Trump's tax bill makes big changes to student loans and financial aid
Lower loan limits. Fewer repayment options. A 30-year path to forgiveness. New Pell restrictions.
Those are among the major changes coming to the federal student lending program under measures Republicans included in their sweeping tax and budget bill that passed the House early Thursday.
The legislation is designed to rationalize the government's famously convoluted education loan program while saving around $351 billion. Unlike the current system, the overhaul would require pretty much every borrower — including the lowest earners — to at least make small payments toward their loans, and they would have a narrower chance of getting their debt canceled.
"It's no secret that colleges have exploited the availability of uncapped federal lending and generous forgiveness programs to raise prices rather than improve access and affordability,' Rep. Tim Walberg, who chairs the Education and Workforce Committee, said at an April 29 hearing. 'Streamlining loan options as done in this bill will increase affordability for students and families as well as curtail the extent to which schools use taxpayer dollars to line their pocketbooks by loading students up with debt they can't repay.'
But some outside experts have suggested that the reforms, including a complicated new system for determining how much students can receive in aid each year, could end up making aspects of the loan program more confusing for families, while also limiting access to federal aid for many lower-income students.
Here are the key things to know.
The student loan program has become notorious for its baffling array of repayment plans, which have accumulated over time as previous administrations have stacked new, more generous options atop one another. Those choices have been made messier by federal court rulings that blocked all or parts of some plans over the past year. President Biden's SAVE plan, for instance, is entirely on hold, as are the loan forgiveness features of Pay As You Earn and its successor, REPAYE.
The GOP bill would prune the system to just a pair of options — one standard plan, and one linked to income — both designed to make monthly payments manageable for borrowers.
The new standard plan would still require fixed monthly payments. But instead of automatically being placed on a 10-year repayment schedule, like in today's program, former students would have between 10 and 25 years to pay down their debts depending on how much they borrowed — similar to how federal consolidation loans work today.
Read more: Can you change your student loan repayment plan?
Meanwhile, the alphabet soup of plans that currently set payments based on a borrower's income — ICR, IBR, PAYE, REPAYE, and SAVE — would be slimmed down to a single option. The new Repayment Assistance Plan will require participants to pay between 1% and 10% of their income toward their loans, with higher earners owing more.
Notably, the bill would ban the Secretary of Education from modifying the two new plans, so a future president couldn't make their terms more lenient.
'I'd say this step toward simplification is a massive improvement when it comes to making these programs understandable to the general public,' said Beth Akers, an education expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
The new Repayment Assistance plan is in some ways less generous than some of the options that have been available until recently. For instance, current income-driven plans drop monthly payments to $0 per month for the lowest earners. The new proposal would require a minimum $10 monthly payment. Instead of forgiveness after 20 or 25 years, the new plan would require 360 on-time payments, or essentially 30 years.
Read more: How to apply for IDR forgiveness
The reforms also eliminate subsidized loans, which don't begin charging interest until repayment begins, as well as forbearance and deferments for unemployment and economic hardship.
Still, the new income-linked plan would have some borrower-friendly features. For instance, the government would waive unpaid interest each month instead of adding it back to a borrower's balance, as long as enrollees make their minimum payment. It would also offer matching principal payments of up to $50 a month and make payments lower for parents.
The bill would not change the way interest rates are calculated.
There's at least one quirk of the Repayment Assistance Plan that could frustrate a few participants. Because of the way payments increase with income, there's a chance some borrowers may end up losing money if they get a small raise, because their payment could theoretically go up more than their earnings — the sort of phenomenon income tax brackets, for instance, are designed to avoid.
A spokeswoman for the Education and Workforce Committee suggested that borrowers in that situation wouldn't necessarily be losing money, since they'd save on interest by paying their loans faster.
What about borrowers who already have loans? Some could end up with higher monthly payments. The proposal would terminate SAVE, PAYE, and REPAYE and transfer them into the existing Income-Based Repayment plan, with monthly payments set at 15% of discretionary income, and offer forgiveness after 20 years for undergraduate debt and 25 years for graduate student loans. PAYE and REPAYE had offered monthly payments at 10% of discretionary income.
Under the new program, many Americans would be able to borrow significantly less for school. For undergraduates, the lifetime Stafford Loan limit would be set at $50,000, higher than the current $31,000 cap for dependent students, but lower than the $57,000 cap for those who are independent. At the same time, Parent PLUS loans, which today are uncapped, would max out at $50,000 per parent across all of their children.
Grad PLUS loans, which allowed unlimited borrowing for advanced degree programs, are getting the ax entirely. Instead, borrowers will be limited to $100,000 in loans for graduate programs and $150,000 for professional programs. The caps are meant to tamp down on rampant tuition inflation and prevent overborrowing, but some experts are concerned they will simply push some students toward private lenders, especially in fields like law and medicine, who charge higher interest rates and offer fewer protections.
'It sounds like a massive play to increase the private student loan market,' said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of The Century Foundation and a former Department of Education official under the Biden administration.
There are major changes in store for how financial aid eligibility is calculated. Today, that math is based on the cost of attending the school where the student intends to enroll. Under the rule Republicans have proposed, each student's aid would be based on the median cost of attending a similar program of study nationally. So the aid for an engineering major at MIT would be based on the cost of engineering programs across the country, for instance.
The measure is being pitched as a way to help students pick lower-cost programs.
"The opaque tuition pricing model used today by colleges and universities is extremely confusing to borrowers and plays a large part in high costs,' said an Education and Workforce Committee spokeswoman. They added that the new aid formula is designed to help students 'be more informed consumers when comparing programs at different institutions.'
But some experts told Yahoo Finance that they were baffled by how the system would function in practice, or what it would mean for the typical student's aid package. It's also unclear if the Department of Education has the data collection capability to manage such a new system, since its statistics team has been cut down to three employees as part of recent layoffs.
'I have no idea what it's going to do,' said Rachel Fishman, director of higher education at the think tank New America. 'I don't think anybody understands what it is going to do.'
The Pell Grant program, which provides aid to low- and moderate-income households, would also see an overhaul.
Some of the changes would limit access for part-time students. For instance, undergrads would need to be enrolled at least half-time to qualify for any aid and would have to take a full course load of at least 15 credits per semester to receive a maximum grant, instead of the current 12 credits.
At the same time, the GOP would make more short-term certificate courses that offer vocational training for workers like truck drivers and nursing assistants Pell-eligible, by lowering the minimum length of a program to 8 weeks from the current 15.
Fishman said she was worried that the combined changes would lead to more 'stratification' in higher education.
'We're taking away your ability to get a bachelor's if you're working on the side, but if you want to get a short-term credential to get a really low-paying job, go ahead,' she said.
One thing that won't be getting a huge overhaul: The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which cancels the remaining debt for nonprofit and government employees after they make 10 years of payments.
The program has long been a target for conservatives — the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 advocated for eliminating it. But the GOP's bill only makes one change: Payments by medical and dental residents wouldn't qualify for forgiveness.
Read more: How to apply for Public Service Loan Forgiveness
One of the biggest changes to the lending program would be aimed at colleges themselves. The bill includes a 'skin-in-the-game' provision that would essentially put schools on the hook for paying back a portion of their students' loans if they miss payments and potentially cut them off from federal aid programs entirely.
The idea, which has been discussed in Washington policy circles for some time, is intended to create more accountability in higher education without singling out for-profit colleges. But some critics worry that it could disincentivize colleges from enrolling lower-income students, who are at higher risk of failing to pay back their loans.
Partly to prevent that, the bill includes a new grant program for colleges that gives them more funding based on a formula that rewards enrolling and graduating lower-income students. To qualify, the colleges would have to offer students a guaranteed maximum price to complete their degree when they first enroll.
Still, lobbying associations that represent universities are unhappy with the potential for new penalties, arguing in a recent letter that they would create 'enormous negative consequences' that 'unduly penalize the very institutions serving the largest numbers of those students who struggle most in the labor market: low income, first generation, and underrepresented student populations.'
Jordan Weissmann is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance.
Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. Why It Matters The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. What To Know The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. What People Are Saying Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. What Happens Next Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press.
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
The economic theory behind Trumpism
For more than half a century, the American right has preached the virtues of free markets and low taxes and deregulation. But a new wave of conservative thinkers are now arguing that Republicans have been wrong — or at the very least misguided — about the economy. This new economic thinking represents a break from what we've come to expect from the American right. Its proponents argue for a new strain of economic populism, one that departs from the GOP's past allegiance to big business and focuses instead on the working class. The question is, is it for real? Oren Cass is the founder of the think tank American Compass and the editor of a new book called The New Conservatives. He's also one of the most influential advocates of this conservative economic populism. Cass thinks the Republican Party has been too captive to corporate interests and market fundamentalism, and that conservatism needs a major reset, one that embraces American manufacturing and empowers workers. I invited him onto The Gray Area to talk about this new right-wing populism, what distinguishes it from the left, and whether the Republican Party is serious about adopting it. As always, there's much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Back in 2018, you wrote: 'Our political economy has relied upon the insidious metaphor of the economic pie, which measures success by the amount of GDP available to every American for consumption. … But the things America thought she wanted have not made her happy.' Let's start there: What did we think we wanted, and why hasn't it made us happy? You're very perceptive to start there. We were just putting together this new book called The New Conservatives, which is an anthology of everything we've been doing at American Compass over the last five years. And I actually went back and grabbed that essay and made it a prologue to the book. Because exactly as you said, it is a starting point for the way I think about a lot of this. In my mind, what we saw go wrong in our economics and our politics is that we did come to think of consumption as the end unto itself. And to be clear, I love consumption as much as the next guy. I'm not saying we should go back and live in log cabins, but I think we assumed that as long as we were increasing consumption, as long as material living standards were rising, everybody would be happy and we could declare success. And it's important to say that, from a formal perspective, that is in fact how our economic models operate. Economists will tell you their assumption is that the goal of the economic system is to maximize consumption. And so that's where that economic pie metaphor comes from. Something that was so widely embraced across the political spectrum, across the intellectual spectrum, was this idea that as long as you're growing the economy, you're growing GDP, you don't really have to worry too much about what's in the pie or where it's coming from. You can always then chop it up and make sure everybody has lots of pie. And I think it's important to say that — and this is the point, that we got what we thought we wanted — it's important to say that that worked. That for all of the problems we have in this country, if you're only looking at material living standards, if you're asking how much stuff people have, how big their houses are, whether they're air-conditioned, even how much health care they consume, at every socioeconomic level, consumption is up. We did that. And yet I think it's also very obvious that that did not achieve what we were trying to achieve, that [it] did not necessarily correspond to human flourishing, did not correspond to a strengthening economy over time, that it certainly did not correspond to strengthening families and communities. And ultimately, it didn't correspond to a strong and healthy political system or democracy. And so there's obviously a lot of talk of, Okay, well, why isn't that right? Why did it go wrong? What do you do about it? The strange thing for someone like me is that American conservatism, certainly in my lifetime, has largely existed to reinforce the ideology you're rejecting here. Why do you think the political right has been blind for so long to the things you're fighting for now? There's a very interesting pivot point that you see around the time of the Reagan revolution. The coalition that Reagan assembled had these different elements. It had the social conservatives, who I would say are most closely aligned to a fundamentally conservative outlook on a lot of these questions. But then it brought to that the very libertarian free-market folks on the economic side, and the quite aggressive interventionist foreign policy hawks. And what all these folks had in common was they really hated communism and really wanted to win the Cold War and saw that as the existential crisis. But what happened is, within that coalition, a very libertarian free-market mindset was then imposed on the economic policy of the right of center, even when that was very much in tension with a lot of other conservative values. And you saw people writing about that from both sides. From one side, Friedrich Hayek, who is one of the ultimate carriers of this pre-market ideology, has a very famous essay titled 'Why I Am Not a Conservative,' emphasizing that what he calls faith in markets to solve problems and self-regulate was very much at odds with how conservatives looked at the world. And from the flip side, you had a lot of conservatives, folks like Yuval Levin, who prefer markets as a way of ordering the economy to other options, but recognize that markets are very much in tension with other values like family and community. And in some cases, markets even actively can undermine or erode the strength of those other institutions. Markets are also dependent on institutions. If you want markets to work well, you actually need constraints. You need institutional supports. And so that tension was always present. I think that the coalition made a lot of sense in the context of winning the Cold War. It made a lot of sense when markets in the middle of the late 20th century really did seem to be delivering on a lot of the things that conservatives really cared about. But I think it reached its expiration date and just lived on by inertia into the 2000s, into this era of radical embrace of free trade even with communist China and cutting taxes even in the face of big deficits. I can imagine a skeptical leftist hearing all of this and thinking it's just a rebranded democratic socialism. Why is that wrong? What makes this conservative? There's a real disconnect both on the ends and on the means. I think there's a very healthy contestation over what are the appropriate ends that we're actually building toward. And what you're seeing conservatives coming back to articulating a set of actual value judgments about, what do we think the good life consists of? I think there is a set of value judgments and preferences for, in many respects, quite traditional formations at the family level, at the community level. [For] saying that it is not merely a value-neutral choice — 'Would you rather get married and have kids or spend more money on vacations in Greece?' — that it is actually appropriate and necessary for the good society to say, No, one of these things is better than the other and more important and should be valued more highly. At the national level, you're also seeing a much more robust nationalism on the right of center. Conservatives recognize the importance of the nation and solidarity within the nation to functioning markets, to a functioning society, in a way that at least the modern left tends to resist in a lot of cases. Part of the case you're making is that there's an ongoing paradigm shift within American conservatism. When you look at what this administration is doing on the policy front, when you look at what the Republican Party is doing, do you see them moving in your direction? We're definitely moving in the right direction. On tariffs alone, [we could] spend a tremendous amount of time emphasizing the ways I think the problems that they're addressing, the direction they're trying to go, is the right one. On the specifics of how things are timed and what the levels are and so forth, what legal authorities you use for what, I have all sorts of thoughts on how it might be done better. But broadly speaking, to your question about the direction that things are headed, I think it's extraordinarily clear to me that the Republican Party and the conservative movement are shifting quite dramatically in this direction. One way to look at that is in terms of personnel. Trump has obviously been something of a constant over the last decade in Republican politics, but the distance from Mike Pence to JD Vance is pretty dramatic. The distance from [Secretaries of State] Rex Tillerson to Marco Rubio is pretty dramatic. The distance from the various secretaries of labor in the first term to a secretary of labor recommended by the Teamsters is pretty dramatic. Is it really, though? Rhetorically, yes. But substantively? If you want to know why I can't take this iteration of the GOP seriously, look at the domestic policy they just passed in the House. It's the same Republican Party. It's jammed up with a bunch of stuff that reflects conventional conservative priorities. It's not doing a whole lot to help working-class people. It's more tax cuts offset by more cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, which low-income people depend on. And the net result, as always, will be more upward redistribution of wealth. And on top of that, another $3 or $4 or $5 trillion tacked onto the deficit just for good measure. How can you look at that and feel like the GOP is genuinely pivoting in your direction? I've been extremely critical of the 'big, beautiful bill' — particularly of the deficit element — because I think if one is going to be a fiscal conservative, one has to not be adding to deficits right now. But a lot of the efforts to argue that things are not changing in the Republican Party strike me as a real disservice to people who are trying to understand where things are going. Elected political leaders are always going to be the lagging indicator of what's happening in any political party or political movement. They are by definition going to be the oldest, the ones who have been around the longest, the ones who have built their careers and ideologies and relationships around what was happening 20 or 30 years ago. And so if one wants to know what is passing in Congress today, then yes, you count the votes of the people in Congress today. If you want to know what's actually moving within a party or what's going to happen over a 10- or 15-year period, counting the votes today is just not what someone in good faith trying to understand the direction would do. The tariff regime, the trade war — that is a genuine shift. No doubt about it. It's not entirely clear to me how that helps poor and working-class people at the moment, but maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture. There's a very interesting economic debate to be had about whether it will work. I obviously have one very strong view. But it seems pretty clear to me that what they are trying to do is quite explicitly focused on the economic interests of workers. Another very interesting area — I mentioned some of the things that are going on on the labor front. One really interesting effort that's underway, and [Sen.] Josh Hawley is the leader of it, but Bernie Moreno, the new senator from Ohio, is the co-sponsor of it — they've taken the [proposed] PRO Act, which is the ultimate Democratic wish list of labor reforms, and they've chopped it up. And they've said, Look, some of these are perfectly legitimate and good ideas. Others of these we don't agree with. And we're going to start advancing the ones we think are good ideas. That's a dramatic shift in how you would see the Republican Party. I think you're seeing the same thing in the financial sector. There was a great example recently where a private equity firm that had bought out a bunch of paper plants was trying to shut down a paper plant in Ohio. And you literally had the Republican politicians out there at the rally with the union leaders, forcing a change and a commitment to at least keep the plant open for the rest of the year and try to find a transaction that would keep it open afterward. On family policy, in 2017 you had [then-Sens.] Marco Rubio and Mike Lee threatening to tank the entire tax cut bill to get an expanded child tax credit in it. Now it is an uncontroversial top priority that the child tax credit is not only kept at that level, but expanded further. And so even at the level of what is happening in legislation, it's clear that this is a very different party from 2017. If you look at who Trump has appointed, it's a very different set of appointments. If you look at the critical mass and sometimes center of gravity among the younger elected officials, the people coming into the Senate, it's a completely different set of priorities and policies from those who have been there for a long time. Like I said, I'm not convinced that the DNA of the party has changed, but I will grant that there are indications of a shift. I don't know what it's going to amount to, materially, but this is not the party of Mitt Romney. I think Trump has cultivated a very unique coalition, certainly much more working-class than the pre-Trump Republican Party. I don't know how much of that coalition is a function of Trump and how much of that coalition will fade when he fades. If the Republican Party does prove an unreliable vehicle for your movement, can you see a world in which you're working with Democrats? We do work with some Democrats. I think there are Democrats who are doing very good and interesting work. We recently had [Rep.] Jared Golden from Maine on the American Compass Podcast because he is the sponsor of the 10 percent global tariff legislation in Congress. One thing I always emphasize is that I think a healthy American politics is not one where one party gets everything right and dominates and the other one collapses into irrelevance. It's one where we actually have two healthy political parties that are both focused on the concerns and priorities of the typical American and are then contesting a lot of these very legitimate disagreements about ends and means. But based on what is happening in American politics today and the fundamental differences between conservatism and progressivism, I would expect that this is going to have the most success and salience and overlap in thinking on the right of center.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Consumer sentiment rises for 1st time this year as inflation remains tame
WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer sentiment increased in June for the first time in six months, the latest sign that Americans' views of the economy have improved as inflation has stayed tame and the Trump administration has reached a truce in its trade fight with China. The preliminary reading of the University of Michigan's closely watched consumer sentiment index, released Friday, jumped 16% from 52.2 to 60.5. The large increase followed steady drops that left the preliminary number last month at the second-lowest level in the nearly 75-year history of the survey. Consumer sentiment is still down 20% compared with December 2024. 'Consumers appear to have settled somewhat from the shock of the extremely high tariffs announced in April and the policy volatility seen in the weeks that followed,' Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a written statement. 'However, consumers still perceive wide-ranging downside risks to the economy.' Americans have largely taken a darker view of the economy's future after President Donald Trump unleashed a wide-ranging trade war, imposing steep tariffs on China, the European Union, and dozens of other countries. Yet in April Trump postponed a set of sweeping tariffs on about 60 nations and last month reached a temporary truce with China, after both sides had sharply ratcheted up tariffs on each other. The Conference Board's consumer confidence index, released in late May, also increased after five straight declines that were linked to anxiety over tariffs. U.S. duties remain elevated compared with historical levels, but so far they have not worsened overall inflation. Prices rose just 2.4% in May compared with a year ago, up slightly from 2.3% in April. Still, most economists expect tariffs to hit harder in the coming months. Consumer confidence is sharply divided by political outlook, with Republicans feeling much better about the economy under Trump than Democrats. Democratic sentiment about the economy was much higher under Biden, while Republican views were low. This month, however, sentiment did improve among supporters of both parties and independents. Consumers' inflation expectations — basically a measure of how worried people are about future inflation — dropped this month, which will be welcomed by the inflation-fighters at the Federal Reserve. Inflation expectations can become self-fulfilling, because if people worry price increases will get worse, they can take steps — such as demanding higher pay — that push prices even higher. The Fed meets next week, and is expected to keep its key short-term interest rate unchanged at about 4.3%.
