Investing

The IRS has announced individual retirement account contribution limits for 2026. 
For 2026, investors can save a maximum of $7,500 in IRAs, up from $7,000 in 2025. 
IRA catch-up contributions for investors age 50 and older will increase to $1,100, up from $1,000 in 2025.

Olga Pankova | Moment | Getty Images

The IRS has unveiled the individual retirement account contribution limits for 2026.
In its release Thursday, the agency increased the 2026 IRA contribution limit to $7,500, up from $7,000 in 2025. The IRS also boosted the IRA catch-up contributions for investors age 50 and older to $1,100, up from $1,000 in 2025.  

The annual individual limit applies to contributions to traditional and Roth IRAs.
The IRS also unveiled new 401(k) contribution limits, 401(k) catch-up limits for savers age 50 and older, and bigger income thresholds for Roth IRA contributions, among other changes.

Read more CNBC personal finance coverage

IRS announces 2026 401(k) contribution limits, raises savings cap
IRS unveils 2026 IRA contribution limits, raises savings cap
IRS announces 401(k) catch-up contributions for 2026, raises cap
IRS unveils Roth IRA income limits for 2026
What the Visa, MasterCard settlement means for your rewards credit card
Where SNAP benefits stand amid negotiations to end the government shutdown
Why the AI stock boom mainly benefits the wealthy
Boomers are less bullish on ETFs than younger generations — with good reason
Trump floats $2,000 tariff rebate checks: Here’s what you need to know
This is the ‘biggest mistake’ you can make with your IRA, attorney says
Consumers on edge as ACA ‘subsidy cliff’ looms: ‘Quite frankly, it’s terrifying’
How to have tricky money talks as a couple: ‘Money Together’ authors
Amid FAA order flight cancellations, how credit card travel insurance works
These annuities act like ‘bumpers in a bowling lane’ to limit losses: advisor
As student loan forgiveness notices go out, here are next steps for borrowers
Federal workers at risk of missing more pay as government shutdown continues
CNBC’s Financial Advisor 100: Best financial advisors, top firms for 2025 ranked

Some investors can deduct pretax IRA contributions, depending on their income and whether they or a spouse have access to a workplace retirement plan. The IRS announcement also increased the phase-out ranges for IRA deductibility in 2026.    
The IRS announcement comes hours after President Donald Trump signed into law a funding bill to end the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history. It also comes roughly a month after the agency released dozens of inflation adjustments for 2026, including federal income tax brackets, higher capital gains brackets and provisions impacting families, among others. More

The IRS has announced higher 401(k) contribution limits for 2026.
Starting in 2026, employees can defer $24,500 into workplace plans, up from $23,500 in 2025.
Only 14% of participants maxed out 401(k) plans in 2024, according to Vanguard’s 2025 How America Saves report. 

Maskot | Digitalvision | Getty Images

The IRS has announced new 401(k) contribution limits for 2026.
In its release Thursday, the agency increased the employee deferral limit to $24,500 next year, up from $23,500 in 2025. The change applies to 401(k)s, 403(b)s and most 457 plans, along with the federal Thrift Savings Plan. 

The IRS also unveiled 2026 catch-up contribution limits for savers age 50 and older, new individual retirement account savings limits and higher income thresholds for Roth IRA contributions.  
Starting in 2026, the 401(k) catch-up contribution limit will rise to $8,000 for savers 50 and older, from $7,500 in 2025. But investors aged 60 to 63 can instead save an extra $11,250, based on changes enacted via Secure 2.0. That figure is unchanged from 2025.
Both amounts are in addition to the $24,500 deferral limit for 2026.  

Read more CNBC personal finance coverage

IRS announces 2026 401(k) contribution limits, raises savings cap
IRS unveils 2026 IRA contribution limits, raises savings cap
IRS announces 401(k) catch-up contributions for 2026, raises cap
IRS unveils Roth IRA income limits for 2026
What the Visa, MasterCard settlement means for your rewards credit card
Where SNAP benefits stand amid negotiations to end the government shutdown
Why the AI stock boom mainly benefits the wealthy
Boomers are less bullish on ETFs than younger generations — with good reason
Trump floats $2,000 tariff rebate checks: Here’s what you need to know
This is the ‘biggest mistake’ you can make with your IRA, attorney says
Consumers on edge as ACA ‘subsidy cliff’ looms: ‘Quite frankly, it’s terrifying’
How to have tricky money talks as a couple: ‘Money Together’ authors
Amid FAA order flight cancellations, how credit card travel insurance works
These annuities act like ‘bumpers in a bowling lane’ to limit losses: advisor
As student loan forgiveness notices go out, here are next steps for borrowers
Federal workers at risk of missing more pay as government shutdown continues
CNBC’s Financial Advisor 100: Best financial advisors, top firms for 2025 ranked

In 2024, only 14% of participants maxed out their 401(k)s, according to Vanguard’s 2025 How America Saves report, which was based on more than 1,400 qualified plans and nearly 5 million participants. The average combined savings rate, including employer deposits, was an estimated 12%, according to the same report. 
A separate report found the average 401(k) savings rate, including employee and employer contributions, was a combined 14.2% during the second quarter of 2025, according to a Fidelity Investments analysis of more than 25,000 corporate plans and 24.6 million participants.    
The IRS announcement comes hours after President Donald Trump signed into law a funding bill to end the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history. It also comes roughly a month after the agency released dozens of inflation adjustments for 2026, including federal income tax brackets, higher capital gains brackets and provisions impacting families, among others. More

A Visa and MasterCard settlement with merchants announced earlier this week is the latest development in a two-decade-old battle over the fees that banks and credit card companies charge to process payments.
Under the proposed legal settlement, merchants can choose whether to accept different tiers of credit cards — commercial cards, premium cards including rewards cards, and basic, no-rewards cards.
Stores may also be able to charge customers extra depending on which credit card they use. 

Julpo | E+ | Getty Images

When it comes time to make a purchase, which credit card you use could soon determine how much you pay.
A new settlement announced this week would end a longstanding dispute between businesses and Visa and Mastercard over credit card “swipe” fee practices.

Swipe fees are charged to retailers, service providers and other merchants each time a customer uses their card. Banks and card companies typically levy about 2% or more for every transaction, according to the National Retail Federation. 
Previously, merchants had to “honor all cards” on a network — for example, if they accept one Visa credit card, then they must accept all Visa cards regardless of swipe fee rates charged. Under the proposed settlement, they can reject those cards with high fees to save their bottom line. What’s more, merchants may be able to charge customers different fees depending on which credit card they use. 
“This is a fight between banks and merchants, and consumers are caught in the middle,” said Ted Rossman, senior industry analyst at Bankrate.

Read more CNBC personal finance coverage

Roughly 175 million consumers have at least one credit card, making it the most common method of making a purchase, according to TransUnion. Rewards cards are by far the most popular kind of plastic — about 85% of the credit cards issued today are rewards cards, the National Retail Federation also found.

The longstanding battle over swipe fees

Merchants have been battling with card issuers over what they’ve called a “cartel-like pricing practice” for two decades, according to Doug Kantor, an executive committee member at the Merchants Payments Coalition. 

In 2005, retailers and other merchants filed a class-action lawsuit against Visa and Mastercard, which control 80% of the market, alleging that their fees and acceptance terms were anti-competitive. 
Monday’s settlement is the potential conclusion after 20 years of litigation over the fees that banks and credit card companies charge to process payments. “We believe that this is the best resolution for all parties, delivering the clarity, flexibility and consumer protections that were sought in this effort,” a spokesperson for Mastercard said in a statement. Visa did not respond to a request for comment.

Under the settlement, credit cards would be classified into three categories:

commercial cards
premium cards, including rewards cards
standard, no-rewards cards

Merchants could then choose which categories to accept, but must still accept all cards within a category. Merchants can also add a surcharge of up to 3% to customers’ bills for paying by credit card. Finally, the settlement caps the fees that banks, as well as Visa and Mastercard, can charge merchants.
The proposed settlement is still months away from being put into practice, and it must be approved by the court, which already rejected a previous agreement. But eventually, experts say, changes may be in store for credit card users. 

The settlement could make it more common to have certain rewards cards rejected at some retailers, similar to how Costco doesn’t accept American Express cards for purchases, said a person with knowledge of the thinking of a major U.S. bank.
This person, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly, said that the ultimate ramifications weren’t yet clear as it involves active litigation. But banks are upset at how the settlement turned out and view this as giving merchants greater leverage when it comes to future negotiations involving the cost of card acceptance.
The settlement could cause some merchants to decide not to accept rewards cards, others to start levying surcharges for their use, and banks could also scale back their rewards programs as a result, they said.

Near-term outlook: ‘Not a lot is going to change’

According to experts, it is unlikely that any retailer will choose to reject all rewards cards. Since nearly 90% of all credit card spending is on rewards cards, merchants really have no choice but to continue to accept them, Rossman said: “In the real world, not a lot is going to change.”
Rejecting some high-cost cards at the point of sale also risks alienating customers who carry them, according to Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree.
For that reason, the proposed settlement is “all window dressing and no substance,” the National Retail Federation’s chief administrative officer Stephanie Martz said in a statement. “The reduction in swipe fees doesn’t begin to go far enough, and the change in the honor-all-cards rule would accomplish nothing,” she said.

Longer-term outlook: More fees, fewer benefits

One potential outcome of the settlement is that retailers will tack on an extra fee for customers who pay with rewards cards to help cover the cost. “You could see a more varied approach to this, which would be surcharging,” said John Cabell, managing director of payments intelligence at J.D. Power.
But more affluent cardholders are already paying a premium. Rewards credit cards generally have higher-than-average interest rates to compensate issuers for the additional perks, in addition to an increasingly common annual fee, which can exceed $500 depending on the card, according to Rossman.
In return, customers earn cash back, miles or points, which have become a sought-after differentiator in the card market. “People love their rewards cards and especially high-income folks,” said Schulz. 
Since the settlement calls for Visa and Mastercard to lower swipe fees by 0.1 percentage point for five years, that may make it harder for card issuers to keep boosting benefits. 
“About 86% of interchange fees go to card issuers to fund credit card rewards and loyalty programs,” according to Trent Swanson, a loyalty points consulting adviser who is known as the “miles husband.” “What’s often overlooked is that the cost of running rewards programs has already been rising.”

In another scenario, merchants raise prices to cover the cost of accepting cards with higher interchange fees. “What, in fact, happens is that all of us pay these huge fees in the form of inflated prices and we don’t know it,” said Kantor. “The cash-paying customer, they get the shortest straw every time.” 
While there may not be an immediate change from the settlement, over time, if merchants start adding surcharges and rewards cards become more expensive to use at the point of sale, it could reign in the upward spiral of rewards and benefits that consumers have grown to appreciate, according to J.D. Power’s Cabell. 
Even relatively modest cards might see a reduction in offerings as well if surcharges become generally more prevalent with mid-tier and premium card groupings, Cabell said. “It is unlikely that this last announcement is the final chapter.”
— Stephanie Dhue and Hugh Son contributed to this report.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

Euphoria over artificial intelligence has driven stock market performance in recent years.
The wealthiest U.S. households hold the lion’s share of stock wealth — and have therefore disproportionately benefited from the boom.
For example, just 5% of the bottom fifth of U.S. households own $10,000 or more of stocks, according to Edward Nathan Wolff, an economist at New York University.

Oscar Wong | Moment | Getty Images

U.S. stocks have been on a tear in recent years, largely on the back of euphoria around artificial intelligence. But not everyone has participated in the runup: Stock wealth has largely accrued to the wealthiest U.S. households.
Even with recent choppiness, the S&P 500 U.S. stock index is up about 16% over the past year. Total wealth from publicly traded stocks has risen by $8 trillion or so during that time, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.

Read more CNBC personal finance coverage

The top 20% wealthiest U.S. households own nearly 93% of all stock — meaning they get the lion’s share of any stock market gains, according to calculations by Edward Nathan Wolff, an economics professor at New York University who studies income and wealth distribution.
“Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among the rich — the very rich, in fact — and poor families have basically been left out of the picture,” Wolff said.
“As the stock market goes up, it really widens the wealth and income gap,” Wolff said. “It’s a big part of the inequality story.”

‘A huge, huge gap’

Of course, this isn’t to suggest that AI is the lone reason the stock market has risen, or that it alone is the source of the U.S. wealth gap.
But it exacerbates other tensions at play, and has implications for politics and the broad U.S. economy, Zandi said.

For one, a widening gulf between the haves and have-nots could create more “political fracturing,” making it harder to reach consensus, he said.
“They have different needs and perspectives, and therefore policy desires,” Zandi said. “You can feel it in our politics today — even in our ability to keep the government open.”

The dynamic also fuels a bifurcation in spending, he said. The U.S. economy is more reliant on the spending of a relatively small group — the wealthy — leaving it more vulnerable if “something were not to stick to script for that group,” Zandi said.
The top 1% owned half — or $25.6 trillion — of the total $51.2 trillion of corporate stock and mutual fund shares in the second quarter of 2025, according to the most recent Federal Reserve data. The average person in the top 1% has almost $37 million in net assets, Wolff said.
Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of households collectively held just 1% — or $540 billion — of that stock and mutual fund wealth.
“There’s a huge, huge gap,” said John Sabelhaus, senior fellow of economic studies at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and a former research official at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
“Stock ownership is very low at the bottom of the income distribution,” he said.

AI isn’t the only boom affecting wealth

Much of stocks’ growth is attributable to the so-called AI boom.
The stocks of companies tied to artificial intelligence have accounted for roughly 75% of S&P 500 returns since ChatGPT launched in November 2022, Michael Cembalest, chairman of market and investment strategy for J.P. Morgan Asset Management, wrote on Sept. 24.
“AI stocks have gone stratospheric over the last three years,” Zandi said.

Even when lower-wealth households have stock, their holdings are relatively small, Wolff said.
For example, about a fifth of the poorest 20% of households own stock, he said. But just 5% own $10,000 or more, compared to nearly all of the richest households, he said.
Wolff analyzed data from the Federal Reserve’s triennial Survey of Consumer Finances. The analysis includes direct stock ownership, as well as stock held indirectly in sources like workplace retirement plans.
Households with less wealth don’t have the resources to save, and so can’t afford to buy as much stock, according to financial experts.
Meanwhile, the wealthy have more discretionary income and financial resources, and can afford to take more risk with their savings and investments, they said.

Despite the AI-driven stock market boom, the wealth gap has actually decreased for the middle class relative to the richest households due to a runup in housing prices, Wolff said.
“The housing market, at least until recently, has been booming,” he said.
For example, the 50th to 90th percentiles by wealth own about half — or, $23 trillion — of total real estate, according to Fed data.
Overall stock ownership among lower earners has increased slightly in recent years, a dynamic that tends to happen when stocks perform well, said Sabelhaus, citing Fed data.
There’s also been a push to make it easier for consumers of all wealth levels to invest, as apps and certain investments have lowered the barrier to entry.

‘Double-edged sword’ of stock ownership

And stock ownership is “always a double-edged sword,” said Sabelhaus of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. While the stock market’s value has historically increased over long periods of time, the wealthy bear more of the shorter-term financial risk if the market falls, he said.
Indeed, if AI demand were to “falter,” “we doubt non-tech firms would rescue the market,” James Reilly, senior markets economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a research note on Nov. 4.
Certain households, like those carrying a lot of high-interest debt or saving to buy a home, may be better off directing their money toward interest payments or a down payment instead of the stock market to minimize financial losses in the short term, Sabelhaus said.
“If someone said, ‘I make $50,000 a year, I have student loans and credit card debt, should I be investing in AI or crypto?’ I’d probably say no,” he said.
“I think in general it’s fair to say, if you can take on the risk, then you should take on that risk to enjoy the higher rate of return,” he added. “But it’s a trade-off.” More

ETF Strategist

ETF Street
ETF Strategist

Research shows that baby boomers use ETFs less than younger investors and also hold more mutual fund assets than the generations behind them.
While both ETFs and mutual funds offer a way to buy a basket of investments, ETFs are generally less expensive and more tax efficient, among other differences.
Despite those advantages, older investors may be wise to pause before selling mutual funds to buy ETFs.

Flashpop | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Despite ongoing investor demand for exchange-traded funds, baby boomers appear to be bucking that trend, new research shows. Experts say there may be a good reason for it.
Only 6% of surveyed baby boomers — those born 1948-1964 — say they plan to “significantly increase” their ETF investments in the next year, according to a new study from Charles Schwab. That compares with 32% of millennials — those born 1981-1996 — and 20% of Generation X, born 1965-1980.

Boomers are also the generation least likely to say they are open to putting their entire portfolio in ETFs in the next five years, with 15%, versus 66% for millennials and 42% for Gen X.
Schwab’s research study into ETF investing has been ongoing for more than 10 years. In 2025, it collected responses from 2,000 investors: 1,000 who participate in ETFs and another 1,000 who don’t. From that sample, 16% were boomers, 35% were Gen X and 43% were millennials.

More from ETF Strategist:

Here’s a look at other stories offering insight on ETFs for investors.

At the same time, baby boomer households were the largest share of mutual fund owners in 2024, at 35% according to a separate report from the Investment Company Institute. The next-largest mutual fund–owning household generations were Gen X, at 28%, and millennials, at 25%.
And therein lies the friction: Baby boomers own a lot of mutual funds — and probably have for a long time, said Dan Sotiroff, senior analyst on passive strategies research at Morningstar. While on the surface it would seem they should sell their mutual funds and buy comparable ETFs because they cost less and are tax efficient, experts say not so fast.
“On the surface, the answer is probably yes,” that they should switch their mutual fund assets to similar ETFs, Sotiroff said.

“But if you dig a little deeper, the answer might be no,” he said. That move may prove unexpectedly expensive.

Why investors favor ETFs

ETFs began gaining traction in the 2000s as a way to invest in a fund with a mix of underlying investments, similar to their cousin, mutual funds. While many mutual funds are actively managed — meaning professionals are at the helm picking the investments — most ETFs are passively managed because they track an index, and performance is based on that of the index.
Generally, the advantage with ETFs is their lower cost, tax efficiency and intraday tradability. As of Sept. 30, ETFs held $12.7 trillion in assets, up from $1 trillion at the end of 2010, according to Morningstar Direct.
While mutual funds’ assets are much higher at $22 trillion, more money is leaving them than going in. 
This year through Sept. 30, mutual funds saw an outflow of $479.4 billion, compared with ETFs taking in $922.8 billion in new money, Morningstar data shows.

A ‘huge capital gain’ for long-term investors

Boomers, who range in age from 61 to 77 and were largely the generation that began using mutual funds in earnest to invest in the stock market, might be sitting on funds they’ve owned for years, if not decades.
If they’ve held those funds in a 401(k) or individual retirement account, selling and buying an ETF is not a taxable event because gains are tax-deferred and any withdrawals generally are taxed as ordinary income (or are tax-free in a Roth) in retirement.

But if those mutual funds are in a brokerage account — and have been for a long time — the owner may be sitting on significant capital gains, which are subject to taxation. That means a potential tax bill that has all kinds of repercussions if you’re among the older boomers.
“If you’ve put, say $20,000 into a mutual fund years ago and it’s now worth $70,000 or $80,000, if you go and sell, that’s a huge capital gain,” said certified financial planner Douglas Kobak, the principal and founder of Main Line Group Wealth Management in Park City, Utah.
Assuming you’ve owned the fund for more than a year, the growth would be taxed at a long-term capital gains tax rate of 0%, 15% or 20%, depending on your adjusted gross income. Otherwise, it’s taxed at ordinary income tax rates.

Gains could trigger Medicare surcharge

In addition to a potential tax bill, Kobak said, that gain may push the investor into a higher tax bracket, which comes with implications for retirees enrolled in Medicare. 
Income-related monthly adjustment amounts, or IRMAAs as they’re called, are added to the standard premiums for Part B outpatient care coverage and Part D prescription drug coverage for enrollees with higher income.
In 2025, IRMAAs apply to incomes above $106,000 for single tax filers and $212,000 for married couples filing jointly. (Next year’s specifics have not been released yet.) The higher the tax bracket, the greater the surcharge amount. And, your tax return from two years earlier is used to determine whether you pay IRMAAs.

Additionally, if you would be selling an actively managed mutual fund for a passively managed ETF, remember that its performance will depend on that of the index it tracks, for better or worse.
“It’s really a question of, ‘Do I want that passive approach in [a particular] asset class relative to what’s going on in the economy around me, or am I better off in that active mutual fund?'” said CFP William Shafransky, a senior wealth advisor with Moneco Advisors in New Canaan, Connecticut. More

In a series of posts on Truth Social over the weekend, President Donald Trump suggested making direct payments to Americans to cover their health-care costs as well as sending out $2,000 checks as a tariff “dividend.”
Economists say those ideas are not likely to become policy anytime soon.
Amid a partisan battle in Washington and a Supreme Court case over tariff powers underway, “I don’t think consumers should expect to see these rebate checks,” said Columbia Business School economics professor Brett House.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters upon his return to Washington at Joint Base Andrews, in Maryland, U.S., November 9, 2025.
Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump suggested paying Americans directly for their health-care costs and sending tariff rebate checks to families, not unlike the stimulus payments issued during the Covid-19 pandemic.
In a Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump wrote, “Republicans should give money DIRECTLY to your personal HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.”

The president also floated the idea that a tariff “dividend” was possible. “A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone,” he wrote in another post Sunday on Truth Social.
Later that day, in an interview with ABC News, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that he had not discussed the idea of a tariff rebate with the president and that there were no specific proposals in the works.
That suggests that this is not “a real or likely policy move,” said Brett House, economics professor at Columbia Business School. “I don’t think consumers should expect to see these rebate checks.”
A White House official told CNBC that “the Administration is committed to putting this money to good use for the American people.”

American families are under pressure

Tariffs are a tax on imports from foreign nations, paid by U.S. entities that import the good or service. Businesses often bear some of the cost and pass on the rest to consumers through higher prices.

Although the size and extent of the tariff hit has been hard to gauge, some of the impact is already weighing on household finances, economists say. An Oct. 30 analysis by the Budget Lab at Yale found that the current tariff policies in effect are expected to cost each household $1,800, on average, in 2025.

Read more CNBC personal finance coverage

Rising health-care costs are another issue threatening to cause significant strain.
Millions of Americans are bracing for a sharp increase in their health insurance premiums next year as expiring enhanced premium tax credits trigger a so-called subsidy cliff. Those enhanced subsidies, which bring insurance premiums down, are also at the center of the political fight around the federal government shutdown.
Although checks “would be a popular policy,” said Stephen Kates, a financial analyst at Bankrate, “direct deposit payments are unlikely to happen without Congress being on board.”
With a partisan battle underway, congressional approval would be especially difficult, he said, “That’s another wrinkle here.”
However, if the political tide changes, that could be a different story.
“We do not see stimulus checks in the near future, but could see greater Congressional interest as we approach the midterm elections, especially if we see weakness among consumers,” Raymond James Washington policy analyst Ed Mills wrote in a Nov. 9 research note.

Unintended consequences of rebate checks

Economists have also warned that direct payments could cause inflation to flare up again.
Pandemic-era fiscal stimulus contributed to an increase in inflation of about 2.6 percentage points in the U.S., according to 2023 research from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
“Money is money, and when more money comes into the economy to chase the same amount of goods and services, it’s going to be inflationary,” Kates said. 
Since the president first introduced widespread tariffs in April, inflation has hovered above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target but remains relatively stable, largely because companies built up inventories and were able to absorb some of the impact.
Going forward, economists say the Trump administration’s tariff agenda could raise consumer prices more in the months ahead.
“We still have elevated inflation over 3% based on our last reading,” Kates said. Any direct payments “would exacerbate that.”

‘The numbers that make this strange’

The idea of sending tariff rebate checks is not new. In late July, Trump said the administration was “thinking about a little rebate” for Americans from tariff revenue.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., then introduced the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025, which pitched a rebate check funded with tariff revenue as soon as this year. The Senate referred that bill to the Committee on Finance, where it remains.
According to the Treasury Department’s September report, the U.S. collected roughly $195 billion in customs duties so far in 2025, more than doubling last year’s total.
“If you pay $2,000 to 100 million Americans, you end up at $200 billion,” said Tomas Philipson, a professor of public policy studies at the University of Chicago and former acting chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. That would be less than one-third of the people living in the U.S., Philipson said; “if [Trump] includes 200 million Americans, we are up to $400 billion.”

A separate analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the payments could cost as much as $600 billion, assuming the dividends are designed like Covid-era checks.
“They are going to pay back more than the tariff revenue,” Philipson said. “Those are the numbers that make this strange.”
Meanwhile, the White House has contended that U.S. trading partners have shouldered the brunt of Trump’s tariff policies, not consumers, he added. “They are kind of saying all this revenue is going to be sent back to Americans. I have a hard time understanding why, if foreigners are paying these tariffs,” Philipson said.

Further, the fate of Trump’s tariff policy is currently being argued before the Supreme Court, and any ruling is likely months away. Depending on that outcome, the Trump administration could have to refund the tariffs already paid to the entities that paid them.
In that case, there would be no revenue to be sent to taxpayers, according to Columbia’s House. 
“If the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, the tariffs then need to be repaid,” House said, “so all that money is potentially going back to the businesses that imported goods, and any of the money that would be financing this broader rebate wouldn’t be there.”
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

Watch Daily: Monday – Friday, 3 PM ET

Ripple Labs has become one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency companies, but executives aren’t stopping there, CEO Brad Garlinghouse told CNBC. Over the past year, the firm has ramped up efforts to bridge the Web3 world and an industry that has long been viewed as its foil — traditional finance.
In an interview with CNBC’s “Crypto World” at the Ripple Swell 2025 conference in New York, Garlinghouse said his firm aims to offer a wide range of traditional financial services built on blockchain infrastructure, capitalizing on growing institutional adoption of digital assets.

A blockchain is a decentralized digital ledger that logs transactions across a network of computers.
“I want to see Ripple invest in [the] future and get ahead of where that market’s going,” Garlinghouse said Tuesday. “The assets we have been buying have been on the traditional finance side, so we can bring crypto-enabled solutions to that traditional financial world.”
Aiming at finance-focused firms
Ripple has been on a nearly $4 billion acquisition spree in hopes of building a financial services powerhouse, in 2025 alone buying prime brokerage Hidden Road for nearly $1.3 billion in April and software firm GTreasury for more than $1 billion this fall. Last week, it launched Ripple Prime, a brokerage that will offer U.S.-based institutions access to over-the-counter spot market trading across several tokens, raised $500 million in fresh funding and lifted its market value to $40 billion.
Ripple’s bid to deepen its push into traditional finance comes as institutional demand for digital assets grows the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodities Futures Trading Commission dialing back digital assets regulations this year under President Donald Trump, a self-styled crypto champion.
Bank of America and Citigroup have begun actively exploring stablecoins, with Citi recently unveiling plans to launch a crypto custody service for clients in 2026. JPMorgan in June said it plans to introduce a stablecoin-like “deposit token” on Coinbase’s public blockchain Base. Beyond dollar-pegged tokens, institutional investors have poured billions of dollars into spot Bitcoin ETFs since their U.S. debut in January 2024.

“ The United States used to lean out on crypto, and now we’re leaning in, and I think people underestimate how big a shift that is,” and the likely impact on the entire crypto market, Garlinghouse said.
Institutional integration
On top of building out its own services, Ripple also aims to sign deals to lend its XRP Ledger technology to larger institutions’ crypto pushes, according to Garlinghouse.
Such partnerships could prove a boon to XRP, the native token of the XRP Ledger, a decentralized blockchain aimed to service fast and low-cost transactions.  
“ The more we can build utility and really scale solutions that take advantage of XRP at the core, the more that will be uniquely good for the XRP ecosystem,” Garlinghouse said.
XRP has traded sideways for much of 2025, even as ether and bitcoin sailed to record highs of about $3,900 and $126,000, respectively.
But while high-profile partnerships might push up the price of XRP, dealmaking with traditional institutions is likely to remain difficult due to stalled efforts to create guardrails for cryptocurrency companies and holders in the U.S., Garlinghouse said.
The crypto industry lobby was once hopeful that lawmakers would pass a sweeping digital assets market structure bill called the Clarity Act before the end of the year.
But with the U.S. government shutdown set to enter its sixth week, efforts to establish legislative guidelines for the industry have come to a halt.
“Until we have that [legal go-ahead], it’s gonna be hard,” Garlinghouse said. “Banks are looking for and need that clarity for them to really lean in.” More

Valar Atomics raised $130 million with participation from Anduril Industries founder Palmer Luckey and Palantir Chief Technology Officer Shyam Sankar.
Valar is developing reactor technology that uses helium as a coolant and operates at higher temperatures than traditional plants.
Valar is suing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over its licensing process for small reactor designs.

Isaiah Taylor, CEO, Valar Atomics speaks onstage during the Reindustrialize Conference 2025 on July 16, 2025 in Detroit, Michigan.
Tasos Katopodis | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Advanced nuclear reactor developer Valar Atomics raised $130 million in its latest funding round with backing from Anduril Industries founder Palmer Luckey and Palantir Chief Technology Officer Shyam Sankar, the startup said Monday.
The fundraising was led by venture capital firms Snowpoint Ventures, Day One Ventures and Dream Ventures. Lockheed Martin board member and former AT&T executive John Donovan also participated. Valar’s total fundraising now totals more than $150 million, according to the company.

Doug Philippone, co-founder of Snowpoint and former head of global defense at Palantir, will also join Valar’s board of directors.
Valar is one of several nuclear startups that hopes to benefit from President Trump’s push to deploy new reactor technology in the U.S. by cutting regulations and accelerating approvals.
Based outside Los Angeles, Valar is one of several reactor developers and states that are suing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over its licensing process for small reactor designs. The parties to the suit are seeking a resolution with the NRC in the wake of Trump’s executive order that would overhaul the regulator. The case has been temporarily paused due to the government shutdown.
Pilot program
The Department of Energy in August selected Valar and other developers to participate in a pilot program that aims to deploy at least three advanced test reactors by July 2026.
Valar is developing reactor technology that would use helium as a coolant and operate at much higher temperatures than traditional plants, according to the company. Its business plan calls for the deployment of hundreds of small reactors at a single site.
Valar broke ground on a site for a test reactor in September at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, a unit of the Utah Office of Energy Development. More