Target’s CEO Brian Cornell warns that President Donald Trump’s looming tariffs will drive up prices on fruits and vegetables, as the retailer works to recapture the “Tarzhay” vibe. Meanwhile, Walmart is asking Chinese suppliers to absorb the costs of U.S. tariffs. Over at Starbucks (SBUX), CEO Brian Niccol is offering tough love, urging employees to work hard and take accountability for the coffee giant’s financial health.

Target CEO says tariffs will immediately raise prices for fruits and vegetables

Target shoppers will soon see higher prices for fruits and vegetables, CEO Brian Cornell warned.

Read More

Walmart hopes China can save it from Trump’s tariffs

Walmart is reportedly pushing its Chinese suppliers to absorb the costs of U.S. tariffs.

Read More

Starbucks CEO tells employees to work harder after layoffs

Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol wants corporate employees to work harder and take accountability for the coffee giant’s financial health.

Read More

Costco defies Trump’s tariff concerns – but the stock still slips

Costco (COST) shoppers are on a bulk-buying spree, snapping up groceries, home furnishings and electronics, as the retailer defies growing concerns over rising tariffs and living costs.

Read More

Best Buy is following Walmart’s lead, yanking Amazon’s playbook

Like Walmart, Best Buy (BBY) is learning from the competition by taking a page out of Amazon’s playbook.

Read More

Walmart CEO says sky-high food prices are causing ‘frustration and pain.’ Tariffs could hurt more

Walmart is thriving among wealthier shoppers, but for lower-income customers, the situation is more challenging, according to CEO Doug McMillion.

Read More

Target had a slow month. Tariffs could make things worse

Read More

Target’s DEI retreat has sparked a 40-day boycott

Target (TGT) announced in early January that it would be scaling back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Now, it’s facing a 40-day boycott.

Read More

A former Microsoft executive warns Trump’s tariffs could send costs ‘soaring’ across the restaurant industry

The U.S. restaurant industry is bracing for a massive financial hit as a result of the new round of Trump tariffs set to take effect on March 4.

Read More

Starbucks says try these classics as it cuts 13 drinks

Starbucks is cutting 13 drinks from its menu, but is offering some alternatives for customers who might miss them.

Read More

Biotech startups have faced a challenging financial environment for several years. But the Trump administration’s drastic changes in federal health and science policies have made the search for funding even worse.

Fundraising by venture capital firms that focus on biotech has been on a downward trajectory since 2018, when it peaked at $152.3 billion. By last year, total capital committed to biotech totaled just $12 billion, according to a recent PitchBook report. Only 30 biotech firms went public last year, down from an average of 54 per year from 2010 to 2020.

This year could end up worse. In June analysts at the investment bank Jefferies said that U.S. biotech funding in May was down 57%, to $2.7 billion, compared with the same month last year. April was even grimmer, with $2.6 billion raised, the lowest amount in three years and 44% lower than the average of the prior 12 months. 

Worldwide, venture financing for the biopharma sector dropped to $6.5 billion in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $8.1 billion a year earlier, according to GlobalData.

In a note to clients, Jefferies analysts wrote that “current policy proposals and agency staffing cuts have cast a cloud over biotech investment.” Companies in the sector and their investors, “want clarity on FDA regulation, drug pricing, and funding.” Consequently, they concluded, “the current environment is not conducive to biotech investment right now.” 

The Trump administration’s policies have created a broad range of challenges for biotechs, especially those startups that have yet to bring a product to market. Biotech drugs are created from human protein, typically large molecules targeted at a relatively small number of patients. 

Commercial development of these drugs takes 10 years or more at an extremely high cost, reflected in their high prices. It took almost 16 years and an estimated $750 million to $1.2 billion to develop Biogen’s Spinraza, approved in 2016 as the first treatment for spinal muscular atrophy, a rare genetic disorder that causes muscle wasting.The first year of treatment carries a list price of $750,000, and $375,000 for each year after that.

But before commercial development, biotech drugs typically emerge from pain-staking basic research funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants that can take decades of investigation with no guarantee of success — the kind of research few companies can afford to do. It was NIH-financed research that first identified the cellular target that led to Merck’s Keytruda, a cancer drug that has been approved for more than 24 different indications since 2014, transforming oncology treatment.

The NIH may not be able to afford such research going forward, industry observers say. In the first four months of this year, the Trump administration cancelled or froze some $2.4 billion in NIH research and development grants and eliminated more than 1,200 jobs. In its 2026 budget proposal, currently pending in Congress, the White House is seeking a 40% cut in the NIH budget, and wants to consolidate the 19 NIH institutes and centers into eight.

The Trump administration has also eliminated 3,500 jobs at the Food & Drug Administration, which industry executives fear will almost certainly slow drug approvals.

On top of those changes, investors are concerned about proposed tariffs on medicines and the prospect of lower prices for biotech drugs, both of which are injecting more uncertainty into the sector. Trump announced in May that he would put in place what he calls a Most Favored Nation policy, aimed at bringing drug prices down to the same level charged in other countries, including biotech medicines. Details have yet to be released. 

Biotech firms and their investors knew as early as March that they may be facing trouble in Washington when news broke of the forced resignation of Peter Marks, the widely respected director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which oversees biotech drug approvals. Marks, who headed the division for the past nine years, was a strong supporter of vaccines, accelerated approval of innovative drugs, and regulatory flexibility for gene therapies. Biotech stocks nosedived on the news of Marks’ resignation. 

Evan Seigerman, an analyst at BMO Capital Markets, said in an investor note that Marks’ abrupt resignation is a “significant negative” for the biotech industry as it injects “a new wave of uncertainty at the FDA” and could signal changes in the FDA’s approach to drug approvals.. 

Late last month,110 CEOs, presidents, and chairpersons of biotech and pharma companies published an open letter to Congress saying that “damaging reductions in research funding provided to academic and federal scientists will immediately hurt the biotechnology sector.”

The letter said that the proposed reduction in federal research funding “will have a catastrophic effect on the advancement of biomedical and biotechnology capabilities in the United States.” They wrote that federal funding of scientific research is needed if the U.S. is to continue to lead the world in scientific innovation, knowledge, and health.

Their concerns were reflected in a recent survey of early-stage biotech executives by Incubate, a nonprofit formed by life sciences VC firms. The poll revealed that 92% of executives are concerned that investors are moving out of the biopharma sector to lower-risk industries, while 93% believe that reduced government funding for basic research will worsen outcomes for their companies. 

As John Stanford, the executive director of Incubate, said in releasing the report: “America’s biotech leaders are sounding the alarm.”

Electric-vehicle upkeep will be essential for drivers worldwide as sales rise across continents. The International Energy Agency said the global population registered 14 million EVs in 2023, bringing the world’s total to 40 million units. These cars accounted for 18% of all automobiles sold, and current trends suggest this stat will keep climbing.

Depending on where you live, you may see more EVs around town. For instance, cities like San Diego have expansive charging networks, which make it easier to find public stations and not wait for a cable. There’s plenty of interest in coastal California towns and vibrant metros like Austin.

Price tags can still dictate which car you drive off the lot, whether you want a new or used one. Experts say EVs cost about $12,000 more than a typical gas-powered car, which may drive some customers away. However, that gap could soon close because supply is increasing and batteries are becoming cheaper.

The initial costs could knock an EV out of the realistic price range for buyers, though a long-term cost analysis is necessary. Reduced maintenance costs for EVs mean you can save money over its lifespan. A 2024 NRDC report said electric cars save owners money over seven years for every vehicle type, be they pickup trucks or sedans.

Buying an EV means you benefit from more stable energy prices and avoid the volatility of gasoline. The NRDC study said electric car owners spent up to 65% less on fuel costs than other drivers. You can save even more by charging your vehicle at night and avoiding peak demand times.

1. Dealing with fewer moving parts

Tiago Ferreria | Unsplash

EVs are generally easier to maintain because there’s less under the hood to focus on. They have up to 90% fewer moving parts than traditional internal combustion (IC) vehicles. The primary components include the battery, a motor, a power inverter, and an onboard charger. If you have these figured out, it’s smooth sailing.

2. Focusing on the battery 

JUICE | Unsplash

Without an engine, the battery becomes the heart of your EV. This central part requires inspections to optimize range and efficiency. It could last up to 15 years, depending on how well you treat it. Check your system to replace individual cells and mitigate degradation. Alternatively, an intelligent management system could monitor performance.

3. Noticing subtle suspension changes

Ruben Ruas | Unsplash

The suspension doesn’t change much from an IC vehicle to a battery-powered car. However, there are some subtleties you should know before working on the undercarriage. For example, your EV may have a heavy pack low in the chassis, changing its center of gravity. Regardless, use the 50,000-mile mark to watch for inconsistencies and wear and tear.

4. Relying less on fluids

Tim Mossholder | Unsplash

Owning a gas-powered car means changing your oil every 7,500 miles or whatever your automaker recommends. However, EVs make the job easier because there are fewer fluids to maintain over their lifespan. Coolant is still used to regulate battery and motor temperature, but it likely won’t have transmission or exhaust system fluids, reducing maintenance.

5. Downloading software updates

Priscilla Du Preez | Unsplash

Gas and battery-operated vehicles need software updates to renew essential systems, but EVs rely on them even more. These cars need over-the-air updates to improve motor health, optimize regenerative braking and fix charging issues. Wireless transmission means you might not have to visit the mechanic to service your vehicle.

When Tesla CEO Elon Musk declared over the holiday weekend that he plans to launch a third political party to reshape the 2026 midterms, Tesla investors didn’t celebrate — they sold. The stock plunged nearly 7% on Monday, erasing over $80 billion in market value and reigniting a long-simmering question on Wall Street: How much longer can the Tesla board let Musk run the company as a part-time CEO with full-time distractions?

“The Tesla Board MUST act and create ground rules for Musk,” Wedbush Securities managing director and longtime Tesla bull Dan Ives wrote in a note to clients on Tuesday morning. “The soap opera must end.”

It’s far from the first time Tesla has been pulled into Musk’s personal orbit. The world’s richest man has turned the electric car maker into a stage for his political views, his corporate empire, and now, his ambitions to build what he’s calling the “America Party.” He poured hundreds of millions into President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. Musk served as an advisor to the president and led the controversial Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) before pledging in April to return his focus to Tesla — he was “doubling down” on the company, he promised.

By June, it seemed like he might be following through. Then came this weekend’s declaration: a party that would target Senate and House races next year. A declaration that, according to multiple investors, threatens to derail Tesla at a moment when it can least afford a distracted CEO.

“Tesla is heading into one of the most important stages of its growth cycle with the autonomous and robotics future now on the doorstep,” Ives wrote, “and [the company] cannot have Musk spending more and more time creating a political party which will require countless time, energy, and political capital.”

Ives added: “Going after a handful of seats in the Senate and House heading into the 2026 mid-terms would essentially make Musk a foe of Trump and the Republican party ... which is exactly the opposite of what Tesla shareholders want to see with a very important autonomous regulatory framework now on the horizon during the Trump Administration.”

James Fishback, the CEO of investment firm Azoria and a major Tesla shareholder, pulled plans to launch a Tesla-focused ETF, telling Tesla’s board in a letter that Musk’s latest political turn “creates a conflict with his full-time responsibilities as CEO of Tesla.” He wrote, “I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Mr. Musk to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO.”

Fishback wrote on X, “Elon is free to burn his own money on the ridiculous stunt that is the America Party. He is *not* free to drag shareholders down with him. Elon is a visionary CEO. He needs to focus on Tesla, not on President Trump.”

The stakes are plain. Tesla’s collapsing stock price, slumping vehicle deliveries, and slowing profit margins have triggered a growing sense among analysts that Tesla’s core advantage — its founder — is becoming its biggest liability. Tesla’s second-quarter deliveries fell nearly 14%, and the company now faces rising competition from Chinese EV leader BYD. In April, Tesla posted a staggering 71% first-quarter drop in net income. 

Musk, once the crown jewel of the company’s brand, is increasingly a source of risk.

This isn’t new. For years, the Tesla board has operated somewhat like a fan club rather than a check on Musk’s power. It approved his $56 billion compensation package — the largest in corporate history — only to watch it struck down by a Delaware judge in January, who called it an “unfathomable sum” awarded by a board that was neither independent nor credible. Despite that, shareholders voted to reinstate his pay deal in June. 

On Sunday, Alexandra Merz, who led the campaign to reinstate the pay package, warned on X: “If I could give one advice to [Tesla’s] Board: Don’t rush into a new compensation package right now. Let the dust settle.”

Ives, in his note, laid out a three-point plan moving forward: Tie Musk’s compensation to a concrete time commitment at Tesla, create a special board committee to oversee his political activity, and if necessary, craft a deal that includes more Tesla equity that is contingent on actual engagement. 

“The Board cannot control Musk’s donations … but they can have oversight if his political ambitions/endeavors interfere with his role as CEO of Tesla,” He wrote. “The Board now has to take the bull by the horns.”

Ives added, “Tesla needs Musk as CEO for another five years at least given how important of a role Musk will play in the autonomous and robotics future of Tesla.” That “at least” might be optimistic. Musk’s popularity has waned, not just with the public — polls show a steep drop after his stint in Washington — but with many Tesla buyers and investors. His latest political feud, this time aimed at Trump himself, could backfire spectacularly.

The board, for its part, has stayed quiet. “They should stop this nonsense,” former Musk supporter and investor Ross Gerber told The Washington Post. “But they won’t.”

Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla’s board had quietly begun working with executive search firms to explore potential successors for Musk. The report suggested that at least some directors had grown concerned about Musk’s increasingly erratic focus and time-consuming political involvement. Board Chair Robyn Denholm decried the report as “absolutely false,” and Musk called it “a deliberately false article” and a “bad breach of ethics,” but multiple outlets confirmed that the board had at least initiated early-stage conversations. Ives at the time called the move a “warning shot.”

That process reportedly fizzled, but Musk’s latest turn has seemingly revived debate about his role at the helm. Tesla’s fate may be tied to Musk, but if the board fails to enforce even basic guardrails, it could soon become tethered to his political whims, too. 

Tesla is at a crossroads. Its robotaxi fleet, which debuted in Austin late last month, could generate trillions in value. The company’s AI strategy, increasingly entangled with Musk’s private company xAI, could put Tesla near the center of the physical AI revolution. But none of that will happen on autopilot.

Musk’s real job is still at Tesla’s headquarters in Texas, not on Capitol Hill. Until the board decides whether or not to step in, the stakes on Wall Street couldn’t be higher. Musk’s America Party might win headlines, but if Tesla and its CEO lose focus, investors could lose everything.

The U.S. housing market is in a rut…still.

Over the past two years, existing home sales have been at 30-year lows, according to data from the National Association of Realtors. And things don't seem to be improving. In May, existing home sales grew by just 0.8%,  the smallest monthly increase since 2009. Meanwhile, sales of new homes decreased by 13.7%, the lowest seasonally-adjusted rate in seven months, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 

In many ways, things have never looked so dismal for buyers. But, dig a little deep and there's green shoots of recovery to be found.

Explaining the years-long slump

What's causing this current stagnation? The short answer: expensive mortgages. Housing demand began cooling in 2022 when the average interest rate of a 30-year mortgage soared above 7%. That’s the highest rate seen in two decades. Borrowing costs have retracted slightly since then, to 6.77%, but that’s a far cry from the sub-3% rates of 2020-21. With rates staying at historic highs, demand has not bounced back.

So, one might expect after years of buyers staying away from mortgages, prices will have retracted, which could reignite demand. Not quite.

The U.S. has a housing shortfall of 3.8 million, according to a report by Realtor.com. This is partially due to the 2008 crash, which triggered a collapse in new construction. Over the past 15  years, roughly 1.23 million homes were built annually —18% fewer than the average from 1968–2000. To make things worse, elevated mortgage rates have created a “lock-in effect” where homeowners with fixed rates have been reluctant to move, thus tightening supply even more. 

As a result, the past decade has been described as a seller's market, where demand has exceeded supply. So, even as mortgages have skyrocketed, sellers have kept the upper hand.

“There is still a nationwide housing shortage, and homeowners are not in a distressed position,” said Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors, in a note.

Indeed, average sale prices in April were 50% higher compared to the same period in 2020, according to the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price index.

“Sellers have held a lot of the power at the negotiating table because of tight supply and often multiple offers or bidding wars,” Ali Wolf, Zonda’s chief economist, said in a note.

Green shoots of recovery?

So, between high borrowing costs, supply shortages and rising house prices, it's not surprising that sales are at a 30-year low.But, last year, new-home construction outpaced household formations for the first time since 2016, according to Realtor.com.

At the same time, 500,000 more sellers have come to market over the past two years according to Redfin, a number which has trended downward since record keeping began in 2013.

“Some people are relocating, such as moving from Florida to North Carolina," explained Wolf , meaning they are increasing the supply pool without immediately pulling from it. Others are buying new builds, thus pulling from the new housing stock but also adding to the resale supply, she added. “We also just have some people that are sick of putting their lives on hold. They may have locked in a low interest rate and hoped that mortgage rates would be lower by now, but since they aren’t, they are finally in a place that they are willing to sell,” she said.

Due to this surge, sellers now outnumber buyers by a ratio of 3-to-1, the largest margin to date. This is partially why the inventory of unsold housing climbed to $698 billion as of April, the largest value since Redfin’s record keeping began in 2012. 

So, despite sluggish demand, are we actually in a buyer’s market after all? Well, it depends how you look at it.

Looking at the “months supply” metric — the hallmark of whether or not we are in a buyer's or seller's market — we are not there just yet. The U.S. had 4.4 months supply in May, a figure that describes how long it would take for buyers to burn through all listings available at current demand levels. Typically, when supply exceeds six months, the market is considered to be a buyer's.

Despite this, there are various clues that buyers are already taking back negotiating power.

Prices remain at record highs, but the rate of appreciation has slowed. The April 2025 Home Price Index (HPI) report from First American Data & Analytics, found house prices rose by 0.4%, the slowest annual rate since 2012.

Corroborating these findings: In May 2024, 6.4% of home sellers cut their asking prices — the highest share since November 2022, according to a Redfin report. Additionally, the median age of active listings reportedly rose to 46 days that month, indicating that homes are staying on the market longer. Redfin estimates that U.S. house prices will drop 1% by the end of the year. 

“If we return to a buyer’s market across the country, housing dynamics will be much different than where they are today. We could see even more homes on the market with price cuts and longer days on market,” said Wolf.

A long road ahead for mortgage holders

However, Yun noted that, yes, a buyer’s market will induce more homebuyers, but prices would decline only “temporarily” and in the “certain markets”—those where supply is exceeding demand. For example, buyer’s markets in Austin, Texas, and Jacksonville and Tampa in Florida, have already led to prices falling.

It’ll take mortgage rates dropping “measurably” to embolden buyers and for substantial sales growth, said Yun. At that point “the housing market will heat up again—unless there is active new supply from new-home construction,” he added.

The Federal Reserve’s roadmap for cutting interest rates will play a major role in determining when mortgage rates begin to fall. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo have each forecast that the Fed will cut rates by 75 basis points in 2025, beginning in September, Reuters reported this week. This is expected to trigger a drop in mortgage rates, but to what extent remains unclear. Morningstar analysts  forecast the Fed to cut rates by 100 basis points this year, but they don’t expect this to impact 30-year mortgage rates considerably in 2025. Instead, they see a more sizable drop to 5.75% coming next year.

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he's pursuing a 50% tariff on copper, adding to a lengthy list of pending import taxes while also hinting at a triple-digit levy on pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Trump signaled tariffs would be imposed on semiconductors as well, while not providing a specific date or rate. The 50% tariff on imported copper matches with 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum.

For pharmaceutical products, the president suggested that pharmaceutical manufacturers will have up to 18 months to build new U.S. supply chains and avert a tariff that might total 200%.

"We’re going to give people about a year, a year and a half, to come in," Trump said during a White House cabinet meeting. "We'll give them a certain period of time to get their act together."

The remarks come after the Trump administration sent 14 letters on Tuesday to trade partners that threatened to reimpose tariffs on South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, and others on August 1, unless those foreign governments strike trade deals deemed favorable to the U.S.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a CNBC interview later Tuesday that between 15 and 20 letters will be sent to foreign governments in the next two days. He added that the copper levy will kick in either late July or August 1.

"The idea is to bring copper home," Lutnick said. "We need that kind of production in America."

Copper prices jumped about 10% following Trump's announcement. It was trading around $5.50 per pound on Tuesday afternoon, a record-high.

The Commerce Department has initiated national security investigations into copper, pharmaceuticals, and lumber, among other goods. That sets in motion another barrage of tariffs under a fortified legal basis if the probe finds an "unjustifiable" act threatening the U.S. economy. Lutnick said on CNBC the investigations into pharmaceuticals and semiconductors will conclude at the end of the month.

The so-called sectoral tariffs are separate from the levies that Trump plans to impose on trading partners on August 1 if efforts at broader trade deals falter.

If Trump moves ahead with steep tariffs on pharmaceutical products, much of the sector could be swept up in import taxes.

Research from the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina shows that the U.S. imported $212 billion in pharmaceutical goods in 2024, rendering it the fifth-most imported product. Most generic medications in the U.S. originate from India and China. Beijing is still ironing out a broader trade deal with the Trump administration, though tensions between the U.S and China cooled in recent weeks.

Over the past day, Trump has waffled between sticking to his August 1 deadline and saying it's "not 100% firm." Other administration officials are projecting confidence in their ability to clinch trade agreements with dozens of trading partners in three weeks.

"Again, it’s 100% up to the president," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Spectrum News interview. "As I said, he’s given us maximum leverage.”

Social media company X posted on Tuesday that the Indian government ordered the company to block 2,355 accounts in the country, including those belonging to Reuters.

“On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld, under Section 69A of the IT Act,” X’s global government affairs team wrote. “Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology demanded immediate action- within one hour- without providing justification, and required the accounts to remain blocked until further notice.

“After public outcry, the government requested X to unblock @Reuters and @ReutersWorld.

“We are deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India due to these blocking orders. X is exploring all legal options available. Unlike users located in India, X is restricted by Indian law in its ability to bring legal challenges against these executive orders. We urge affected users to pursue legal remedies through the courts.”

The main Reuters account, along with ReutersWorld, was blocked for users in India on Saturday. Screenshots showed a message that read: “Account withheld @Reuters has been withheld in IN in response to a legal demand.” However, India’s Press Information Bureau told Reuters that no government agency had ordered the block and said it was working with X to resolve the issue.

“The Government has not issued any fresh blocking order on 3rd July, 2025 and has no intention to block any prominent international News Channels including Reuters and Reuters World,” the ministry said. “The moment Reuters and Reuters World were blocked on X platform in India, immediately the government wrote to ‘X’ to unblock them. The Government continuously engaged and vigorously pursued with ‘X’ from the late night of 5th July 2025.”

The accounts were restored on Sunday. X didn’t name any of the other accounts that it said were blocked (beyond those owned by Reuters).

The reported blocking order is the latest development in a continuing legal battle between X and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. In March, X sued India’s IT ministry, accusing it of unlawfully expanding its online censorship powers to make it easier to remove content from the platform.

Boeing is showing signs of getting back on track. The company delivered 60 airplanes in June, its highest monthly total in a year and a half, as it works to stabilize production after a rough stretch of safety issues and delays.

Most of those deliveries — 42 to be exact — were its popular 737 Max jets. That’s the largest number of Max deliveries since early 2024, before a near-catastrophic midair incident forced Boeing to slow production and tighten up quality controls. Customers included big names like Southwest, Alaska, and United.

Eight of the jets delivered last month went to China, giving Boeing a much-needed boost after President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping backed away from a potential tariff fight that had threatened U.S. jet exports to the country, CNBC reported.

All in all, Boeing delivered 150 planes in the second quarter, making it the company’s best Q2 since 2018 — back before the Max grounding crisis and years of production headaches. For the first half of 2025, deliveries totaled 280 jets.

Boeing also booked 116 gross orders in June, including 42 Max orders and 30 Dreamliner widebody orders from unnamed customers. Its order backlog now stands at nearly 6,000 aircraft.

The strong June showing puts Boeing almost level with its European rival Airbus, which delivered 63 aircraft last month but has been facing its own production struggles due to engine shortages and supplier issues.

While Boeing’s numbers are looking better, the company still has hurdles to clear. The FAA is limiting Max production to about 38 jets per month following the January 2024 door plug blowout incident, and any increase above that will require regulatory approval. CEO Kelly Ortberg has said he’s confident Boeing can ramp up to 42 per month soon.

June wasn’t without tragedy, however. An Air India 787 Dreamliner crashed seconds after take-off, leading Boeing to cancel public appearances and order announcements at the Paris Air Show out of respect for the victims.

Still, these latest figures show Boeing is making headway in its recovery efforts. Investors will hear more about its production plans and financial outlook when it reports second-quarter earnings on July 29.

Waymo, Alphabet’s robotaxi service, launched a new program on Tuesday that lets some teenagers create accounts to order robotaxis in Phoenix, Arizona.

According to a company release, parents or guardians with their own Waymo accounts can invite their teenagers to create their own accounts, linking the two together. Only teenagers between the ages of 14 to 17 can access Waymo’s new program. 

Teen riders will be able to travel across 315 square miles in Metro Phoenix, the company said. 

One account safety feature includes access to rider support agents during a teen’s ride. The release says that during a ride, if need be, support agents can “loop in” parents. Another feature allows teens to share their trip status with their parents. Parents will receive all receipts for their teen’s rides.

The robotaxi service offered early access to some parents of teens in the area before the programs officially launch on Tuesday, according to the release. One parent told the company that the program gave their teen "autonomy" and made them less "dependent on family members."

In 2023, Uber launched its own program offering accounts for teens aged 13 to 17. Waymo and Uber started a partnership that same year, and last month expanded their services to Atlanta.

In March, Waymo started offering its robotaxi services in Washington, D.C., and the company recently started eyeing New York City and Philadelphia as potential prospects for its services. Plus in January the self-driving car company went international.

Waymo intends to offer the new program in other cities in the future, according to the release.

Delistings were up almost 50% in May as home sellers pulled their properties off the market, indicating they would rather “wait than negotiate,” a report released on Tuesday found. 

According to the Realtor.com June Housing Market Trends Report, delistings were up by 35% year-to-date and 47% year-over-year in May, outpacing active listing growth of 28.4% year to date and 31.5% year over year. The study said this indicates “recent buyer-friendly momentum could wane.”

Some sellers are slashing property prices to make sales: Prices for more than 1 in 5 listings were reduced in June. The report added that the price cuts for more than 20% of listings were the “highest share for any June since at least 2016.” The western and southern areas of the U.S. saw more price cuts in June than the rest of the country, according to the report.    

“The housing market offered buyers more options, as inventory continued to climb for the 20th straight month and new listings increased year over year across every major region,” the study said. Available inventory of homes for sales in June rose 28.9% year over year, hitting a post-pandemic high with over one million active listings, according to the report.

However, listing momentum is slowing, as new listings have declined since April’s peak. Still, they're up 6.2% compared to June 2024. The western and southern parts of the U.S. experienced the most new inventory growth in June, while the Northeast saw the least amount of growth, the report found. 

The housing report said that, nationally, “homes are taking five days longer to sell than a year ago,” with available homes spending a median of 53 days on the market. 

“With growing inventory and homes taking longer to sell, the U.S. housing market is undoubtedly shifting in a buyer-friendly direction,” the report said. “While the market certainly feels cooler to sellers, context is also important: The U.S. is coming off a very strong and sustained seller’s market, with historically low inventory and extremely quick sale times from 2020 through Spring 2022.” 

The study said sellers might be in “unfamiliar territory" where “pricing power is not a given.”

Copper prices shot up to record highs on Tuesday after President Donald Trump said he plans to slap a 50% tariff on the metal, sparking concerns about rising costs across construction, manufacturing, and electronics.

Copper futures jumped more than 9.5% by mid-afternoon to $5.51 per pound. Earlier in the day, prices had surged as much as 13%, marking the biggest single-day price jump since records began in 1968, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

Trump set off the rally during a cabinet meeting, telling reporters, “I believe the tariff on copper, we’re going to make it 50%.” During his first term, his trade war targeted steel and aluminum, but copper had mostly escaped — until now.

Copper is used in everything from electrical wiring and building construction to cars, phones, and industrial machinery. A tariff like the one proposed by Trump could ripple through supply chains, driving up prices for companies and consumers alike.

The U.S. produces a lot of copper domestically but still relies heavily on imports. Last year, the country produced about 850,000 tons of refined copper and imported roughly 810,000 tons, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The 50% tariff on imported copper matches with 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum.

The remarks come after the Trump administration sent 14 letters on Tuesday to trade partners that threatened to reimpose tariffs on South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, and others on August 1, unless those foreign governments strike trade deals deemed favorable to the U.S.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a CNBC interview later Tuesday that between 15 and 20 letters will be sent to foreign governments in the next two days. He added that the copper levy will kick in either late July or August 1.

"The idea is to bring copper home," Lutnick said. "We need that kind of production in America."

—Joseph Zeballos-Roig contributed to this article.