Investing

About 53% of respondents plan to take leisure vacations this summer, up from 48% in 2024, according to a new report by Deloitte.
But over two rounds of the survey, many Americans changed their minds about how much they’re willing to spend on summer travel.
“We still see a strong summer travel season, but perhaps with a more frugal approach,” one expert said.

Klaus Vedfelt | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Earlier this spring, consumers were feeling good about their summer vacation prospects. More people were planning to take a trip compared to last year, and summer travel budgets were up, too, according to a new report from Deloitte.
But just a few weeks later — after President Donald Trump announced widescale tariffs and the stock market dropped precipitously, bubbling up recession fears — some would-be vacationers abruptly scaled back their spending plans, a second round of the survey found.

About 53% of respondents plan to take leisure vacations this summer, up from 48% in 2024, according to a new report by Deloitte. 

We still see a strong summer travel season, but perhaps with a more frugal approach.

Kate Ferrara
the transportation, hospitality and services sector leader at Deloitte

The report is based on two surveys: one was conducted between March 26 and April 1, 2025, and another between April 7 and April 9. The first survey reached 1,794 travelers and 2,132 non-travelers while the second reached 1,064 travelers and 880 non-travelers.
Initially, Deloitte found, the average summer travel budget was set to grow 21% year over year, to $4,967. In the second round of the survey, travelers expected to spend just 13% more than last year, or about $4,606.
When looking at budgets for their longest trip of the season, respondents initially planned to spend an average $3,987, 13% more than 2024. That anticipated budget declined to $3,471 in the second poll, an increase of less than 1% from a year ago. 
More from Personal Finance:Trade tensions drive consumers to cut backStudent loan borrowers brace for wage garnishmentHouse Republican tax bill favors the rich — how much they stand to gain, and why

Deloitte conducted a second poll because the firm noticed “softness” in consumer spending across other areas of their research, said Kate Ferrara, the transportation, hospitality and services sector leader at Deloitte.
“We still see a strong summer travel season, but perhaps with a more frugal approach,” said Ferrara.

Travel costs are down

Broadly, travel costs have declined, which may help travelers looking to stretch their budget. Hotel room rates are down 2.4% from a year ago, according to a recent report by NerdWallet. Rental car costs are also down 2.1% in that same timeframe, while airfares are down 7.9%.
Round-trip domestic airfare for this summer is averaging $265 per ticket, according to the 2025 summer outlook by Hopper, a travel site. That’s down 3% from $274 in 2024 and down 8% since 2019, the lowest level in three years.
Travel costs for international travel are generally down, said Hayley Berg, the lead economist at Hopper. The average round-trip airfare between the U.S. and Europe, the most popular international destination, costs $850 per ticket this summer, down 8% from 2024, Hopper found.

In spite of slightly lower prices for travel, people are generally spending more due to inflation, and might have less leftover money to spend on non-essential items like travel, said Deloitte’s Ferrara.

‘The root of all of our hacks’

Of those who reduced their summer travel budgets, 34% of respondents plan to cut back on their in-destination spending activity, such as food or paid guided excursions, Deloitte found. About 30% plan to stay with family and friends instead of paying for lodging, and 21% chose to drive instead of flying to their destination.
You can also save money this summer if you can be flexible with things like when you take the time off, your destination, what you do while you’re there and your mode of transportation, experts say.
“The root of all of our hacks for saving this summer is flexibility,” said Berg.
Airfare tends to spike or be higher during federal holiday weekends like the Fourth of July and Labor Day, Hopper found. This year, prices on these weekends will be about 34% higher compared to other weekends.

Instead of flying in the middle of the summer, consider delaying trips toward the end of the season, in late August or even early September, Berg said. Both price and travel demand will typically drop off by then as the new school year starts and employees go back to regular work schedules, she said.
What’s more, flying in the middle of the week can help save as much as 20% on airfare, per the site’s report.
Traveling on a Tuesday or Wednesday can also help vacationers save about $67 on a round trip domestic flight this summer, Hopper found. That flexibility can help travelers save over $100 on international trips to Europe or Asia.  More

Denmark is increasing its retirement age to 70, a move that will require younger individuals to work longer.
Some proposals have called for the U.S. to raise the age threshold for Social Security.
Such an across-the-board change could be “immensely harmful” for some beneficiaries, one expert warns.

Aleksandarnakic | E+ | Getty Images

Denmark has moved to increase its retirement age to 70 — making it the highest retirement age in Europe.
Yet it may be difficult for the U.S. to follow its lead.

The new change in Denmark will apply to public pension retirements starting in 2040. Since 2006, the country has been adjusting its retirement age to reflect changes in life expectancy.
The U.S. does not technically have an official retirement age. At age 65, individuals become eligible for Medicare coverage. At age 66 to 67, depending on date of birth, an individual becomes eligible for full Social Security benefits based on their earnings record.
More from Personal Finance:House Republican tax bill favors the richSome lawmakers want to defer capital gains taxes for mutual fundsWhat the House GOP budget bill means for your money
However, those individuals who wait until age 70 to claim Social Security retirement benefits stand to get the biggest payout — an increase of 8% for each year beyond full retirement age. (The full retirement age is when beneficiaries are eligible for 100% of the benefits they’ve earned based on their work records.)
Yet few people wait until age 70 to claim benefits. While more than 90% of individuals would benefit from delaying Social Security until that age, only about 10% actually do, according to a 2023 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

While age 70 is not the official U.S. retirement age, it is the threshold based on economists’ definition — the age at which you can’t accrue any more benefits, according to Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist and professor at The New School for Social Research.
“In the United States, it’s been 70 for decades, and we had the highest retirement age than any other country for years,” Ghilarducci said.

Retirement age in the U.S. up for debate

Yet there are efforts to officially bump up the U.S. retirement age higher.
In 1983, Congress passed legislation to gradually raise the full retirement age for Social Security from 65 to 67. That change is still getting phased in today, with people born in 1960 and later subject to the higher 67 retirement age.
In December, an amendment to raise the full retirement age to 70 was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., during last-minute efforts to advance legislation that increased Social Security benefits for certain public pensioners.

The bill, the Social Security Fairness Act, was voted into law. However, the proposal to raise the retirement age was struck down.
Paul called for raising the retirement age by three months per year until it reached age 70, to reflect current life expectancies. The change would have created nearly $400 billion in savings for the program, while the Social Security Fairness Act added $200 billion in costs to the program over 10 years.
Other Republican proposals have likewise called for raising the retirement age.
The Social Security Administration faces looming depletion dates for the trust funds it relies on to help pay benefits. To help resolve that issue, lawmakers may consider raising taxes, cutting benefits or a combination of both. Raising the retirement age is effectively a benefit cut.
Like the changes enacted in 1983, raising the retirement age could be on the menu.

Denmark’s move ‘sends a signal’ to work longer

Urbazon | E+ | Getty Images

Denmark’s move to raise the retirement age to 70 is not a surprise, experts say.
In 2023, research published by the Danish Center for Social Science Research found increasing good health and educational resources for 60- to 70-year-olds, along with higher demand for older workers, could point to retirement age increases in the future.
In 2025, Denmark residents can retire with public pensions when they are 67. That will gradually increase to age 70 as of 2040.
“That means simply that younger people today will have to work longer before they can go on retirement,” said Jesper Rangvid, professor of finance at the Copenhagen Business School and co-director of its Pension Research Centre.
That retirement age affects everybody entitled to basic public pension income, according to Rangvid. However, those with private pension savings may retire earlier.
“There’s nothing that prevents you from retiring earlier if you have the funds and the means to do so,” Rangvid said.
Denmark does offer options for early retirement, including an early pension. However, raising the retirement age conveys a message, Rangvid said.
“It sends a signal that this is what the positions would like, that you should work longer,” Rangvid said.

Retirement age increases in U.S. may be problematic

Anchiy | Istock | Getty Images

Retirement experts say raising the U.S. retirement age may not present the same solution for the population that it does in Denmark.
Denmark has a much more “equal society” when it comes to income, wealth, education and life expectancy compared to the United States, said Alicia Munnell, senior advisor at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
In the U.S., government data shows a stark difference between the life expectancy for those at the bottom and top income quartiles, Munnell said.
“When you have such a big, big difference, any across-the-board increase in the retirement age would be foolish,” Munnell said. “It’d be immensely harmful to those at the bottom who already receive benefits for a shorter period of time.”

A policy to raise the retirement age may also be problematic for another reason — it would take time to phase the change in, according to Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
For example, Congress may enact a higher retirement age that starts to go into effect in 10 years, and then it would take 30 years for people with the higher retirement age to go through the system.
While moving the age from say 67 to 69 would produce savings for the program in the long run, “they’re going to need the money right now,” Biggs said.

Retirement age and the economy

The welfare reform that began in Denmark in 2006 — whereby the retirement age increased with life expectancy — has been “extremely important” for the country’s economy, according to Rangvid.
“We have basically no public debt at all,” Rangvid said.
In contrast, the U.S. faces high national debt that requires the country to spend more on interest payments than on the military.
Budget legislation that is currently under consideration in Congress could add an estimated $3.3 trillion to the debt including interest, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
That package would not touch Social Security or its retirement age. However, other proposals have suggested that change, a benefit cut that would be a “pretty powerful lever” toward helping to resolve the program’s funding issues, according to Munnell.
One proposal scored by the Social Security Administration’s actuaries found raising the full retirement age to 70 would eliminate 26% of the program’s 75-year shortfall. More

The U.S. fertility rate has fallen to 1.6 births per woman, below the 2.1 needed to sustain the population.
Despite bipartisan proposals like baby bonuses and expanded child tax credits, experts say the problem runs deeper than economics.
Cultural shifts, high costs of living, lack of paid leave and delayed adulthood are all contributing to a national baby bust that may reshape the future of the U.S. economy.

America’s fertility rate is hovering around historic lows, with approximately 1.6 births per woman over her lifetime. This is below the level needed to sustain the population, which is 2.1 births per woman.
“Our population will, in the not too distant future, start to decline,” said Melissa Kearney, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. “That’s why this is an issue for governments and for the economy, and politicians are starting to pay attention.”

The economic implications of a shrinking population are broad. For example, fewer births mean fewer future workers to support programs like Social Security and Medicare, which rely on a healthy worker-to-retiree ratio.
“The concern here in the U.S. is that if we see kind of dramatic declines in fertility, we will eventually see also kind of a drag on our economy and our capacity to cover all sorts of government programs like Medicare and Social Security,” said Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia and director of the Get Married Initiative at the Institute For Family Studies.
More from Personal Finance:House GOP bill calls for bigger ‘pass-through’ business tax breakTrump administration axes Biden-era barrier for crypto in 401(k) plansFewer international tourists may lead to ‘staggering’ economic losses
Lawmakers from both parties have proposed various financial incentives to address declining fertility.
The White House is considering lump-sum payments of $5,000 for each newborn, according to The New York Times. Last week, the House passed a massive tax and spending package that includes among other provisions, a bigger child tax credit and new “Trump Accounts” with $1,000 in seed money for newborns.

However, Kearney said such policy measures are unlikely to meaningfully affect long-term fertility trends.
“I think the kinds of financial incentives or benefits that we’re providing just really aren’t enough to really change the calculus of, a trade off of … bringing a child into one’s household or family,” Kearney said. “That’s an 18-year commitment. It’s not just a one-year cost.”

Beyond money

The issue may go beyond money. It’s common for fertility to decline during economic uncertainty, but it usually rebounds once the shock ends, experts say. Surprisingly, birth rates did not recover after the Great Recession.
“That kind of caught a lot of demographers around the world flat-footed, because it also didn’t happen in other countries,” said Karen Guzzo, director of Carolina Population Center and a sociology professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “So this goes against a lot of this demographic history that we have, which led people to start thinking, okay, what exactly might be happening?”

Even with stronger economic support, experts say America faces a deeper, more complex problem: a cultural shift in how people view parenthood itself.
“More and more young adults are kind of assuming that what matters for them is their education, their money, and especially their careers,” Wilcox said.
Watch the video above to learn more about why government efforts to raise America’s birthrate have struggled to address the deeper economic and cultural challenges. More

Under House Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” student loan repayment timelines could stretch on for up to 30 years.
Longer repayment terms will only exacerbate the problem of more Americans carrying student loans into their old age, consumer advocates say.

Alexander Spatari | Moment | Getty Images

Federal student loan borrowers could be in repayment for up to 30 years under proposed changes in the House Republicans’ massive spending and tax package, dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
Currently, most student loan repayment plans range from 10 years to 25 years — which already generate concerns about people bringing their education debt into middle-age and beyond, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

“A 30-year repayment term means indentured servitude,” Kantrowitz said.
The House passed the bill last week. With control of Congress, Republicans can use “budget reconciliation” to pass their legislation, which only needs a simple majority in the Senate. The House bill’s student loan provisions are unlikely to significantly change in the upper chamber before Trump signs it into law, Kantrowitz said.

‘Another decade of repayment’

Under the House GOP’s bill, there would be just two repayment options for those with federal student loans. (Currently, borrowers have about a dozen ways to repay their student debt, according to Kantrowitz.)
If the legislation is enacted as currently drafted, borrowers would be able to pay back their debt through a plan with fixed payments over 10 years to 25 years, or via an income-driven repayment plan, called the “Repayment Assistance Plan,” which would conclude in loan forgiveness after three decades.
Monthly bills for borrowers on RAP would be set as a share of their income. Payments would typically range from 1% to 10% of a borrowers’ income; the more they earn, the bigger their required payment.

The new plans would potentially make student loan repayment terms much longer for some borrowers.
The U.S. Department of Education now offers a 10-year fixed repayment program, known as the standard plan, and its IDR plans typically conclude in debt cancellation after 20 years or 25 years.
“Simplifying the program with fewer repayment plans is a good idea, but not at the cost of another decade of repayment,” said James Kvaal, who served as U.S. undersecretary of education for former President Joe Biden.
More from Personal Finance:What the House GOP budget bill means for your money’Maycember’ is almost over — here’s how to recover financiallyCourt order challenges Trump’s plan to move student loans to SBA
Longer repayment terms will only exacerbate the problem of more Americans carrying student loans into their old age, consumer advocates say.
There are some 2.9 million people aged 62 and older with federal student loans, as of the first quarter of 2025, according to Education Department data. That is a 71% increase from 2017, when there were 1.7 million such borrowers. More

Vocational training and certificate programs could reap the benefits of a high-stakes battle between Harvard University and the White House.
President Donald Trump said on Monday he is considering taking grant money from Harvard and giving it to trade schools.
Interest in short-term credentials is on the rise, but, in most cases, the payoff does not compare to that of a four-year degree.

In the escalating standoff between Harvard University and the White House, trade schools could come out on top.
As part of a broader crackdown at the nation’s wealthiest and most elite Ivy League schools, President Donald Trump recently signaled that he would divert funds from Harvard to financially support vocational training.

“I am considering taking THREE BILLION DOLLARS of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land,” Trump posted on Monday on Truth Social.
It’s unclear how the president’s plan might work, and there would be many obstacles associated with redirecting federal funding. But the president’s comments underscore a changing perspective around alternative career pathways.
In an interview on CNBC Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said, “the paradigm, looking at education, is shifting.”
“More adults, who are looking to upskill, are looking at different programs — two-year or short-term programs,” McMahon said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “We believe there are other ways to train people to make a good living for their families in this country, and maybe not go into the debt of four-year universities.”
More from Personal Finance: Harvard students are ‘frantic,’ college consultant saysWage garnishment for defaulted student loans to beginIs college still worth it? It is for most, but not all

The rising cost of college and ballooning student loan balances have played a large role in changing views about the higher education system.
Overall, college enrollment is still climbing, but largely driven by gains at community colleges as more students choose shorter-term credentials at a lower cost.
Undergraduate enrollment increased across the major institutional sectors this spring. However, community colleges notched the largest uptick, rising 5% year over year, according to a recent report by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Undergraduate certificate program enrollment also jumped from a year ago, and is now up 20% since 2020.
“This is great news for community colleges, and especially for those with strong vocational programs,” said Doug Shapiro, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s executive director. “Four-year colleges can also feel good about higher numbers of undergraduates this spring, but their growth rates are slower.”

Is college still worth it?

Increasingly, high school students are questioning whether a four-year degree is worth it.
Roughly 42% of high school students say they are pivoting to technical and career training or credentialing, or are planning to enroll in a local and less-expensive community college or in-state public school, according to a separate survey of 1,000 seniors, juniors and sophomores by the College Savings Foundation. That’s up from 37% last year. 
A shortage of skilled tradespeople, due to experienced workers aging out of the field, is also boosting the number of job opportunities and pay in those roles.  
“Career programs at community colleges provide students with accessible, affordable and accredited credentials and certificates that lead to jobs in their local communities and in the global economy,” said Walter Bumphus, president and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges. 
“In President Trump’s first term we were able to partner with the U.S. Department of Labor to increase the number of apprenticeship programs and services across the nation, garnering 22,000 registered apprentices across 633 occupations, illustrating what is possible when we harness the power of partnering with the nation’s community colleges,” Bumphus said in an email.

However, as lower-income students increasingly choose to attend community colleges or career training programs, there may be consequences for their longer-term financial standing, other reports show.
Attending college once provided a similar wage premium for students regardless of their parents’ financial standing, but that’s changed in recent years, according to a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research. 
As “lower-income students have been disproportionately diverted into community and for-profit colleges,” their return on investment has suffered, the report found: “Higher-income students now derive greater average observational value from going to college than the lower-income students.”
In other words, despite efforts to improve college access, wealthier students, who are more likely to enroll in four-year schools, get a bigger payoff.

What is an Ivy League degree worth?

Meanwhile, getting an Ivy League degree has a “statistically insignificant impact” on future earnings, according to a 2023 report by Harvard University-based nonpartisan, nonprofit research group Opportunity Insights based on admissions data from several private and public colleges.
Even attending a college in the “Ivy-plus” category — which typically includes other top schools like Stanford University, Duke University, the University of Chicago and Massachusetts Institute of Technology — rather than a highly selective public institution, has benefits, the report found. It nearly doubles the chances of going on to an elite graduate school and triples the chances of working at a prestigious firm.
Further, it increases students’ chances of ultimately reaching the top 1% of the earnings distribution by 60%, the Opportunity Insights report found. 
“Highly selective private colleges serve as gateways to the upper echelons of society,” the group of Harvard and Brown University-based economists who authored the report said. “Because these colleges currently admit students from high-income families at substantially higher rates than students from lower-income families with comparable academic credentials, they perpetuate privilege.”
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

For 2025, the Section 199A deduction for qualified business income, or QBI, is worth up to 20% of eligible revenue, with some limitations.
This applies to so-called pass-through businesses, including sole proprietors, partnerships and S-corporations, along with some trusts and estates.
The House Republican bill would make the deduction permanent, raise the maximum tax break to 23% and make changes to the phase-outs.

Nitat Termmee | Moment | Getty Images

How to tell if you have qualified business income

The QBI deduction applies to so-called pass-through businesses, which report profits or losses on individual tax returns.
This includes partnerships and S-corporations, along with some trusts and estates. Sole proprietors, such as freelance, contract and gig economy workers, also qualify.
For 2025, the tax break starts to phaseout when taxable income reaches $197,300 for single filers and $394,600 for married taxpayers filing jointly. The deduction can be reduced or eliminated completely, depending on your earnings and type of business (more on that below).

For tax year 2022, the most recent data available, there were roughly 25.6 million QBI deduction claims, up from 18.7 million in 2018, the first year of the tax break, according to IRS data. 

However, the deduction has been controversial because “most of the benefits flow to taxpayers with a lot of income,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy with the Tax Foundation’s Center for Federal Tax Policy.
“These are not taxpayers who work a W-2 job and earn a salary,” she said. “They’re business owners who receive business profits on their individual tax returns.”

How the QBI deduction could change

Currently, certain white-collar professionals — doctors, lawyers, accountants, financial advisors and others — known as a “specified service trade or business,” or SSTB, can’t claim the QBI deduction once income exceeds certain limits.
There’s also an income phaseout for non-SSTB businesses, but that doesn’t go to zero.  
The House bill would change the phaseout calculation, which could provide a bigger tax break for certain SSTB owners, said certified financial planner and enrolled agent Ben Henry-Moreland, senior financial planning nerd for advisor platform Kitces.com, who analyzed the bill last week.

If enacted, the higher 23% deduction could offer “some [tax] benefit” for all income levels, but the phaseout changes would primarily benefit higher-income SSTB owners, he said.
The House proposed QBI deduction changes would be “more generous and more valuable to higher-income people, especially those in certain industries including lawyers and lobbyists,” Chye-Ching Huang, executive director of the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote in early May. More

The Trump administration on Wednesday rescinded Biden-era guidance urging employers to be cautious before adding cryptocurrency and related digital assets like bitcoin, NFTs and meme coins to 401(k) plans.
President Trump’s paper wealth has soared after launching a $TRUMP meme coin.

President Donald Trump departs the White House on May 22, 2025. Trump is traveling to his Trump National Golf Club in Virginia where he is holding a dinner for the top investors in his $TRUMP cryptocurrency.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The Trump administration on Wednesday relaxed barriers in 401(k) plans to buying cryptocurrency and related digital assets like NFTs and meme coins.
The Labor Department rescinded guidance put in place by the Biden-era Labor Department in 2022 that aimed to safeguard 401(k) investors from such digital assets.

At the time, the Biden labor officials cautioned employers to exercise “extreme care” before making crypto and related investments available to their workers. They cited “serious concerns” about the prudence of exposing investors’ retirement savings to crypto given “significant risks of fraud, theft, and loss.”
The Trump Labor Department has withdrawn that guidance in full.

‘Neither endorsing, nor disapproving of’ crypto

The agency said the standard of “extreme care” cited by the Biden administration is not found in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.
“Prior to the 2022 release, the Department had usually articulated a neutral approach to particular investment types and strategies,” the Trump Labor Department said in a compliance assistance bulletin issued Wednesday.
More from Personal Finance:House Republican tax bill favors the richSome lawmakers want to defer capital gains taxes for mutual fundsWhat the House GOP budget bill means for your money

The department said that it is “neither endorsing, nor disapproving of” employers who decide that adding crypto to a 401(k) investment list is appropriate.
The Labor Department’s reasoning extends to cryptocurrencies and “a wide range” of digital assets like “tokens, coins, crypto assets, and any derivatives thereof,” it said.
Knut Rostad, president of the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard, an advocacy group, called the Trump administration’s move a “big mistake.”
“As a huge general rule, crypto doesn’t belong in a 401(k), period, end of sentence,” he said.
Rescinding the guidance “sends the wrong message by eliminating a yellow caution light and putting in place a green light” for employers and 401(k) investors to use crypto, Rostad said.
The move comes at a time when President Trump has launched a $TRUMP meme coin that’s added billions of dollars in paper wealth to his net worth and led Democratic senators to call for an ethics probe.
President Trump has pledged to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.”

What the shift means for 401(k) investors

Some observers will likely view the Labor Department move as an olive branch to the pro-crypto crowd, signaling to employers that they can add digital assets to their 401(k) lineups at will and without consequence, said Philip Chao, a certified financial planner and retirement plan investment consultant.
“That may be the intended message,” said Chao, the founder of Experiential Wealth in Cabin John, Maryland. But he added, “I think it’s the wrong message.”

ERISA bestows a fiduciary duty on employers and company officials overseeing their 401(k) investments. At a high level, that legal responsibility means employers must put the best interests of 401(k) investors first and act prudently when choosing which investments to offer (or not offer).
That duty still exists — meaning it’s not a given employers will rush to offer crypto. Doing so might risk being sued by 401(k) investors in the future if their crypto investment goes belly up, Chao said.
In this sense, the Labor Department’s move is “not necessarily controversial,” he said.
“In reality, it’s saying we should treat crypto like any other asset,” Chao said.
There was some pushback against the Biden-era guidance among retirement plan advisors at the time it was issued because it seemed to single out a specific asset class. However, he understands the rationale.
“Crypto is such a new thing and there’s no regulation or protection, even a reasonable understanding of it,” Chao said. “And there still isn’t enough.”

Stephen Hall, legal director and securities specialist at Better Markets, an advocacy group for financial reform, believes the Biden-era guidance likely saved millions of investors from “grievous losses” when crypto prices plunged during the “Crypto Winter” of late 2022.
“During that time, the collapse of Do Kwon’s scam stablecoin project Terra Luna, and the bankruptcies of FTX, Celsius, Voyager Digital and BlockFi created a domino effect, sending crypto prices crashing and resulting in billions of dollars of customer funds frozen as courts sorted through the wreckage,” Hall said in an e-mailed statement. More

As the battle between Harvard University and the Trump administration escalates, the White House moved to stop scheduling interviews for student visa applicants.
College experts advise international applicants not to panic.
“You may have an advantage in the eye of the storm,” says Jamie Beaton, co-founder and CEO of Crimson Education, a college consulting firm. 

Jamie Beaton has built a career helping students from around the world gain admission to Harvard University and other top-tier institutions.
Now, days after the Trump administration banned Harvard from enrolling international students and stopped scheduling appointments for student visas, Beaton, co-founder and CEO of Crimson Education, a college consulting firm, is advising his clients to “ignore the chaos.” 

Getting into an Ivy League school like Harvard is a yearslong process, Beaton said. For recently admitted applicants, current students and this year’s graduating class, he says, “remain steadfast in that goal.”
And for Harvard hopefuls, particularly from abroad, there could be a benefit to applying in the upcoming cycle even amid the ongoing political strife. “You may have an advantage in the eye of the storm,” Beaton said, as some applicants turn their attention to other schools.
More from Personal Finance:Harvard students are ‘frantic,’ college consultant saysWage garnishment for defaulted student loans to beginIs college still worth it? It is for most, but not all
Over time, Harvard has become the gold standard of the Ivy League. As of last year, Harvard’s acceptance rate was just under 4%, down from more than 10% two decades ago. Roughly 18% of the Class of 2028 is from abroad.
“I think Harvard’s brand on the world stage is so strong and so viral, it would take a long time to lose some of that trust and excitement,” Beaton said. “The brand can take a lot of big hits.”

Of course, students are justifiably nervous as the federal government continues to fire blows at one of the nation’s oldest and most venerable institutions of higher education.
“It’s been a roller-coaster ride since last Thursday,” said Fangzhou Jiang, a student at Harvard’s Kennedy School and co-founder of Crimson Education. 

A glimpse into the Harvard University campus on May 24, 2025 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Vcg | Visual China Group | Getty Images

Harvard, Trump battle over international enrollment

On Tuesday, the Trump administration moved to stop scheduling new interviews for international students seeking visas to come to the U.S. and said it plans to expand social media vetting of foreign students, effectively disrupting international enrollment. Politico first reported the stop to new student visa interviews.
In the escalating standoff between the federal government and Harvard, the White House also attempted to terminate Harvard’s student and exchange visitor program certification and cancel all remaining federal government contracts with Harvard, which are worth a reported $100 million.
The latest moves come after Harvard refused to meet a set of demands issued by the Trump administration’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.
“The whole instability or uncertainty is quite damaging,” said Jiang, who has a student visa and would consider transferring across the country to Stanford University, where he is pursuing a dual degree.

“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement Thursday.
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Friday temporarily halted the Trump administration’s ban on international students, following a petition from Harvard. A hearing is set for Thursday, May 29, to determine whether the temporary order should be extended.
“This is a critical step to protect the rights and opportunities of our international students and scholars, who are vital to the University’s mission and community,” Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, said in a statement. On its website, the Harvard International Office says, “Harvard is committed to maintaining our ability to host our international students and scholars.”
Beaton predicts that by the time college applications are due this fall, the university and the federal government “will come to a compromise.”

Why international enrollment is so important

“International students make up such a vital part of the undergraduate student population,” said Robert Franek, The Princeton Review’s editor-in-chief.  
Further, foreign students typically pay full tuition, which makes international enrollment an important source of revenue for Harvard and many colleges and universities in the U.S., according to Franek. 
Altogether, international student enrollment contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023-24, according to a report by NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
During that academic year, the U.S. hosted a record number of students from abroad, marking a 7% increase from 2022-23, according to the latest Open Doors data, released by the U.S. Department of State and the Institute of International Education. 

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More