Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
NEW YORKERS have seen it all in the subway. They watch in appreciation as a rat carries a slice of pizza down a staircase. They feel powerless when someone in the throes of a mental-health crisis shouts and staggers on a subway platform. They are uplifted or perhaps annoyed when “Showtime” dancers backflip and hang from car handles and poles. Yet the recent arrival of armed soldiers near subway turnstiles has been unnerving.
Last week Kathy Hochul, New York’s Democratic governor, deployed 750 members of the National Guard as well as 250 state police to assist New York City’s police (NYPD) in searching bags at some subway stations. It is part of a plan aimed at improving subway safety, along with adding more cameras and implementing a pilot scheme to treat those suffering severely from mental illness.
Violent crime in the city has declined so far this year, but crime on the subway is a different story: it rose by 47% in January, year over year. Most of that was down to more thefts. The vast majority of the system’s 4m daily riders travel without incident. However, the abundance of individuals in crisis, coupled with some high-profile attacks, has raised alarms. A conductor’s neck was recently slashed. A woman lost her feet after a man pushed her onto the tracks. A teenager fatally shot a man in a Bronx station. Eric Adams, the city’s mayor, deployed 1,000 cops to the subway, at great expense and with some success.
Ms Hochul decided it wasn’t enough. There is a long history of political point-scoring between New York City mayors and state governors. In this case Ms Hochul may have been motivated partly by labour concerns and cost. After the attack on the conductor some employees staged what looked like a work stoppage that caused delays. The union asked for more transit police. The governor chose soldiers, who are cheaper. The backlash was immediate and came from all sides. “Our transit system is not a ‘war’ zone!” John Chell, NYPD’s chief of patrol, wrote on X. Others are worried about civil-rights violations.
When Henry Smart of John Jay College of Criminal Justice first heard about the National Guard being activated in New York, he wondered, “did something really bad happen?”. The National Guard is a state-based military unit. Members are part of the army’s reserve and can be deployed overseas, as they were regularly during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but these days they are typically activated by state governors in an emergency. During the covid-19 pandemic they assisted with testing. During blizzards they clear snow and rescue people in danger. “We are efficient and task-orientated,” says Mr Smart, a 15-year veteran of the Maryland National Guard. No better crew can fill a sandbag. But this is far from an emergency. And the National Guard is not a camouflaged crime-fighting force. It is not even permitted to make arrests.
Militarising crime fighting is seldom a good idea. “Deploying troops to the subway indicates we’ve lost a battle that we actually are winning,” says Danny Pearlstein, of Riders Alliance, an advocacy group. It tells New Yorkers that we are in a “dire state of affairs”, adds Donna Lieberman, head of the New York Civil Liberties Union when, in fact, the city remains one of the safest of its size in America. Jumaane Williams, the city’s ombudsman, wrote on X that given the political consensus against the deployment, “you would think there would be at least a rethinking.” So far Ms Hochul is holding firm, though she has at least stopped soldiers carrying long-rifles.
Rather than looking on aghast, some other cities are regarding Ms Hochul’s decision to send in the troops with curiosity. Transit unions in Chicago and Philadelphia are calling on the National Guard to be deployed on their troubled systems. Cherelle Parker, Philadelphia’s new mayor, has promised to beef up police patrols. So far, she and other local lawmakers do not want the National Guard involved. They are right to be wary. The theatrical use of soldiers does not stop crime.■
Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – MARCH 26, 2025: Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves leaves 11 Downing Street ahead of the announcement of the Spring Statement in the House of Commons in London, United Kingdom on March 26, 2025. (Photo credit should read Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images)
Britain’s government is planning to ramp up public spending — but market watchers warn the proposals risk sending jitters through the bond market further inflating the country’s $143 billion-a-year interest payments.
U.K. Finance Minister Rachel Reeves on Wednesday announced the government would inject billions of pounds into defense, healthcare, infrastructure, and other areas of the economy, in the coming years. A day later, however, official data showed the U.K. economy shrank by a greater-than-expected 0.3% in April.
Funding public spending in the absence of a growing economy, leaves the government with two options: raise money through taxation, or take on more debt.
One way it can borrow is to issue bonds, known as gilts in the U.K., into the public market. By purchasing gilts, investors are essentially lending money to the government, with the yield on the bond representing the return the investor can expect to receive.
Gilt yields and prices move in opposite directions — so rising prices move yields lower, and vice versa. This year, gilt yields have seen volatile moves, with investors sensitive to geopolitical and macroeconomic instability.
Official estimates show the government is expected to spend more than £105 billion ($142.9 billion) paying interest on its national debt in the 2025 fiscal year — £9.4 billion higher than at the the time of the Autumn budget last year — and £111 billion in annual interest in 2026.
The government did not say on Wednesday how its newly unveiled spending hikes will be funded, and did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment about where the money will come from. However, in her Autumn Budget last year, Reeves outlined plans to hike both taxes and borrowing. Following the budget, the finance minister pledged not to raise taxes again during the current Labour government’s term in office, saying that the government “won’t have to do a budget like this ever again.”
Andrew Goodwin, chief U.K. economist at Oxford Economics, said Britain’s government may be forced to go even further with its spending plans, with NATO poised to hike its defense spending target for member states to 5% of GDP, and once a U-turn on winter fuel payments for the elderly and other possible welfare reforms are factored in.
Additionally, Goodwin said, the U.K.’s Office for Budget Responsibility is likely to make “unfavorable revisions” to its economic forecasts in July, which would lead to lower tax receipts and higher borrowing.
“If recent movements in financial market pricing hold, debt servicing costs will be around £2.5bn ($3.4 billion) higher than they were at the time of the Spring Statement,” Goodwin warned in a note on Wednesday.
‘Very fragile situation’
Mel Stride, who serves as the shadow Chancellor in the U.K.’s opposition government, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Thursday that the Spending Review raised questions about whether “a huge amount of borrowing” will be involved in funding the government’s fiscal strategies.
“[Government] borrowing is having consequences in terms of higher inflation in the U.K. … and therefore interest rates [are] higher for longer,” he said. “It’s adding to the debt mountain, the servicing costs upon which are running at 100 billion [pounds] a year, that’s twice what we spend on defense.”
“I’m afraid the overall economy is in a very weak position to withstand the kind of spending and borrowing that this government is announcing,” Stride added.
Stride argued that Reeves will “almost certainly” have to raise taxes again in her next budget announcement due in the autumn.
“We’ve ended up in a very fragile situation, particularly when you’ve got the tariffs around the world,” he said.
Rufaro Chiriseri, head of fixed income for the British Isles at RBC Wealth Management, told CNBC that rising borrowing costs were putting Reeves’ “already small fiscal headroom at risk.”
“This reduced headroom could create a snowball effect, as investors could potentially become nervous to hold UK debt, which could lead to a further selloff until fiscal stability is restored,” he said.
Iain Barnes, Chief Investment Officer at Netwealth, also told CNBC on Thursday that the U.K. was in “a state of fiscal fragility, so room for manoeuvre is limited.”
“The market knows that if growth disappoints, then this year’s Budget may have to deliver higher taxes and increased borrowing to fund spending plans,” Barnes said.
However, April LaRusse, head of investment specialists at Insight Investment, argued there were ways for debt servicing burdens to be kept under control.
The U.K.’s Debt Management Office, which issues gilts, has scope to reshape issuance patters — the maturity and type of gilts issued — to help the government get its borrowing costs under control, she said.
“With the average yield on the 1-10 year gilts at c4% and the yield on the 15 year + gilts at 5.2% yield, there is scope to make the debt financing costs more affordable,” she explained.
However, LaRusse noted that debt interest payments for the U.K. government were estimated to reach the equivalent of around 3.5% of GDP this fiscal year, and that overspending could worsen the burden.
“This increase is driven not only by higher interest rates, which gradually translate into higher coupon payments, but also by elevated levels of government spending, compounding the fiscal burden,” she said.
Joe Jaszewski | Idaho Statesman | Tribune News Service | Getty Images
Despite widespread fears to the contrary, President Donald Trump‘s tariffs have yet to show up in any of the traditional data points measuring inflation.
In fact, separate readings this week on consumer and producer prices were downright benign, as indexes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that prices rose just 0.1% in May.
The inflation scare is over, then, right?
To the contrary, the months ahead are still expected to show price increases driven by Trump’s desire to ensure the U.S. gets a fair shake with its global trading partners. So far, though, the duties have not driven prices higher, save for a few areas that are particularly sensitive to higher import costs.
At least three factors have conspired so far to keep inflation in check: companies hoarding imported goods ahead of the April 2 tariff announcement, the time it takes for the charges to make their way into the real economy, and the lack of pricing power companies face as consumers tighten belts.
“We believe the limited impact from tariffs in May is a reflection of pre-tariff stockpiling, as well as a lagged pass-through of tariffs into import prices,” Aichi Amemiya, senior economist at Nomura, said in a note. “We maintain our view that the impact of tariffs will likely materialize in the coming months.”
This week’s data showed isolated evidence of tariff pressures.
Canned fruits and vegetables, which are often imported, saw prices rise 1.9% for the month. Roasted coffee was up 1.2% and tobacco increased 0.8%. Durable goods, or long-lasting items such as major appliances (up 4.3%) and computers and related items (1.1%), also saw increases.
“This gain in appliance prices mirrors what happened during the 2018-20 round of import taxes, when the cost of imported washing machines surged,” Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, said in his daily market note.
One of the biggest tests, though, on whether the price increases will prove durable, as many economists fear, or as temporary, the prism through which they’re typically viewed, could largely depend on consumers, who drive nearly 70% of all economic activity.
The Federal Reserve’s periodic report on economic activity issued earlier this month indicated a likelihood of price increases ahead, while noting that some companies were hesitant to pass through higher costs.
“We have been of the position for a long time that tariffs would not be inflationary and they were more likely to cause economic weakness and ultimately deflation,” said Luke Tilley, chief economist at Wilmington Trust. “There’s a lot of consumer weakness.”
Indeed, that’s largely what happened during the damaging Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930, which many economists believe helped trigger the Great Depression.
Tilley said he sees signs that consumers already are cutting back on vacations and recreation, a possible indication that companies may not have as much pricing power as they did when inflation started to surge in 2021.
Fed officials, though, remain on the sidelines as they wait over the summer to see how tariffs do impact prices. Markets largely expect the Fed to wait until September to resume lowering interest rates, even though inflation is waning and the employment picture is showing signs of cracks.
“This time around, if inflation proves to be transitory, then the Federal Reserve may cut its policy rate later this year,” Brusuelas said. “But if consumers push their own inflation expectations higher because of short-term dislocations in the price of food at home or other goods, then it’s going to be some time before the Fed cuts rates.”
THE HORSESHOE theory of politics—the idea that the far-left and far-right resemble each other—has performed admirably well in the Trump era. It gained fresh vindication in a recent squabble among intellectuals of the new right, as some accuse others of being part of the “woke right”, the mirror image of their hated opponents on the left.