Current Events in February 2025

A coalition of 22 attorneys general are celebrating a court victory that led to a temporary block of President Trump's attempt to cut off many federal agency grants, loans, and other forms of financial assistance. They also warned federal employees about Trump's "misleading" buyout offer.

The Trump plan was put on hold after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting its implementation.

Judge John J. McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the TRO, siding with the coalition that argued the policy was an illegal overreach by the executive branch. The attorneys general had filed the lawsuit in response to the administration's attempt to freeze or cancel critical funding programs that support a wide range of services in their states.

“The power of the purse belongs to Congress – not the President of the United States,” said Attorney General Letitia James. The ruling came as a relief to those who rely on federal funding for essential services, including health care, disaster relief, public safety, and education.

The lawsuit, which was backed by the attorneys general of 22 states, including California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, highlights a growing resistance to federal policies that the coalition believes undermine essential services for citizens. As the legal process continues, the attorneys general are committed to defending the availability of vital public services and ensuring that state laws protecting citizens' rights are upheld.

This victory for the coalition marks a critical step in blocking what they see as an overreach of executive power, ensuring that federal funding for essential programs remains intact while the lawsuit proceeds in court.

Beware the buyout offer

Eleven of the AGs also had a word of advice for federal employees considering Trump's buyout offer: don't accept it blindly.

“President Trump’s so-called buyout offers are nothing more than the latest attack on federal workers and the services they provide. These supposed offers are not guaranteed. Federal employees should be cautious and follow the guidance of their unions to protect their rights," James said. 

"Attacking our federal workforce will only cause more chaos and confusion for Americans, and will diminish the quality of services our government provides," James said.

On January 28, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent an email to millions of federal employees detailing a new "deferred resignation" program.

Employees were told that if they accept the offer and resign, they would continue receiving all pay and benefits, and be exempt from in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025. The OPM sent another email to federal employees on January 30 reiterating the offer and urging them to find “higher productivity” jobs outside of government.

February 6 deadline

The OPM emails instructed employees that they have until February 6 to decide to remain in their position or resign under the deferred resignation program, and warned that those who did not resign were not guaranteed to keep their jobs.

Supporters of the buyout offer argue that it provides federal employees with a generous financial cushion, facilitating a smoother transition to new employment opportunities or retirement. They view it as a strategic move to modernize and optimize government operations, potentially leading to a more efficient and effective federal workforce.

But unions representing federal employees warned their members against accepting the offer. The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employees union, released information for its members warning them that employees who accepted the offer were not guaranteed its benefits. The National Federation of Federal Employees similarly warned its members against accepting the offer.

If you aren’t that happy with your wireless provider’s customer service, you have plenty of company. Wireless customer care satisfaction has decreased for the first time in two years, according to the J.D. Power 2025 U.S. Wireless Customer Care Study—Volume 1.

In previous years online satisfaction has been down but in-store experiences have won praise. In this survey, consumers are less happy with both types of customer care.

Carl Lepper, senior director of technology, media and telecom at J.D. Power, suggests wireless offerings have become more complex with bundling, adding different products, payment plans and sales. He said customer service reps are trained on each of these different aspects of customer care,  however, frequent changes to offers and the combination of products require “near mastery” to give the level of service the customer expects.

Patricia, a longtime Verizon customer from Buffalo, told us she had a bad experience at a Verizon store.

“I attempted to get a question answered via the 800 number agent who admitted she couldn't help me so I went to the Verizon Company store, waited 30 minutes and was coldly received by an associate who was rude,” Patricia wrote in a ConsumerAffairs review. “I asked to speak with someone else, waited another 15 minutes and it was worse - unprofessional, condescending and arrogant.”

The study found that T-Mobile ranks highest in the mobile network operators segment for a 15th consecutive volume, with a score of 837. The segment average is 819.

But among ConsumerAffairs reviewers, even T-Mobile gets plenty of 1-Star reviews for its customer service.

“I wish I could give 0 stars,” Kaitlyn, of Tampa, told us. “No one up here seems to know what’s going on, not even the supervisors.”

Other top performers

According to J.D. Power, Spectrum Mobile ranks highest in the full-service mobile virtual network operators segment with a score of 845. Metro by T-Mobile (836) ranks second and Cricket (832) ranks third.

Consumer Cellular ranks highest in the value mobile virtual network operators segment for an 18th consecutive volume, with a score of 883. Mint Mobile (857) ranks second and Visible by Verizon (821) ranks third.

The study is based on responses from 19,035 customers who contacted their carrier’s customer care department within the past three months. 

Super Bowl commercials always draw a lot of attention for their humor and creativity. But the underlying message of many of them might not be good for your health. 

A new study of food advertising found that the food advertised during NFL games generally promotes unhealthy food options.

The findings, published by researchers from Saint Louis University and the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine in JAMA Network, analyzed the nutritional content of foods advertised during televised NFL games, which are among the most-watched sporting events in the United States.

The study focused on the impact of advertising and sponsorships on consumer behavior, particularly among adults with conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, and kidney failure.

The results showed that foods promoted during NFL games are often high in sodium, calories, and fat, contributing to excessive dietary intake. The study concludes that this trend is particularly concerning given the lack of regulations on the frequency of such advertisements.

Bad influence?

 "The thing that surprised me most was how normalized these ads and paid promotions were, and there weren't any regulations on how much people could view them," Lara Al-Zoubaidi, a third-year nutrition student at SLU said in a press release.

The study's methodology involved assessing the nutritional content of advertised foods based on information from company websites, with serving sizes determined by the presentation in each commercial. The researchers emphasized that the combination of extended viewing times and poor dietary choices could negatively impact the prevention and management of chronic cardiovascular and other conditions.

The findings suggest that healthcare providers should counsel patients with prevalent conditions to limit their intake of high-sodium foods advertised during NFL games, which could lead to improved symptoms and quality of life. 

Questions or comments? Email Jim Hood at jhood@consumeraffairs.com.

The price of gold hit record highs in 2024. It looks like 2025 could continue the streak. At least, that’s the way the year is starting.

The price of gold rose to a new record high on January 30 but pulled back slightly to end the week. Still, its 12-month gain is impressive.

One reason many investment analysts think gold prices will continue to rise is the economic uncertainty by the U.S. tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China.

Kevin Rusher, founder of the real-world asset tokenization platform RAAC, says the tariffs have already “caused a bloodbath” across the stock and cryptocurrency markets.

“However, while equities and cryptocurrencies are bleeding, commodities have held very stable,” Rusher said in an email to ConsumerAffairs. “The price of gold is flat at around $2,800 per ounce at the time of writing, while crude oil futures are up 2.4%, driven by fears of oil supply disruptions from Canada and Mexico.”

Rusher said Canada makes up some 60% of U.S. crude oil imports, and Mexico supplies another 7%, suggesting that’s why oil prices moved in the opposite direction to equities and digital assets.

“When everything becomes clearer and the dust settles, we need to look at this as a reminder of the importance of having stable assets such as real estate, gold, and oil in a balanced portfolio,” he said. 

Questions or comments? Email Jim Hood at jhood@consumeraffairs.com.

Blue Ridge Beef is recalling 5,700 lbs. of their 2-pound log Natural Mix due to a contamination of Salmonella. The lot number is N25/12/31 (s) and the UPC number is 854298001054. Lot numbers are stamped in the clips on the end of the chubs/bags.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is a risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever, and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

Samples of the product were collected on Jan. 8 by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and tested by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture Food and Drug Protection Laboratory. The product tested positive for Salmonella.

On Jan. 27, the firm was notified by the FDA that the product tested positive for Salmonella.

The products were distributed between Jan. 3. 2025 to Jan. 24, 2025. The product is packaged in clear plastic and sold primarily in retail stores located in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York State, Tennessee and Rhode Island. 

Products affected are:

What to do

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return to place of purchase or destroy the food in a way that children, pets, and wildlife cannot access. Do not sell or donate the recalled products. 

Do not feed the recalled product to pets or any other animals. Wash and sanitize pet food bowls, cups, and storage containers. Always ensure you wash and sanitize your hands after handling recalled food or any utensils that come in contact with recalled food. 

For more information contact blueridgebeefnc@yahoo.com or 704-873-2072.