Inflation slows in February ahead of tariff impact

(NewsNation) — Inflation slowed in President Donald Trump’s first full month in office, new Labor Department data shows. The consumer price index increased 2.8% in February from a year ago, but ticked up 0.2% from January.

Core prices, which exclude the volatile food and energy categories, rose 3.1% from a year earlier, down from 3.3% in January. The core figure is the lowest since April 2021.

The monthly inflation rose by much less than expected. The 0.2% jump in February from the previous month is down from a 0.5% jump in January. And core prices increased just 0.2%, below the 0.4% rise in January. Economists watch core prices because they are typically a better guide to the future path of inflation.

Grocery prices were unchanged last month from January, bringing some relief to consumers grappling with a 25% jump in grocery prices from four years ago. The cost of eggs, however, jumped 10.4% in February from the previous month and are nearly 60% more expensive than a year ago.

The increases were less than the 2.9% rise economists expected, according to a survey by data provider FactSet, though they remain higher than the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Two policies under the Trump administration are expected to have a significant impact on the U.S. economy going forward: Trump’s tariffs placed on a wide range of foreign imports and cuts to federal government spending under the Department of Government Efficiency.

EU retaliates against Trump’s tariffs

On Wednesday, the European Union announced retaliatory tariffs on U.S. industrial and farm products, responding within hours to the Trump administration’s increase in tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports to 25%.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that as the U.S. is “applying tariffs worth 28 billion dollars, we are responding with countermeasures worth 26 billion euros,” or about $28 billion.

“We firmly believe that in a world fraught with geopolitical and economic uncertainties, it is not in our common interest to burden our economies with tariffs,” she said. “Jobs are at stake. Prices will go up, in Europe and in the United States.”

The commission manages trade and commercial conflicts on behalf of the 27 member countries. Von der Leyen said the EU “will always remain open to negotiation.” Britain, which is not part of the EU, has said it will not impose retaliatory measures of its own on the U.S.

Trump slapped similar tariffs on EU steel and aluminum during his first term in office, which enraged European and other allies. The EU also imposed countermeasures in retaliation at the time, raising tariffs on U.S.-made motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans, among other items.

This time, the EU action will involve two steps. First, on April 1, the commission will reintroduce what it calls “rebalancing measures,” which the EU had in place from 2018 to 2020 but were suspended under the Biden administration. Then, on April 13, additional tariffs will target 18 billion euros ($19.6 billion) in U.S. exports.

Trump sticks to his guns on economy 

With Trump imposing or threatening tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, Europe and India, most economists forecast price increases will likely remain elevated this year.

Trump on Tuesday reiterated his commitment to his economic approach, regardless of short-term fluctuations.

“We’re going to have drops, and markets are going to go up, and they’re going to go down,” he told reporters. “But you know what? We have to rebuild our country. Our country has been stripped of its jobs, of its factories.”

If price increases remain stubbornly high, that could create political problems for Trump, who promised as a candidate to “knock the hell out of inflation.”

White House brushes off recession worries

Trump’s tariffs have set off a wave of economic uncertainty, driving stocks lower and fueling fears of a potential recession.

Trump did not rule out the possibility of a recession in a recent Fox News interview with Maria Bartiromo.

When asked if he was expecting a recession this year, Trump told Bartiromo, “I hate to predict things like that. There is a period of transition because what we’re doing is very big. We’re bringing wealth back to America. That’s a big thing.”

Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has continued to dismiss concerns about a recession.

When asked if the administration’s policies would be worth it if they led to a recession, even a short-term one, Lutnick replied, “These policies are the most important thing America has ever had.”

When pressed, he confirmed, “It is worth it.”

Trump’s economic agenda roils markets

Markets are set to open after another day of red across the board on Wall Street — the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 were all down Tuesday.

The S&P 500 is down more than 7% over the past month, wiping out all of its gains since Trump was reelected in November. Share prices for popular stocks like Tesla (-36%), Nvidia (-25%) and Meta (-16%) sank even faster from a month ago.

Uncertainty around Trump’s tariffs and the potential hit to both consumers and businesses appear to be the main reason investors are spooked.

Major retailers like Target and Best Buy have already warned shoppers Trump’s tariffs will likely lead to higher prices. Trump’s flip-flop in recent days has made it harder for Wall Street investors to price in the potential impact of tariffs.

Though it has fallen over the past month, the S&P 500 is up roughly 10% from a year ago.

NewsNation’s Andrew Dorn and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related articles

‘The bell of stupidity’: Conservative’s Christmas video lampoons Trump’s latest speech



President Donald Trump was supposed to prioritize the economy at a MAGA rally last week — but instead rambled about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and other familiar foes.

In a Christmas-themed video, The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson (a Never Trump conservative former GOP strategist) and journalist Molly Jong-Fast brutally mocked the speech for failing to get the desired economic message across.

Jong-Fast told Wilson, "Let's talk about how positively b----- the whole thing is. It was meant to be a rally on affordability. Here's what was not discussed: affordability. Here's what was discussed: Marjorie Taylor Greene. He calls her Marjorie Traitor Brown."

Wilson, sounding amused, interjected, "And I'm also intrigued by how she's somehow a leftist."

Jong-Fast told the Never Trumper, "It has really been a week for Trump."

Wilson laid out a variety of ways in which Trump and the MAGA movement are having a bad Christmas, from the Epstein files to the economy.

"There is no unringing this bell of stupidity," Wilson told Jong-Fast. "They have f----- it up. They have made a giant mistake."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce still didn’t announce pregnancy, despite AI rumors

Baseless claims following their engagement announcement in August 2025 swirled online.

Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history



New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.

"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.

A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.

"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.

The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”

Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.

"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."

"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."

"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.

Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.

“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”