Evelyn Reynolds

WASHINGTON — Russia asked China to give it military equipment and support for the war in Ukraine after President Vladimir V. Putin began a full-scale invasion last month, according to U.S. officials.Russia has also asked China for additional economic assistance, to help counteract the battering its economy has taken from broad sanctions imposed by the United States and European and Asian nations, according to an official.American officials, determined to keep secret their means of collecting the intelligence on Russia’s requests, declined to describe further the kind of military weapons or aid that Moscow is seeking. The officials also declined to discuss any reaction by China to the requests.President Xi Jinping of China has strengthened a partnership with Mr. Putin and has stood by him as Russia has stepped up its military campaign in Ukraine, destroying cities and killing hundreds or thousands of civilians. American officials are watching China closely to see whether it will act on any requests of aid from Russia. Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, is scheduled to meet on Monday in Rome with Yang Jiechi, a member of the Chinese Communist Party’s elite Politburo and director of the party’s Central Foreign Affairs Commission.Mr. Sullivan intends to warn Mr. Yang about any future Chinese efforts to bolster Russia in its war or undercut Ukraine, the United States and their partners.“We are communicating directly, privately to Beijing that there will absolutely be consequences for large-scale sanctions evasion efforts or support to Russia to backfill them,” Mr. Sullivan said on CNN on Sunday.“We will not allow that to go forward and allow there to be a lifeline to Russia from these economic sanctions from any country, anywhere in the world,” he said.Mr. Sullivan did not make any explicit mention of potential military support from China, but other U.S. officials spoke about the request from Russia on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of diplomatic and intelligence matters.Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said he had never heard of the request from Russia. “The current situation in Ukraine is indeed disconcerting,” he said, adding that Beijing wants to see a peaceful settlement. “The high priority now is to prevent the tense situation from escalating or even getting out of control.”The Biden administration is seeking to lay out for China the consequences of its alignment with Russia and penalties it will incur if it continues or increases its support. Some U.S. officials argue it might be possible to dissuade Beijing from ramping up its assistance to Moscow. Chinese leaders may be content to offer rhetorical support for Moscow and may not want to further enmesh themselves with Mr. Putin by providing military support for the war, those U.S. officials say.Mr. Sullivan said China “was aware before the invasion took place that Vladimir Putin was planning something,” but added that the Chinese might not have known the full extent of the Russian leader’s plans. “It’s very possible that Putin lied to them, the same way he lied to Europeans and others,” he said.Mr. Xi has met with Mr. Putin 38 times as national leaders, more than with any other head of state, and the two share a drive to weaken American power.Traditionally, China has bought military equipment from Russia rather than the other way around. Russia has increased its sales of weaponry to China in recent years. But China has advanced missile and drone capabilities that Russia could use in its Ukraine campaign.Although Russia on Sunday launched a missile barrage on a military training ground in western Ukraine that killed at least 35 people, there has been some evidence that Russian missile supplies have been running low, according to independent analysts.Last week, the White House criticized China for helping spread Kremlin disinformation about the United States and Ukraine. In recent days, Chinese diplomats, state media organizations and government agencies have used a range of platforms and official social media accounts to amplify a conspiracy theory that says the Pentagon has been financing biological and chemical weapons labs in Ukraine. Right-wing political figures in the United States have also promoted the theory.On Friday, Russia called a United Nations Security Council meeting to present its claims about the labs, and the Chinese ambassador to the U.N., Zhang Jun, supported his Russian counterpart.“Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, wrote on Twitter last Wednesday.China is also involved in the Iran nuclear negotiations, which have stalled because of new demands from Russia on relief from the sanctions imposed by Western nations in response to the Ukraine war.American officials are trying to determine to what degree China would support Russia’s position in those talks. Before Russia raised the requests, officials from the nations involved had been close to clinching a return to a version of the Obama-era nuclear limits agreement from which President Donald J. Trump withdrew. Mr. Sullivan might bring up Iran with Mr. Yang on Monday.Current and former U.S. officials say the Rome meeting is important, given the lives at stake in the Ukraine war and the possibility of Russia and China presenting a geopolitical united front against the United States and its allies in the years ahead.“This meeting is critical and possibly a defining moment in the relationship,” said Evan Medeiros, a Georgetown University professor who was a senior Asia director on the National Security Council during the Obama administration.“I think what the U.S. is probably going to do is lay out the costs and consequences of China’s complicity and possible enabling of Russia’s invasion,” he said. “I don’t think anyone in the administration has illusions that the U.S. can pull China away from Russia.”Some U.S. officials are looking for ways to compel Mr. Xi to distance himself from Mr. Putin on the war. Others see Mr. Xi as a lost cause and prefer to treat China and Russia as committed partners, hoping that might galvanize policies and coordination among Asian and European allies to contain them both.Chinese officials have consistently voiced sympathy for Russia during the Ukraine war by reiterating Mr. Putin’s criticism of NATO and blaming the United States for starting the conflict. They have refrained from any mention of a Russian “war” or “invasion,” even as they express general concern for the humanitarian crisis.They mention support for “sovereignty and territorial integrity,” a common catchphrase in Chinese diplomacy, but do not say explicitly which nation’s sovereignty they support — meaning the phrase could be interpreted as backing for Ukraine or an endorsement of Mr. Putin’s claims to restoring the territory of imperial Russia.Russia-Ukraine War: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 3Expanding the war. More

The Federal Reserve’s first increase in interest rates since before the pandemic was well broadcast, and markets may have little reaction if the central bank carries out its quarter-point hike Wednesday.
Investor focus remains on Ukraine, which continued to rattle markets in the past week, creating volatile swings in oil and sending stocks lower.
The Fed’s rate hike is expected, but investors will be watching to see what the central bank has to say about inflation and the economy, as well as its projections for future rate hikes.

A trader on the NYSE, March 11, 2022.
Source: NYSE

Investors may take the Federal Reserve’s first post-pandemic interest rate hike in stride, while uncertainty over the Ukraine crisis continues to hang over markets.
The Fed has clearly broadcast that it intends to raise its target fed funds rate by a quarter percentage point from zero, and it is expected to announce that move at the end of its two-day meeting Wednesday. The central bank should also reveal new forecasts for interest rates, inflation and the economy.

There are a few economic reports of note in the week ahead, including the producer price index Tuesday, retail sales Wednesday and existing home sales Friday.

“Earnings are over. Monetary policy is obviously going to be important here. I don’t see the Fed surprising anyone next week,” said Steve Massocca, managing director at Wedbush Securities. “It’s going to be a quarter point and then step into the background and watch what’s happening in Europe.”
Stocks fell for the past week, with the Nasdaq Composite the worst performer with a 3.5% decline. Meanwhile, the small-cap Russell 2000, which outperformed the three major indexes, lost 1% for the week.
A surge in oil prices spooked investors, with crude spiking to $130 at the beginning of the week but trading back below $110 on Friday.

Loading chart…

The S&P 500 was down about 2.9% for the week. Energy stocks were the top performers, up nearly 1.9% and the only positive major sector.

Fed ahead
The impact of Russian sanctions on commodities markets and the lack of clarity around the outcome of the war in Ukraine are likely to keep volatility high across the financial markets.
The central bank’s statement and comments from Fed Chair Jerome Powell on Wednesday will be closely watched for guidance on how central bank officials view the Ukraine crisis, and how much it could affect their outlook and the path for interest rates.
“His guidance is probably not going to be all that different from what he had to say in the [congressional] testimony. Basically, downside risks to the growth outlook have increased, upside risks to inflation have risen,” said Mark Cabana, head of U.S. short rates strategy at Bank of America.
Because Russia is a giant commodities producer, its assault on Ukraine and resulting sanctions have set off a rally in commodities markets that has made already-scorching inflation even hotter. February’s consumer price index was up 7.9%, and economists said rising gasoline prices could send it above 9% in March.
Gasoline at the pump jumped nearly 50 cents in the past week to $4.33 per gallon of unleaded, according to AAA.
Market pros see surging inflation as a catalyst that will keep the Fed on track to raise interest rates. However, uncertainty about the economic outlook could also mean the central bank might not hike as much as the seven rate increases that some economists forecast for this year.
Cabana expects Fed officials to forecast five hikes for 2022 and another four next year. The Fed previously anticipated three increases in both years. Cabana said the Fed could cut its forecast for 2024 to just one hike from the two in their last outlook.
Any comments from the Fed on what it plans for its nearly $9 trillion balance sheet will also be important, since officials have said they would like to begin to scale it back this year after they start hiking interest rates. The Fed replaces maturing Treasury bonds and mortgages as they roll off, and it could slow that in a process Wall Street has dubbed “quantitative tightening,” or QT.
“That they will be ready to flip the switch on QT in May is our base case, but we acknowledge there are risks that this will be skewed later,” said Cabana. He said if the Fed finds it is not in a position to raise interest rates as much as it hoped, it could delay shrinking the balance sheet right away, which would leave policy looser.

Loading chart…

Bond market liquidity
The 10-year Treasury yield topped 2% at its highest level Friday, after dipping below 1.7% earlier this month as investors sought safety in bonds. Bond yields move opposite price.
“It’s inflation and inflation expectations. Treasurys behave in this environment a little differently than a flight to quality asset,” Cabana said “That’s a different dynamic than we’ve observed. You may see a flight to quality into Treasurys, but the Treasurys are reflecting higher inflation expectations.”
Cabana said the markets are showing signs of concern around the uncertainty in Ukraine. For instance, the Treasury market is less liquid.
“We have seen that the Treasury market has become more volatile. We’re seeing bid-ask spreads have widened. Some of the more traditionally less liquid parts of the market may have become less liquid, like TIPS and the 20-year. We’re also seeing market depth thinning out,” he said. “This is all due to elevated uncertainty and lack of risk-taking willingness by market participants, and I think that should worry the Fed.”
But Cabana said markets are not showing major stress.
“We’re not seeing signs the wheels are falling off in funding or that counterparty credit risks are super elevated. But the signs there are very much that all is not well,” he said.
“The other thing we continue to watch loosely are funding markets, and those funding markets are showing a real premium for dollars. Folks are paying up a lot to get dollars in a way they haven’t since Covid,” he said.
Cabana said the market is looking for reassurance from the Fed that it is watching the conflict in Ukraine.
“I think it would upset the market if the Fed reflected a very high degree of confidence in one direction or another,” he said. “That seems very unlikely.”
Dollar strength
The dollar index was up 0.6% on the week and it has been rising during Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The index is the value of the dollar against a basket of currencies and is heavily weighted toward the euro.
Marc Chandler, chief market strategist at Bannockburn Global Forex, also points out that the dollar funding market is seeing some pressure but it is not strained.
“The dollar is at five-year highs today against the yen. That’s not what you would expect in a risk-off environment,” he said. “That’s a testament to the dollar’s strength.”

Loading chart…

Chandler said it’s possible the dollar weakens in the coming week if it follows its usual interest rate hike playbook.
“I think there might  be a buy the rumor, sell the fact on the Fed,” he said. “That’s typical for the dollar to go up ahead of the rate hike and sell off afterwards.”
Oil on the boil
Oil gyrated wildly this past week, touching a high not seen since 2008, as the market worried there would not be enough oil supply due to sanctions on Russia. Buyers have shunned Moscow’s oil for fear of running afoul of financial sanctions, and the U.S. said it would ban purchases of Russian oil.
West Texas Intermediate crude futures jumped to $130.50 per barrel at the beginning of the week but settling Friday at $109.33.
“I think the market getting bid up to $130 was a little premature,” said Helima Croft, head of global commodities strategy at RBC, noting the U.S. ban on Russian oil. She said the run-up in prices Monday came as market players speculated there would be a broader embargo on Russian oil, including Europe, its main customer.

“Right now, the market is too extreme in either way. I think it’s justified at $110. I think it’s justified over $100. I don’t think we’re headed for an off-ramp, and I think we have room to go higher,” she said.
Week ahead calendar
Monday
Earnings: Vail Resorts, Coupa Software
Tuesday
FOMC meeting begins
Earnings: Volkswagen
8:30 a.m. PPI
8:30 a.m. Empire State manufacturing
4:00 p.m. TIC data
Wednesday
Earnings: Lands’ End, Shoe Carnival, DouYu, Lennar, PagerDuty
8:30 a.m. Retail sales
8:30 a.m. Import prices
8:30 a.m. Business leaders survey
10:00 a.m. Business inventories
10:00 a.m. NAHB survey
2:00 p.m. Federal Reserve interest rate decision and economic projections
2:30 p.m. Briefing by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell
Thursday
Earnings: FedEx, Accenture, Commercial Metals, Signet Jewelers, Dollar General. Designer Brands, Warby Parker
8:30 a.m. Initial jobless claims
8:30 a.m. Housing starts
8:30 a.m. Philadelphia Fed manufacturing
9:15 a.m. Industrial production
Friday
10:00 a.m. Existing home sales
2:00 p.m. Chicago Fed President Charles Evans

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

WASHINGTON — President Biden and other Western leaders moved on Friday to further isolate Russia from the global trading system, saying they would strip the country of normal trade relations and take other steps to sever its links to the world economy in response to President Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.The measures, which were announced jointly with the European Union and other Group of 7 countries, would allow countries to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods and would prevent Russia from borrowing funds from multilateral institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.Mr. Biden also moved to cut off additional avenues of trade between the United States and Russia, barring lucrative imports like seafood, vodka and certain diamonds, which the White House estimated would cost Russia more than $1 billion in export revenues per year.The United States will also restrict exports to Russia and Belarus of luxury items like high-end watches, vehicles, alcohol, jewelry and apparel. The European Union announced its own set of bans, including barring imports of Russian iron and steel.The restrictions add to a growing list of economic barriers that much of the developed world has put in place on Russia, whose economy is already suffering as a result. The ruble has lost nearly half its value over the past month, food prices are soaring and Russia is in danger of defaulting on its sovereign debt. Its stock market has remained closed since the war began.Mr. Biden said on Friday that the moves “will be another crushing blow to the Russian economy.” He said Russia was “already suffering very badly” from the sanctions, adding that the West’s economic pressure was a reason the Russian stock market had not reopened.“It’ll blow up” once it opens, Mr. Biden predicted.The White House has been under pressure in recent days to respond to Russian attacks in Ukraine, including the shelling of hospitals, other buildings and civilian evacuation routes. The White House has warned that Russia may also use chemical weapons against Ukrainians, but it has repeatedly said that Mr. Biden will not send American troops into the fray.Instead, the administration has focused on ratcheting up economic pressure. Earlier in the week, Mr. Biden banned imports of Russian oil, gas and coal and imposed restrictions on U.S. energy investments in Russia.The move to strip Russia of its preferential trade status would allow some of its biggest trading partners to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods. The Group of 7 countries, which also include Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, purchased about half of Russia’s exports in 2019.Russia’s preferential trade status is conveyed by its membership in the World Trade Organization, whose rules require that all members grant each other “most favored nation” trading status in which goods can flow between countries at lower tariff rates.Taking away that status — which the United States calls “permanent normal trade relations” — would most likely have a much larger impact for the European Union, which is Russia’s largest trading partner and a major importer of Russian fuel, minerals, wood, steel and fertilizer.In the United States, the move would carry heavy symbolism, but it could have a limited economic impact compared with other sanctions that have already been imposed, according to trade experts.Chad P. Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the measure would raise U.S. tariffs on Russian products to an average of about 32 percent from 3 percent.“However, the trade impact on Russia of such a tariff hike would be small, as the United States is not a particularly sizable export destination for Russian products,” he said. Russia was the 20th-largest supplier of goods to the United States in 2019, sending mainly energy products and minerals.And many of those goods would be subject to far lower tariffs — in some cases none at all — as a result of a decades-old trade law that would kick into place if the preferential trade status were revoked.Each country will follow its own domestic process to make this change, the Biden administration said. The European Union has begun to pave the way for higher tariffs on Russian goods, but the bloc’s 27 member countries must agree on how to carry that out. Canada announced last week that it would withdraw most favored nation tariffs for both Russia and Belarus, a close Russian ally.In the United States, the task falls to Congress, which had been pressuring the administration to consider such a move.House Democrats proposed two weeks ago to strip Russia of its trading status and begin a process to expel the country from the World Trade Organization. This week, top Democratic and Republican lawmakers said they would include the measures in a bill to penalize Russia, but at the White House’s request, Democrats ultimately stripped out the provision to remove Russia’s special trading status. The bill passed the House on Wednesday but has yet to pass the Senate.“It was taken out because the president wants to talk to our allies about that action, which I think is appropriate,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, told reporters this week.Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that the House would take up legislation next week to formalize the revocation of Russia’s trading status.“It is our hope that it will receive a strong, bipartisan vote,” she said.If approved, the measure would add to an array of harsh sanctions already announced by the United States and its allies. Western governments have reduced their energy trade with Russia, frozen the assets of Russian officials and oligarchs, and cut off the country from the dollar-denominated global financial system.An icebreaker cut a path for a cargo ship near the Franz Josef Land archipelago in Russia last year. The move to strip Russia of its preferential trade status would allow some of its biggest trading partners to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods. Emile Ducke for The New York TimesGovernments have also banned exports of advanced technology and transactions with Russia’s central bank. On Friday, the Bank for International Settlements, which provides banking services to the world’s central banks, said it was no longer conducting transactions with Russia. And the Treasury Department placed new economic sanctions on three immediate family members of Mr. Putin’s spokesman, along with 12 members of the Russian Duma and the management board of VTB Bank, which has already been sanctioned.The Treasury Department said it was specifically targeting a plane and a yacht of the Russian billionaire Viktor F. Vekselberg, which together are worth an estimated $180 million. Mr. Vekselberg is an ally of Mr. Putin, the department said.The Russian government has fired back by announcing it would place its own restrictions on its exports, including of raw materials.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

Last June, a meeting of the Dutchess County Legislature in New York’s Hudson Valley quickly turned heated over how to spend some of the county’s $57 million in federal pandemic relief aid.For more than two hours, residents and Democratic lawmakers implored the Republican majority to address longstanding problems that the pandemic had exacerbated. They cited opioid abuse, poverty and food insecurity. Some pointed to decrepit sewer systems and inadequate high-speed internet. Democrats offered up amendments directing funds to addiction recovery and mental health services.In the end, the Legislature rebuffed their appeals. It voted 15 to 10 to devote $12.5 million to renovate a minor-league baseball stadium that’s home to the Hudson Valley Renegades, a Yankees affiliate.“Who created this plan? Some legislators?” asked Carole Pickering, a resident of Hyde Park. “These funds were intended to rescue our citizens to the extent possible, not to upgrade a baseball field.”“I think we should be a little bit ashamed,” Brennan Kearney, a Democrat in the Legislature, told her fellow lawmakers.Cities and counties across the United States have found themselves in the surprisingly uncomfortable position of deciding how best to spend a windfall of federal relief funds intended to help keep them afloat amid deadly waves of Covid-19 infections.The pandemic, which is showing signs of waning as it enters its third year, prompted the largest infusion of federal money into the U.S. economy since the New Deal. President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump got Congress to approve roughly $5 trillion to help support families, shop owners, unemployed workers, schools and businesses.Where $5 Trillion in Pandemic Stimulus Money WentIt is the largest government relief effort in recorded history, and two years after Covid-19 crisis began, money is still flowing to communities. Here’s where it went and how it was spent.A large portion of the aid went to state, local and tribal governments, many of which had projected revenue losses of as much as 20 percent at the pandemic’s onset. The largest chunk came from Mr. Biden’s $1.9 trillion recovery bill, the American Rescue Plan, which earmarked $350 billion. That money is just beginning to flow to communities, which have until 2026 to spend it.“We’ve sent you a whole hell of a lot of money,” Mr. Biden said during a meeting with the nation’s governors in January.In many cases, the money has become an unusually public and contentious marker of what matters most to a place — and who gets to make those decisions. The debates are sometimes partisan, but not always divided by ideology. They pit colleagues against each other, neighbors against neighbors, people who want infrastructure improvements against those who want to help people experiencing homelessness.“It’s both breathtaking in its magnitude but it still requires some hard and strategic choices,” said Brad Whitehead, who is a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings Metro, a metropolitan policy project, and advises cities on how to use their funds. “One of the difficulties for elected leaders is everyone has a claim and a thought for how these dollars should be used.”Poughkeepsie, N.Y., part of Dutchess County. At a meeting last summer, county residents implored leaders to use pandemic aid to address longstanding problems.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesA person who is homeless in Poughkeepsie. Homelessness and poverty were among the issues that residents said deserved funding.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesLocal governments were given broad discretion over how to use the money. In addition to addressing immediate health needs, they were allowed to make up for pandemic-related revenue losses from empty transit systems, tourist attractions and other areas that suffered financially.That money is often equivalent to a third or nearly half of a city’s annual budget. St. Louis, for instance, will receive $498 million, more than 40 percent of its 2021 budget of $1.1 billion. Cleveland, with a city budget of $1.8 billion, will get $511 million.But the relief comes with strings: Governments are prohibited from using the funds to subsidize tax cuts or to make up for pension shortfalls. And because the aid is essentially a one-time installment, it wouldn’t necessarily help cover salaries for new teachers or other recurring costs.Several states have sued the Biden administration over the tax cut restriction, claiming it violates state sovereignty. Some governments have refused to take the money over concerns that it would give the federal government power to control local decision-making.In Saginaw, Mich., the mayor formed a 15-person advisory group to recommend ways to spend the city’s $52 million allotment. Harrisburg, Pa., which received $49 million, has held public events seeking input from residents. Massillon, Ohio, identified the biggest source of public complaints — flooding and sanitation issues — and proposed using its $16 million share to address those areas.“We listened to the people, and we’re trying to make improvements for them,” said Kathy Catazaro-Perry, Massillon’s mayor. “Our city is old. We have a lot of areas that did not have storm drains, and so for us, this is going to be huge because we’re going to be able to rectify some of those older neighborhoods.”But many have found their communities mired in clashes over who has the power to spend the money.Poughkeepsie residents picked up free meals at the Family Partnership Center in February. The food was distributed through the Lunch Box, a program that provides hot meals in Dutchess County five days a week.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesIn New York’s Onondaga County, which includes Syracuse, legislators from both parties have been trying to claw back spending authority from the county executive, Ryan McMahon, a Republican.When the first half of the county’s $89 million stimulus share arrived last spring, Mr. McMahon placed it into an account that he controlled and began committing funds to projects, including a $1 million restaurant voucher program, $5 million in incentives for filmmakers to produce in the area and $25 million for a multisport complex featuring 10 synthetic turf fields.Lawmakers, who questioned why they were not being asked to vote on the spending, were told by the county attorney’s office that they had ceded that authority in December 2020 when they approved an emergency resolution that gave the county executive authority “to address budget issues specifically related to Covid-19 global pandemic.”Legislators argued that they had never intended for that control to extend beyond the immediate pandemic response.James Rowley, who was elected chair of the Onondaga County Legislature in January, hired a lawyer and spent $11,000 preparing a lawsuit to challenge Mr. McMahon.“We have the power of the purse,” Mr. Rowley, a Republican, said in an interview. “I didn’t want to set a precedent that gave the county executive power to spend county money.”Mr. McMahon did not respond to a request for comment. On Feb. 22, he sent a letter to the Legislature proposing that it regain control of the stimulus funds that had not yet been allocated.“I recognize your concern,” he wrote, noting that “our cooperative actions should comport with county charter principles of separation of powers.” An abandoned property in Poughkeepsie. One county legislator called the investment in the baseball stadium “a betrayal of our community.”Boarded-up buildings in Poughkeepsie. Local governments were given broad discretion in how the pandemic aid could be spent.The rush of money from the federal government is in part an attempt to avoid the mistakes of the last recession, when state and local governments cut spending and fired workers, prolonging America’s economic recovery. But analysts say it will take years to fully assess whether all the spending this time was successful. Critics argue that the overall $5 trillion effort has added to a ballooning federal deficit and helped propel rapid inflation. And many states report increasing revenue, and even surpluses, as the economy strengthens.The money has led to ideological fights over the role of the federal government.In January, dozens of residents crowded into a City Council meeting in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, where they demanded that the mayor and other officials turn down the city’s $8.6 million share of stimulus funds, saying it was a ruse by Washington to take control of the town.Residents booed and called the Council members “fascists.” Several referred to the money as a Trojan horse, lamenting that taking it would allow the federal government to impose restrictions on Idaho, including establishing vaccine checkpoints. Amid cries of “Recall!” one woman shouted repeatedly that “you have given up our sovereignty.”“Nobody wants this money,” Mark Salazar, a resident, said to applause. “I don’t want to be under the chains of the federal government. Nobody does.”The council eventually voted 5 to 1 to accept the funds, saying they would go toward expanding a police station and other areas.Dutchess County residents were similarly agitated, if less rowdy, at their June 14 meeting about the stadium. Guidance on using the funds issued by the Treasury Department specifically cited stadiums as “generally not reasonably proportional to addressing the negative economic impacts of the pandemic.”So why, those in attendance asked, was this happening?Marc Molinaro, the county executive, defended the spending, saying Dutchess County had identified $33 million in lost revenue as a result of the pandemic and that, according to the Biden administration’s guidance, stimulus funds could indeed go toward investing in things like the stadium.“It’s basically any structure, facility, thing you own as a government, you can invest these dollars in with broad latitude,” Mr. Molinaro said.In a recent interview, Mr. Molinaro said that because the funds were one-time money, the county needed to be careful not to create expenses that could not be paid for once the federal funds ran out.He added that investing in the stadium would produce an ongoing revenue stream for Dutchess County — money that he said would allow the government to pay for the types of programs that Democrats wanted.The investment, he said, “allows us to create 25 years of revenue that we can invest in the expansion of mental health services, homelessness and substance abuse.”That explanation has not mollified everyone.“I was just devastated that we spent the money that way,” Ms. Kearney, the Democratic legislator, said in an interview. “It was such a betrayal of our community. So grossly inappropriate and grossly tone deaf to the needs of the people in Dutchess who have suffered.” More

At the outset of the pandemic, governments used the funds largely to cover virus-related costs.

As the months dragged on, they found themselves covering unexpected shortfalls created by the pandemic, including lost revenue from parking garages and museums where attendance dropped off. They also funded longstanding priorities like upgrading sewer systems and other infrastructure projects.

K-12 schools used early funds to transition to remote learning, and they received $122 billion from the American Rescue Plan that was intended to help them pay salaries, facilitate vaccinations and upgrade buildings and ventilation systems to reduce the virus’s spread. At least 20 percent must be spent on helping students recover academically from the pandemic.

While not all of the state and local aid has been spent, the scope of the funding has been expansive:

Utah set aside $100 million for “water conservation” as it faces historic drought conditions.

Texas has designated $100 million to “maintain” the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin.

The San Antonio Independent School District in Texas plans to spend $9.4 million on increasing staff compensation, giving all permanent full-time employees a 2 percent pay raise and lifting minimum wages to $16 an hour, from $15.

Alabama approved $400 million to help fund 4,000-bed prisons.

Summerville, S.C., allocated more than $1.3 million for premium pay for essential workers.

What was the impact?

The aim of the money was to prevent the kind of painful budget cuts that state and local governments were forced to make in the wake of the Great Recession, when revenues plunged and costs soared, a recipe that prolonged America’s sluggish recovery and hampered some local economies for years.

Economists largely agree that the money helped local governments shoulder significant pandemic-related costs, and many governments avoided deep budget cuts. Many states have even reported surpluses.

But federal rules prevented local governments from using CARES Act funds to fill budget shortfalls, and state and local governments wound up slashing hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs anyway. Several states have sued the Biden administration over restrictions it imposed on the use of funds.

What hasn’t been spent?

A significant portion has yet to be spent, in part because more than $100 billion remains to be distributed by the Treasury Department. Only 19 states, plus Washington, D.C., received their entire allotments of American Rescue Plan funds in 2021. A second batch will be distributed this year.

Governments have until 2026 tospend the funds, and disagreements over where the money should go and who has authority to spend it have slowed planning in some communities.

School districts have until January 2025 to spend the money allocated to them. But even with several years left, schools have voiced concerns about meeting that deadline as many districts struggle with labor shortages and supply-chain delays. More

The consumer price index for February rose 7.9% from a year ago, the highest level since January 1982.
Excluding food and energy, both of which moved sharply higher during the month, core inflation still rose 6.4%, in line with expectations but the highest since August 1982.
Gas, groceries and shelter were the biggest contributors to the CPI gain. Auto prices eased.
Worker paychecks fell further behind, as inflation-adjusted earnings dropped 0.8% in February, contributing to a 2.6% decline over the past year.

Inflation grew worse in February amid the escalating crisis in Ukraine and price pressures that became more entrenched.
The consumer price index, which measures a wide-ranging basket of goods and services, increased 7.9% over the past 12 months, a fresh 40-year high for the closely followed gauge, according to the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The February acceleration was the fastest pace since January1982, back when the U.S. economy confronted the twin threat of higher inflation and reduced economic growth.
On a month-over-month basis, the CPI gain was 0.8%. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had expected headline inflation to increase 7.8% for the year and 0.7% for the month.
Food prices rose 1% and food at home jumped 1.4%, both the fastest monthly gains since April 2020, in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Energy also was at the forefront of ballooning prices, up 3.5% for February and accounting for about one-third of the headline gain. Shelter costs, which account for about one-third of the CPI weighting, accelerated another 0.5%, for a 12-month rise of 4.7%, the fastest annual increase since May 1991.

A customer refuels at a Chevron gas station with prices above $4 a gallon in Seattle, Washington, U.S., on Monday, March 7, 2022.
David Ryder | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Excluding volatile food and energy prices, so-called core inflation rose 6.4%, in line with estimates and the highest since August 1982. On a monthly basis, core CPI was up 0.5, also consistent with Wall Street expectations.

The rise in inflation meant worker paychecks fell further behind despite what otherwise would be considered strong increases.
Real inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings for the month fell 0.8% in February, contributing to a 2.6% decline over the past year, according to the BLS. That came even though headline earnings rose 5.1% from a year ago, but were outweighed by the price surge.
Markets indicated a negative open on Wall Street, with stocks pressured by faltering Russia-Ukraine cease-fire talks. Government bond yields turned higher after the CPI report.

Stock picks and investing trends from CNBC Pro:

“Inflation is coming in hot but the reality is there are no real surprises in this report,” said Mike Loewengart, managing director of investment strategy for E-Trade. “The market likely already priced the inflation increase in accordingly, and is instead intently focused on Ukraine and the downstream impact from commodities, which are already sending shockwaves through the market.”
The inflation surge is in keeping with price gains over the past year. Inflation has roared higher amid an unprecedented government spending blitz coupled with persistent supply chain disruptions that have been unable to keep up with stimulus-fueled demand, particularly for goods over services.
Policymakers have been expecting inflation to abate as supply chain issues ease. The New York Fed’s supply chain index shows pressure has eased in 2022, though it is still near historically high levels.
Vehicle costs have been a powerful inflationary force but showed signs of easing in February. Used car and truck prices actually declined 0.2%, their first negative showing since September 2021, but are still up 41.2% over the past year. New car prices rose 0.3% for the month and 12.4% over the 12-month period.
A raging crisis in Europe has only fed into the price pressures, as sanctions against Russia have coincided with surging gasoline costs. Prices at the pump are up about 24% over just the past month and 53% in the past year, according to AAA.
Moreover, business are raising costs to keep up with the price of raw goods and increasing pay in a historically tight labor market in which there are about 4.8 million more job openings than there are available workers.
Recent surveys, including one this week from the National Federation of Independent Business, show a record level of smaller companies are raising prices to cope with surging costs.
To try to stem the trend, the Federal Reserve is expected next week to announce the first of a series of interest rate hikes aimed at slowing inflation. It will be the first time the central bank has raised rates in more than three years, and mark a reversal of a zero interest rate policy and unprecedented levels of cash injections for an economy that in 2021 grew at its fastest pace in 37 years.
However, inflation is not a U.S.-centric story.
Global prices are subject to many of the same factors hitting the domestic economy, and central banks are responding in kind. On Thursday, the European Central Bank said it was not moving its benchmark interest rate but would end its own asset purchase program sooner than planned.
In other economic news, jobless claims for the week ended March 5 totaled 227,000, higher than the 216,000 estimate and up 11,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said. Continuing claims rose slightly to just below 1.5 million, though the four-week moving average remained at its lowest level since 1970.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

News that inflation has hit a 40-year high is another blunt reminder of just how much the president is asking voters to sacrifice in an election year.WASHINGTON — The price of gasoline has risen every day since Russia invaded Ukraine. Record-high inflation in the United States is causing sticker shock. And now, President Biden is blaming the pinch on Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president.“There will be costs at home as we impose crippling sanctions in response to Putin’s unprovoked war,” Mr. Biden said in a statement on Thursday.The president is betting that Americans are willing to endure the financial pain that comes from waging an economic war with Russia. But Thursday’s news that inflation has hit a 40-year high is another blunt reminder of just how much he is asking voters to sacrifice in an election year.With the midterm elections eight months away, the urgent political question for Mr. Biden is whether the American people are prepared to go along with blaming the Russians, and not him, for rising costs. Experts have said that prices have risen over the past year primarily because strong demand, stoked in part by government relief spending, outstripped pandemic-disrupted supply. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is just beginning to compound the problem.“It’s certainly a challenge, but it’s not one that we really have a choice about making,” Josh Schwerin, a Democratic strategist, said about imposing financial penalties on Russia. “There’s broad support for standing up to Putin and putting these sanctions in place, including those that will increase the cost of gas.”Mr. Biden’s approval ratings have been pulled down for months by frustration among many Americans about inflation and the pandemic. But recent surveys of voter attitudes suggest that many Democrats and Republicans support the administration’s sanctions on Russia, even if the penalties are bad for their pocketbooks.In an Economist/YouGov poll released this week, 66 percent of Americans said they approved of sanctions aimed at punishing Russia for its invasion. In a Wall Street Journal survey, 79 percent of voters supported a ban on Russian oil even if it meant that energy prices would rise as a result.Those findings are good news for Mr. Biden, who has been the subject of Republican attacks for failing to keep inflation in check. Republicans have blamed him for the rise in gas prices even as they supported his decision to impose a ban on Russian oil. Officials familiar with his decision said Mr. Biden had struggled for days over whether to cut off Russian oil amid fears of accelerating the already rapid rise in the price of gasoline.Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, accused the Biden administration on Thursday of refusing to take responsibility for rising costs.“Prices continue to skyrocket under Biden and Democrats’ reckless policies,” Ms. McDaniel said in a statement. “Biden’s attempt to deflect blame is an insult to every American and small-business owner struggling to afford the cost of everyday goods.”Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Thursday that there was “no question that inflation may be higher for the next few months than it would have been” without the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and that the administration’s focus would be to mitigate the long-term effects of rising costs.Democratic strategists pointed out that much of the criticism of Mr. Biden from Republicans is that he has not done even more to confront Russia. The president has repeatedly said he is unwilling to send American troops into Ukraine, and the United States declined this week to take fighter jets from Poland and station them at an American air base for eventual use in Ukraine.Each decision Mr. Biden is making, the strategists from his party argue, is rooted in strategic decision making, not political calculation.Russia-Ukraine War: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 4On the ground. More

The war in Ukraine and the associated sanctions that countries around the world have imposed on Russia are likely to cause a downgrade of the International Monetary Fund’s global economic growth forecast, Kristalina Georgieva, the I.M.F.’s managing director, said on Thursday.The Ukraine crisis is another shock to a world economy that was just emerging from the coronavirus pandemic, and it has been compounding global supply chain disruptions and inflation headwinds that have been cause for concern. The full impact on the world economy remains uncertain, I.M.F. officials said, and will depend on the outcome of the war and how long sanctions remain.“We just got through a crisis like no other with the pandemic, and we are now in an even more shocking territory,” Ms. Georgieva told reporters. “The unthinkable happened — we have a war in Europe.”In January, the I.M.F. reduced its estimated global growth rate for 2022 to 4.4 percent, from the 4.9 percent it had projected last year, as a result of slowdowns in the United States and China.Ms. Georgieva said the most significant threat to the world economy was greater inflation coming from higher commodity prices as countries shifted consumption away from Russian oil and gas. This, in turn, could eat into consumer spending. Worsening financial conditions and business confidence also have the potential to weigh on growth.“The surging prices for energy and other commodities — corn, metals, inputs for fertilizers, semiconductors — they are coming, in many countries, on top of already high inflation and are causing grave concern in so many places around the world,” Ms. Georgieva said.The I.M.F. is working to develop a plan to provide more assistance for Ukraine’s eventual rebuilding effort, but said it was too soon to know the extent of the country’s needs. This week, the fund’s executive board approved $1.4 billion in emergency financing.Ukraine’s top economic adviser said earlier on Thursday that Russia had already destroyed $100 billion worth of the country’s assets.The fund is also assessing the impact of the sanctions on the economy of Russia. Much of its financial sector and its central bank has been blacklisted.“The Russian economy is contracting, and the recession in Russia is going to be deep,” Ms. Georgieva said. “That is already clear.”She said Russia was unlikely to have access to its emergency currency reserves because of sanctions.The I.M.F. has halted operations and programs in Russia. Ms. Georgieva said there had been no discussions about ending Russia’s membership in the fund. More