Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer 

On Mar. 21, 2025, President Trump announced that the management of student loans will be transferred from the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration. This statement came a day after the president signed an executive order to begin the process of dismantling the Department of Education. According to Fox News, the president said the following at a White House event celebrating the new order: “I will sign an executive order to begin eliminating the federal Department of Education once and for all.” 

However, the process of minimizing the Department of Education is not a simple one; the tasks assigned to the department must be reallocated among other agencies, many of which are slashing staff in an attempt to decrease costs. In addition, many question if such an action is even legal. When questioned about the president’s authority to substantially restructure the Department of Education, according to NPR, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, stated, “The President has always said Congress has a role to play in this effort, and we expect them to help the President deliver.” 

In an effort to address the concerns about the allocation of duties, the president released a statement on Friday regarding delegation of tasks. As recorded by MarketLine, President Trump said, “I’ve decided that the SBA, the Small Business Administration, headed by Kelly Loeffler, who is a terrific person, will handle all of the student-loan portfolio. We have a portfolio that is very large, lots of loans, tens of thousands of loans, pretty complicated deal. That’s coming out of the Department of Education immediately.”

A separate statement issued by Loeffler on the same day reaffirmed the Small Business Administration’s dedication to reducing staff in line with the new Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Elon Musk. According to AP News, Loeffler asserted, “By eliminating non-mission-critical positions and consolidating functions, we will revert to the staffing levels of the last Trump administration.” As part of reorganization, the Small Business Administration plans to cut its workforce by 43%, laying off approximately 2,700 workers. The timing of this announcement is troubling as the administration is making such cuts while taking on the new burden of managing the complex student loan portfolio, prompting questions of why the agency is not increasing hires to ease the transition instead of dramatically cutting the department. 

In regard to students with disabilities, President Trump enlists this portion of responsibility to Robert F. Kennedy, declaring as reported by Fox News, “And also Bobby Kennedy, the Health and Human Services [secretary] will be handling special needs and all of the nutrition programs and everything else rather complex.” Continuing, the president said, “So I think that will work out very well. Those two elements will be taken out of the Department of Education, and then all we have to do is get the students to get guidance from the people that love and cherish them, including their parents… It’s going to be great. It’s going to be a great situation.” 
However, many disagree with the reduction in the Department of Education, such as James Kvaal, a man who worked in senior roles in both the Obama and Biden administrations. He said in a statement to ABC News, “We’re at a point now where millions of borrowers are late on their loans. For the department to be focused on laying off half its staff and going through a fundamental reorganization of how it administers these programs, you know, in really critical weeks for borrowers who are trying to get into repayment plans or get loan forgiveness, I think it’s very dangerous and puts a risk that millions of borrowers of going into default on their loans.”

Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer 

On Feb. 26, 2025, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced a comprehensive plan to mitigate the impact of avian bird flu in an effort to drive down egg prices. In an article Rollins penned for the Wall Street Journal, she stated, “In many cases, families are seeing prices of $6, $7, $10 or more [per dozen of eggs]. This is due in part to continuing outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, which has devastated American poultry farmers and slashed the egg supply over the last two years.” 

As the egg supply has dwindled, prices have soared for this common necessity, prompting growing concerns about the affordability of this staple. According to AP News, the most recent consumer price index reported the average price of a dozen Grade A eggs in U.S. cities to be $4.95 in January 2025, more than double the $2.04 cost in August 2023. 

With consumers struggling under these hefty price tags, Rollins announced a five-prong strategy to address the issue. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the plan involves spending up to $1 billion dollars on the crisis, allocating $500 million towards aiding U.S. poultry producers in implementing gold-standard biosecurity measures. The plan also calls for $400 million in financial relief to the farmers whose flocks have been affected by the avian flu and the dedication of $100 million to researching vaccines and therapeutics. 

Beyond funding commitments to tackle this issue, Rollins outlined plans to remove what she deemed “unnecessary regulatory burdens on the chicken and egg industry” in an effort to increase supply. As recorded in the Wall Street Journal, she referenced California’s Proposition 12 which established minimum space requirements for egg-laying hens, indicating her displeasure with the average egg price per dozen in California being $9.68. She claims a desire to help protect egg producers from these exacting guidelines, while also supporting initiatives to prompt families to raise their own backyard chickens. 

The fifth part of the plan includes relying more heavily on importing eggs in the short-term. According to USA Today, Turkey, one of the world’s largest exporters of eggs, predicts that they will supply the U.S. with approximately 420 million eggs, a steep increase from the previous year in which only 70 million eggs were supplied. As per USA Today, Rollins stated, “We will proceed with imports only if the eggs meet stringent U.S. safety standards and if we determine that doing so won’t jeopardize American farmers’ access to markets in the future.” 
As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Rollins indicated, “This five-point strategy won’t erase the problem overnight, but we’re confident that it will restore stability to the egg market over the next three to six months. This approach will also ensure stability over the next four years and beyond. American farmers need relief, and American consumers need affordable food. To every family struggling to buy eggs: We hear you, we’re fighting for you, and help is on the way.”

Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer 

On Jan. 29, 2025, the Federal Reserve refrained from lowering interest rates in an attempt to curb inflation. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates by a full percentage point over the last three meetings of 2024, leading to the unanimous decision to keep the benchmark rate of 4.25% to 4.5% to come under question by President Trump. 

On the same day as the decision, as stated in the Wall Street Journal, President Trump posted on his social media platform, “Because Jay Powell and the Fed failed to stop the problem they created with inflation, I will do it.”

Powell, the current chair of the Federal Reserve, was appointed by President Trump to the position in 2017, and reappointed by President Biden in 2021. Powell has been critiqued by President Trump in the past due to not cutting interest rates at a swift enough pace to align with his endeavors. 

As reported by Forbes, his term as the head of the Federal Reserve will expire in May 2026 with his term on the Federal Reserve set to expire in 2028. 

In response to the critical statement by President Trump, as referenced by NPR, Powell stated, “I’m not going to have any response or comment whatsoever on what the president said. The public should be confident that we will continue to do our work as we always have.”

This statement ties back to a core tenet of the Federal Reserve: political independence. The Federal Reserve was created to function independent of the sitting president, emphasized by the fact that appointments to the Federal Reserve are 14 years on a rotating basis so that a new member is chosen once every two years; by the time one president could nominate enough members to compose a majority, they would be leaving office, even with a two term presidency. 

Indeed, the true level of independence the Federal Reserve has is debated as President Trump places increasing pressure on Powell and the Federal Reserve to cut rates. 

In the past, as documented by CNBC, President Trump stated, “I’ll demand that interest rates drop immediately.” He also indicated a belief that the president should have a say in regard to interest rates and that the Federal Reserve should listen to him on the matter (CNBC). 

Powell remains insistent that changes should be made due to the statistics as opposed to dictates by the president, however. 

As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Peter Conti-Brown, a Federal Reserve historian at the University of Pennsylvania stated, “In the poker game he might be playing with Donald Trump, there are places where Jay Powell is willing to fold, and there are places where he is not. Subordinating the FOMC to the whims of a sitting president is not something Jay Powell will do.” 

Speculation exists that the decision to keep interest rates stable was in response to President Trump’s favored policies, which may lead to a rise in inflation. However, Powell dismissed these concerns, stating such a motive as premature. 
According to NPR, when questioned about how President Trump’s potential policies will influence the Federal Reserve’s decisions, Powell said, “We don’t know what will happen with tariffs, with immigration, with fiscal policy and with regulatory policy. We’re going to be watching carefully as we always do.”

Hailey Whitlock, Writer 

As a cause of great debate, tariffs have been featured heavily in the rhetoric surrounding the 2024 presidential election. However, this brings to mind the questions: what exactly is a tariff and how do they operate? A tariff is a tax imposed by the government on imported goods. While tariffs are legally levied against foreign importers, the rise in the cost to sell products across borders often leads to an increased price for consumers.

According to Forbes, Douglas Irwin, a leading historian of American trade, postulated that “trade policy affects prices in the domestic market, shaping the allocation of a nation’s resources.” Oftentimes, companies that import goods are faced with the difficult decision of whether to inflate consumer prices to cover the higher cost of importing goods, or accept a reduction in profits to keep price points competitive.

Faced with these two undesirable options, consumers and retailers shift away from products besieged by tariffs in favor of less expensive domestic goods. Thus, this introduces the two primary functions of tariffs: to act as a revenue source for the government and to serve as a means of protecting domestic industries.

Tariffs have been a central part of American history prior to the start of the nation; as recorded by Smithsonian Magazine, tension regarding “taxation without representation” extended to the tariffs imposed by the Townshend Acts. As such, when the Articles of Confederation were established, the federal government lacked the power to tax the citizens of the new nation.

It was quickly discovered that this model would not be maintainable, prompting the drafting of the Constitution. In fact, according to Forbes, the second law ever passed by Congress was a tariff law – a method by which the federal government could raise revenue without directly taxing citizens.

Tariffs have remained a point of politics ever since, and prior to the Civil War, a heated dispute erupted between the North and South regarding the appropriate role of tariffs. Those in the North typically favored higher tariffs as a form of protection against foreign competition. Conversely, the South, a primarily agrarian economy that relied heavily on imported goods, strongly objected to the imposition of further tariffs as these duties increased the cost of everyday necessities.

These arguments came to a head when South Carolina refused to honor newly passed tariffs. When President Jackson threatened to use military force to enforce these tariffs, South Carolina stated thoughts on withdrawing from the Union. A compromise was reached, but when the South did withdraw from the Union, Northern lawmakers were able to impose hefty tariffs.

These high tariffs remained until the time of President Franklin Roosevelt who encouraged relaxing trade restrictions to open wider foreign trade. Since then, the trend has been low tariffs, instead relying on taxes for government revenue. However, President-elect Donald Trump’s re-election calls into question the impact tariffs could have on the national economy. 

A central point to the 2024 Trump presidential campaign was an increase in tariffs. According to USA Today, his campaign boasted plans to impose 60% tariffs on Chinese goods as well as a universal tariff up to 20% on imports from other nations. This aggressive approach to tariffs is considered with the goal of bettering domestic production and manufacturing.

By passing tariffs, the price of common goods will increase, positioning foreign-made products at a more expensive price point. In doing so, American goods may appear more appealing to consumers, bolstering domestic goods. At a speech in Georgia in September, President-elect Trump stated, “When they have to pay tariffs to come in, but they have incentive to build here, they’re going to come roaring back.”

However, tariffs come with an extremely high price. USA Today references a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank, that claims that the passage of these tariffs will cost the average American household more than $2,600 a year. Tariffs incite higher inflation and interest rates, a combination which has many economists skeptical about the steep tariff rates.

Schlossberg from the Wells Fargo Investment Institute stated, “Most of us feel the tariff proposals are detrimental to the economy as a whole, even though they may benefit certain types of manufacturing at least for a time.”

Overall, the high tariffs suggested by president-elect Trump usher in a new era of aggressive tariff policy, prompting concern of a shift away from foreign products at the cost of American consumer prices. 

Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer 

On Oct. 16, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the final version of the “Click-to-Cancel” subscription rule which was first formally proposed by the Federal Trade Commission in March of 2023. The rule seeks to change the difficulty consumers experience with canceling subscription services. Often, consumers lament the current subscription business model due to the fact that companies are often misleading in the information they provide and make canceling a subscription much harder than joining one. In an interview conducted by NPR, Sam Levine, the head of the Consumer Protection Bureau at the Federal Trade Commission explained of the companies, “They know exactly what they’re doing. They’re using some of the most sophisticated design techniques available to trap people in these subscriptions and manipulate them.” 

When questioned about the need for such a rule, the Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Kahn summarized the call for change as follows: “Too often, businesses make people jump through endless hoops just to cancel a subscription. The FTC’s rule will end these tricks and traps, saving Americans time and money. Nobody should be stuck paying for a service they no longer want.” This motivation led to the regulation being passed in a sharply contested 3-2 vote consistent with party lines.

The “Click-to-Cancel rule” mandates that companies provide a cancellation method that is “easy to find when the consumer seeks to cancel,” although there was not a clear explanation of what this cancellation method would look like. According to the FTC, the rule also states that if the consumer signs up online for the subscription there must be a click to cancel option; if the consumer signs up in person, the company must provide the option to either cancel online or over the phone. For consumers required to cancel over the phone, representatives from the company must be available during normal business hours to process the request. As stated by the Wall Street Journal , consumers may no longer be forced to speak to either a live representative or chat box to cancel these memberships unless they consented to this step upon signing up for the subscription. Finally, consumers must agree before being charged and be informed if the company uses subscriptions that auto renew, prompting companies to stop automatically rolling over free trial subscriptions to paying memberships. 

Further, the policies that will primarily go into effect 180 days after the passing of the rule, attest that those in violation of the above rules and the much more ambiguous directive to avoid misrepresenting any subscription product may result in redress and civil penalties. Due to this addition, as elucidated in the Wall Street Journal, many companies are in vehement opposition to this new rule as it could be used to target marketing attempts of companies that utilize subscription services; even marketing attempts that do not relate to the methods for signing up and canceling a subscription. Consequently, this allows the Federal Trade Commission to pursue legal action against such entities, an addition that critics feel is outside the authority of the FTC.