Democrat on the key House Oversight Committee—says it is up to the voters to decide whether they want to send Democratic Socialists to Congress on the Democratic ticket. He says its his job to welcome new Democratic members and work together to win back the majority in November.

2:43 • Source: CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics/video/inside-politics-robert-garcia-democratic-socialist-primary-wins