Trump wants to take over Gaza. How would that work?

Layoffs hit their highest total last month since the Great Recession nearly two decades ago, according to a new analysis, and employers don't look to be adding jobs soon.

U.S. employers announced 108,435 layoffs for January, up 118 percent from the same period a year ago and 205 percent from December, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, and CNBC reported those were the highest totals for January since the depths of the global financial crisis in 2009.

“Generally, we see a high number of job cuts in the first quarter, but this is a high total for January,” said Andy Challenger, chief revenue officer for the firm. “It means most of these plans were set at the end of 2025, signaling employers are less-than-optimistic about the outlook for 2026.”

Companies announced only 5,306 new hires, also the lowest January since 2009, and the Challenger data calls into question a narrative that has formed around a no-hire, no-fire labor market.

"Some high-profile layoff announcements have boosted fears of wider damage in the labor market," CNBC reported. "Amazon, UPS and Dow Inc. recently have announced sizable job cuts. Indeed, transportation had the highest level from a sector standpoint in January, due largely to plans from UPS to cut more than 30,000 workers. Technology was second on the back of Amazon’s announcement to shed 16,000 mostly corporate level jobs."

Planned hiring dropped 13 percent since January 2025 and fell off 49 percent since December, and initial jobless claims spiked since early December to a seasonally adjusted total of 231,000 for the last week of January.

"Sobering data from Challenger on the US labor market," said Wharton School professor Mohamed A. El-Erian. "Announced job cuts in January more than doubled year-over-year, hitting their highest level since the 2009 Great Recession. Most notably, these layoffs are occurring while GDP continues to grow at approximately 4 percent, accelerating the decoupling of employment from economic growth — a phenomenon that, if it persists, has profound economic, political, and social implications."

New York Times columnist David French recently outlined a strategy that could prevent President Donald Trump from undermining the midterm elections.

In recent columns, French has sounded the alarm about "all of Trump's threats against American elections."

"Trump has filled his administration with cronies and true believers, and his attorney general is one of his chief enforcers. In 2020 Bill Barr, who was then the attorney general, resigned rather than continue to pursue Trump's stolen election claims," he noted on Sunday.

Writing on Thursday, French proposed pushing through the so-called Bivens Act, supported by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Reps. Hank Johnson (D-GA) and Jamie Raskin (D-MA). If signed into law by the president, the legislation would remove federal officials' immunity from lawsuits.

"It would amend Section 1983 by stating that officials 'of the United States' can be held liable on the same basis as officials of any state," French wrote. "That's it. That's the bill. And it's worth shutting down the Department of Homeland Security to get it passed."

The law would also apply to violations of voting rights.

"In my law practice, I saw fear of liability deter many constitutional violations. College presidents have removed speech codes. Police departments have changed policies. And not because of criminal prosecution, but from fear of substantial monetary judgments or injunctions from the courts," French explained. "I'm aware that it will be difficult to get Republicans to agree to greater legal accountability when they control the executive branch, when Republicans would be most likely to be held accountable, at least in the short term. And they would have to do so in force here to get past a potential presidential veto."

"But the Bivens Act would also hold Democrats accountable when they're back in power," he added. "It would give Republicans tools to restrain Democratic excess. The Bivens Act protects the Constitution. It does not punish any particular political party."

"Yes, a corrupt president may pardon the crooks and cronies who act on his behalf, but a modest change in the law could give them pause. Violating civil rights should carry a profound cost, and the message to the Trump administration should be simple and clear: Protect the integrity of the election, or we will make you pay."