Current Events in July 2025

• Nearly 1 in 5 U.S. teens aged 12–17 has prediabetes, according to the CDC's latest analysis.
  

• The data underscores a significant silent epidemic, with most affected adolescents unaware of their condition.
  

• Health experts urge increased screenings, especially for at-risk groups, and better public awareness.

A new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified a troubling trend: nearly 1 in 5 American adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 is living with prediabetes. 

The findings are based on data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a nationally representative sample that combines interviews, physical exams, and laboratory testing.

Prediabetes, a condition in which blood sugar levels are elevated but not yet high enough to qualify as type 2 diabetes, is considered a major warning sign. In the CDC analysis, prediabetes was diagnosed using two key indicators: a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level between 100 and 125 mg/dL, or a hemoglobin A1c level between 5.7% and 6.4%. Adolescents already diagnosed with diabetes were excluded from the analysis.

What makes the situation more alarming is that prediabetes typically occurs without symptoms, especially in younger populations. That means many adolescents and their families may be unaware of the metabolic changes occurring, despite the long-term health risks they pose, including progression to type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and kidney complications.

Behind the numbers

The CDC used updated FPG calibration methods to ensure accuracy across multiple NHANES data collection cycles. Older prediabetes estimates—such as the 2020 study by Andes et al.—used a different adjustment method, making this new analysis a more refined look at how widespread the issue has become.

To confirm diabetes status, researchers relied on both interview responses and lab results. Adolescents were classified as diabetic if they either answered “yes” to having been diagnosed by a healthcare provider or had lab-confirmed results with FPG ≥126 mg/dL or A1c ≥6.5%.

Physicians say the findings underscore the urgent need for earlier interventions, particularly as lifestyle factors like sedentary behavior, poor diet, and obesity continue to climb among youth populations. The CDC and other public health organizations have long recommended increased screening for children with risk factors such as obesity, family history of diabetes, or signs of insulin resistance.

In brief:

• New Hampshire federal court halts Trump executive order targeting birthright citizenship

• Nationwide class certified to protect all children born on U.S. soil

• Civil rights groups hail ruling as crucial defense of the 14th Amendment

A federal court in New Hampshire Friday blocked President Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, delivering a significant victory to civil rights groups who argued the policy violates the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling, issued from the bench, also certified a nationwide class protecting the citizenship rights of all children born in the United States. Trump administration attorneys called the action an attempted "end run" around the Supreme Court, although Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested the action a few weeks ago. 

The case, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump, emerged amid legal battles following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, which opened the door for potential partial enforcement of the executive order.

The lawsuit, filed on June 27, was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and several allied organizations. The groups represent a proposed class of babies who would have been subject to the executive order’s restrictions.

“This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrant’s Rights Project, who argued the case in court.

Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, praised the decision as “once again affirming that President Trump’s executive order to restrict birthright citizenship is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution.” Chaffee underscored that the Constitution ensures no politician can decide who is worthy of citizenship among those born in the country.

Seven-day delay granted

The ruling includes a seven-day delay to allow the federal government time to seek emergency relief from the First Circuit Court of Appeals. However, even if an appeal is pursued, the injunction is set to go into effect well before July 27 — the date on which partial implementation of the executive order might otherwise have begun.

Morenike Fajana, senior counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, called the decision “a powerful affirmation of the 14th Amendment and the enduring principle that citizenship in the United States is a right by birth, not a privilege granted by politics.”

Civil rights advocates hailed the ruling as a critical safeguard against what they describe as an unprecedented attack on constitutional principles. “Parents have lived in fear and uncertainty,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus. “This court’s injunction protecting birthright citizenship for all affected children is a major victory for families across this country.”

A growing judicial consensus

The decision underscores a growing judicial consensus rejecting attempts to narrow the Constitution’s promise of birthright citizenship, with Molly Curren Rowles of the ACLU of Maine emphasizing that the United States has “always been a nation of immigrants.”

Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, concluded that birthright citizenship “makes our country strong and vibrant,” describing the executive order as “simply un-American.”

Class actions ride again

Class actions have come to be associated with consumer issues — defective products, stock manipulation, etc. — but they were initially designed as a way for citizens to collectively contest government actions.

The Supreme Court itself explicitly opened the way to class actions against the federal government when Justice Coney Barrett suggested that litigants in Trump vs. CASA could use the class action as a way around the Trump administration's blocking of nationwide injunctions.  

It’s among several exceptions or workarounds that Trump adversaries are poised to seize on after the justices sharply limited judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.

• FCC removes Net Neutrality rules from its books, even though they were not in effect.
• A federal appeals court, in a suit brought by telecom companies, had held the rules were improper.
• The argument has gone back and forth since the Obama administration.

Net Neutrality is not a topic that brings crowds of demonstrators surging into the streets but it has important implications in a world that is driven largely by online communications.

The Obama administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) constructed a framework of rules and regulations intended to ensure that everyone had equal access to broadband. That made telecommunications companies responsible for providing service on just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms to users across the nation.

Those rules were repealed during Donald Trump's first term in office earlier this year and reinstated during President Biden's term. But earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled — in a suit brought by major telecom companies — that the rules had been wrongfully adopted and that broadband providers cannot be treated as utilities.

Telecoms aren't utilities?

The court determined that broadband is an "information service" not a "telecommunications service," meaning the FCC lacks the authority to impose net neutrality regulations under the Communications Act. 

Today, the Federal Communications Commission issued an order announcing its decision to remove the agency’s Net Neutrality rules. The agency neglected to provide advance notice or give the public an opportunity to comment. 

The consumer group Free Press called the FCC's action "little more than political grandstanding." 

"It’s true that the rules in question were first stayed by the 6th Circuit and then struck down by that appellate court — in a poorly reasoned opinion. So today’s bookkeeping maneuver changes very little in reality," said Matt Wood, the group's vice president of policy and general counsel.

Rules protecting Net Neutrality have broad bipartisan public support; the issue generated record numbers of public comments during prior agency proceedings on these essential open-internet safeguards, Wood said. 


"There’s no need to delete currently inoperative rules, much less to announce it in a summer Friday order. The only reason to do that is to score points with broadband monopolies and their lobbyists, who’ve fought against essential and popular safeguards for the past two decades straight," Wood said. "It also shows subservience to Elon Musk’s incredibly destructive government-by-chainsaw attitude — which seems to have outlived Musk himself in some corners of the Trump administration."

• Truckers and shippers are pushing for heavier weight limits for trucks on federal highways.
• Congress is considering a measure that would allow trucks up to 91,000 pounds.
• The National Consumers League opposes the measure, saying it would be a "significant threat" to public safety and infrastructure.

Congress is considering a measure that would allow heavier trucks on federal highways — something the National Consumers League (NCL) thinks is a bad idea.

The organization says the move would be "a significant threat to public safety, infrastructure, and taxpayers."

The proposal under consideration is H.R. 3372, introduced by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD), which seeks to establish a 10-year pilot program allowing six-axle trucks to operate at weights up to 91,000 pounds — an increase from the current federal limit of 80,000 pounds. Participation would be voluntary for states.

In an opinion piece published today in The Hill, NCL’s Senior Director of Consumer Protection & Product Safety, Daniel Greene, joined David Williams, the President of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, to warn lawmakers and the public about the dangers of weakening truck size and weight limits.  

“Increasing size and weight limits would exacerbate the nation’s traffic safety crisis,” write Greene and Williams. “The heavier the truck, the greater the crash forces, increasing the lethality accidents.”  

400% more likely to crash

Data cited in the article show that trucks weighing 91,000 pounds or more are up to 400 percent more likely to be involved in major crashes and cause significantly more damage to roads and bridges. Replacing weakened infrastructure to accommodate these trucks could cost taxpayers $80 billion, according to a 2023 analysis.  

“Politicians and advocacy groups across the political spectrum may not always agree on the best way to fix America’s roads, but they should agree that introducing larger and heavier vehicles is a recipe for disaster,” Greene and Williams continued. “ Lawmakers should swerve away from these policy potholes and commit to real bipartisan protections.”  

Supporters say the heavier weight limits would enhance supply chain efficiency, address the truck driver shortage by maximizing freight per trip and lower fuel consumption per unit of freight. 

Proponents, including the Shippers Coalition and the American Farm Bureau Federation, contend that the additional axle required for these heavier trucks would maintain or even improve safety by distributing weight more effectively and reducing stopping distances.

But NCL is calling on Congress to uphold current truck size and weight limits and reject efforts to allow heavier trucks or longer multi-trailer rigs on U.S. highways. 

• Delta Flight 127 from Madrid to New York made an emergency landing on Terceira Island due to engine issues.
  

• All 282 passengers and 13 crew members were safely accommodated overnight before continuing their journey.
  

• The incident adds to a series of aviation-related events in 2025, raising concerns about airline safety.
  

An airline emergency that occurred last weekend is just coming to light. Delta Air Lines Flight 127, en route from Madrid to New York, was forced to make an emergency landing on Terceira Island in the Azores Sunday after losing power in one of its engines mid-flight. 

The Airbus A330, carrying 282 passengers and 13 crew members, diverted to Lajes Airport, a facility shared with a U.S. Air Force base on the Portuguese island.

Passengers reported hearing unusual noises and detecting a burning smell before the aircraft was diverted from its trans-Atlantic route, making a U-turn and landed safely. Delta Airlines released a statement saying that the flight crew followed standard procedures to divert the plane after indications of a mechanical issue with one of the engines. 

Following the unscheduled landing, passengers were accommodated in local hotels and provided with meals. However, NBC News reports, in the video below, that some passengers said they felt like they were on their own.

A replacement aircraft was dispatched from New York, arriving in the early hours of July 7, and transported the passengers to their original destination later that day. 

Delta Airlines has apologized for the inconvenience and is reaching out to affected customers to offer compensation. The incident is part of a series of aviation-related events in 2025, prompting discussions about airline safety protocols. 

• Findings from a recent study found that walking more—especially aiming for around 7,000 steps per day—was linked to fewer depressive symptoms in adults.

• Every extra 1,000 steps per day correlated with about a 9% lower risk of depression.

• The effect was consistent across ages, sexes, and step-tracking methods, suggesting walking is a universally accessible mental‑health tool.
  

Researchers from the University of Castilla‑La Mancha (UCLM) teamed up with international colleagues to examine how daily walking relates to depression in adults. 

The team pooled data from 33 observational studies involving around 96,000 participants, all tracked using wearable devices such as pedometers and accelerometers.

Their goal? To find out whether walking more each day—measured objectively—could be tied to lower rates of depressive symptoms and risk.

The study

The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis:

1. They searched multiple literature databases up to May 2024 and identified 33 studies (27 cross-sectional, 6 longitudinal) involving over 96,000 diverse adults.

2. These studies tracked daily steps using reliable wearables and measured depression using clinical diagnoses or symptom questionnaires.

3. Participants were grouped by step ranges (e.g., <5,000; 5,000–7,499; 7,500–9,999; ≥10,000), and researchers analyzed risk or symptom reduction associated with each range.

4. They adjusted for variables like age and sex and checked the robustness of results.
   

The results

Ultimately, the results were promising. The study found that adults walking 5,000–7,499 steps/day had significantly fewer depressive symptoms than those walking under 5,000 steps per day.

The more participants walked, the better their mental health. The study showed that walking 7,500–9,999, and especially 10,000+ steps/day, showed even stronger links to lower depression-related symptoms.

Notably, hitting around 7,000 steps/day stood out, as it was linked to a marked reduction in future depression risk compared to fewer steps.

It’s also important to note that with each additional 1,000 steps/day, depression risk dropped by roughly 9%.

What does it mean for you?

Walking is free, simple, and easy to integrate into daily life. This analysis suggests even light, regular steps—especially around 7,000+ per day—can add up to real mental‑health benefits.

It doesn’t require gym time or intense workouts—just consistent movement. Boosting your daily step count, even in shorter bursts, may help protect against depression.

“Daily step counting could be an important strategy in the general population to promote physical activity and contribute to the prevention of depression,” researcher Bruno Bizzozero Peroni wrote. 

“Based on the available evidence, we emphasize the need for further longitudinal studies to clarify the protective role of daily steps in preventing depression during adulthood. In the meantime, if you've read this far, stop reading and go for a brisk walk.” 

• Amazon Prime Day 2025 sales dropped 41% on the first day compared to 2024, according to Momentum Commerce.

• Amazon disputes these figures, citing increased engagement and a broader sales window.

• Analysts attribute the decline to economic uncertainty, extended sale duration, and increased competition.

Economists pay close attention to consumer spending when they assess the health of the U.S. economy. Amazon’s Prime Day event may be drawing their attention this week.

The annual July sales promotion, which began Tuesday, was originally scheduled for two days. Early in the event, Amazon extended it an additional two days. The extension coincided with a reported drop in sales numbers.

Data from Momentum Commerce indicates a 41% decrease in first-day sales compared to the previous year, raising questions about shifting consumer behaviors and market dynamics. 

Amazon challenges the report

In response to the reported figures, Amazon has contested the accuracy of third-party data. The company said there has been increased customer engagement and notes that the extended sale duration may be influencing purchasing patterns. In other words, consumers may be simply delaying their purchases.

 Amazon also points to a surge in interest for deals offering 50% off or more, suggesting that consumers are strategically timing their purchases throughout the event.

Factors Influencing Consumer Spending

Several elements may be contributing to the observed sales decline:

• Extended Sale Duration: The shift from a two-day to a four-day event may lead consumers to delay purchases, anticipating better deals later in the sale period.

• Economic Uncertainty: Ongoing concerns about inflation and potential trade tariffs are causing consumers to be more cautious with their spending.
  

• Increased Competition: Retailers like Walmart and Target are running concurrent sales events, offering consumers alternative shopping options.
  

The reported initial sales dip had a tangible impact on Amazon's stock, which fell by up to 2% following the early reports. However, projections from Adobe Analytics remain optimistic, forecasting that total online spending during the four-day Prime Day event could reach $23.8 billion, marking a 28.4% increase from 2024.

As Prime Day concludes, industry observers will closely monitor whether consumer spending rebounds in the latter half of the event. The outcome may provide valuable insights into evolving shopping behaviors and the effectiveness of extended promotional strategies in the current economic climate.

• Health care in retirement can cost nearly $200,000 — but many Americans underestimate or overlook this major expense.

• Saving in a Health Savings Account (HSA) and choosing the right Medicare plan can help reduce out-of-pocket costs.

• No matter your age, it’s never too early (or too late) to plan — every generation can take steps now to protect their future finances.

When most people think about retirement, they imagine travel, hobbies, and finally having time to relax. But there’s one major expense that often catches retirees off guard: health care. From doctor visits and prescriptions to Medicare premiums and long-term care, the costs can add up quickly — and many Americans aren't prepared.

To help break down what future retirees need to know, Whitney Stidom, vice president of Medicare Enablement at eHealth, spoke with ConsumerAffairs about how different generations can start planning now, practical steps you can take to protect your future finances, and more. 

Set realistic expectations

When it comes to planning for retirement costs, Stidom recommends having realistic expectations about health care costs.  

“In retirement, everyone eventually needs health care, and health care is expensive,” she said. “Our recent survey found that 76% of Americans underestimate or don’t know the average cost of health care in retirement, which amounts to nearly $200,000 for the average retiree.” 

Money-saving tips

Stidom shared her top three tips for saving money for health care costs in retirement: 

1. Pursue healthy habits. Get exercise, avoid unhealthy food, don’t smoke. Ask your doctor for advice based on your health and family history. The healthier your lifestyle, the better chance you have of avoiding the need for medical intervention.

2. Save money specifically for your retirement health care costs. If you’re still in the workforce, consider a Health Savings Account (HSA). In 2025 alone, you can save $4,300 (or $8,550 for a family) on a tax-free basis in an HSA. The money is yours to keep and can be invested to potentially grow in value over time. You can build up a health care expense nest egg in an HSA and use it in retirement to help cover deductibles, copayments, dental and vision care, or even massage therapy if medically necessary.  

3. Make sure you’re in the right Medicare plan for your needs and budget. Whether you’re enrolling in Medicare for the first time or reviewing your plan choices during the fall Annual Enrollment Period (AEP), it’s important to understand your options. Medicare Advantage plans may provide coverage for many services not included in Original Medicare, such as prescriptions, dental, vision, hearing, and more. It can pay to shop around. Americans have access to an average of over 40 Medicare Advantage plans in their local area, and beneficiaries who comparison shop can potentially save an average of over $1,100 per year on medical costs. 

The generational breakdown

Regardless of what generation you’re in, it’s important to start preparing for retirement. Stidom broke down her best advice for consumers trying to make the most of their money. 

• Retired: If you’re already retired, the best Medicare plan for you last year isn’t necessarily going to be the best plan for you in the new year. Your personal health and medical needs can change from one year to another, and so can your personal finances. If you’re enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan or a Part D drug plan, your benefits and costs under that plan can also change from one year to another. 

• Boomers: For Boomers who are not yet retired, if you’re healthy and rarely visit the doctor, consider a plan with a Health Savings Account (HSA). If you’re enrolled in an HSA-eligible plan and age 55 or older, you can make an additional $1,000 contribution to your account each year to help you stockpile tax-advantaged funds for future health care costs. 

• Gen X: This group needs to think beyond their 401(k)s. Health care costs in retirement typically aren’t on the radar for most Gen Xers yet. They should consider HSAs as well, and start educating themselves about what Medicare is, how it works, what it covers, and what it doesn’t. Some Gen Xers have helped their parents through these questions, but it may soon be time to start applying those lessons to yourself. Gen Xers might also take stock of their personal health and lifestyle and think about where they’re headed 10 or 20 years from now, as now is the time to make healthier lifestyle decisions. 

• Millennials and Gen Zers: They may not be thinking much about retirement yet, or about health care costs. Since they’re younger and typically healthier, HSAs can be an especially good option for them. If you’re 30 years old today and have an employer that contributes to your HSA, you could potentially save tens of thousands of dollars – in part through the power of compound interest – for health care costs by the time you are retirement age.

• Parents can pay nearly $8,000 a year to insure a 16-year-old, with rates dropping each year as teens get older.

• Experts recommend opting for higher liability limits and full coverage to avoid being underinsured and to lower future premiums.

• Discounts for good students, usage-based tracking, bundling policies, and shopping around yearly can help lower costs.

For teenagers, getting your driver’s license comes with excitement and a sense of freedom. For parents, there’s stress about safety, as well as the added expense of car insurance. 

Recently, The Zebra, a company that works to simplify insurance shopping for consumers, published a report that did a deep dive on car insurance for young drivers. Their work revealed that it could cost parents nearly $8,000 per year to insure their teens. 

On top of that, male drivers cost more to insure than female drivers, and where you live also affects how much you’ll pay in car insurance. 

To break this down, and give parents some tangible tips to save money on their teens’ car insurance, ConsumerAffairs interviewed Susan Meyer, a licensed insurance agent and insurance analyst at The Zebra. 

“While everyone likes to think their teen is a better driver than the average, teens pay the highest for insurance for a reason,” Meyer told ConsumerAffairs. “Statistically teens are three times more likely to be in a car accident per mile driven.” 

What to know about coverage

Meyer offered some practical tips for parents when they’re looking through different policies for their teen driver. 

"Car insurance for teens is expensive and when choosing your coverage options, it can be tempting to go with the minimum coverage, especially if your teen is driving a clunker that isn’t worth much,” she said. 

“However, we generally recommend against minimum liability coverage (unless it's all you can afford). It can actually result in higher insurance costs later as insurers view drivers carrying minimum-only coverage to be riskier.” 

Meyer explained that teens also risk being underinsured in the event of an at-fault accident, meaning you can be on the hook for financial damages. 

She said that her team recommends that parents go with 50/100/50 liability limits and full coverage with a deductible of $1,000 for their teen drivers. 

Avoid these mistakes

While insurance shopping isn’t always fun and can often come with headaches, Meyer encourages parents to do it once a year to make sure they’re getting the best rates for their teens. 

“When you have a teen, every single birthday makes a major difference in rates. The average annual rate for a 16-year-old boy is $8,139, which goes down to the (comparatively) low $4,495 by age 19. If you’re not regularly shopping around for insurance, you could be missing some huge savings.” 

Additionally, she recommends that parents regularly check their own insurance policies when adding teen drivers.  

“Another mistake that parents make is not increasing their liability limits when adding a teen driver to their policy. This can protect against lawsuits or damages that arise if your teen is involved in an accident. It’s also important to note that your teen won’t qualify for most accident forgiveness programs, as eligibility usually requires three to five years of clean driving.” 

Are there ways to save?

Though parents might be stressed about the added expense to their monthly premium, Meyer says that there are ways for parents to save money. 

• Good students and good drivers: If your teen is a good student or a particularly good driver, you can check for discounts that might apply to them or consider getting a telematics device. Since this focuses on how they actually drive, it can help counteract their age a bit. 

• Bundle: Regardless of age, bundling your policy with a home or renters policy, or increasing your deductible, can save you money. 

• College: If your teen goes to college out of town and doesn’t drive a car there, you can lower your coverage. In this situation, you may be able to remove your teenager from the policy, then add them back on as a temporary driver during school breaks. 

• Check your carrier: Your choice of insurance company will also make a big difference in what you pay. Some carriers offer better deals for teens than others. Also, don’t forget to look at smaller regional carriers that may not be as familiar but could still have competitive rates for teens.

• The ConsumerAffairs Datasembly Shopping Cart Index fell nearly 3% year-over-year in June, largely due to a 62% drop in cookie prices, which benefited from falling sugar and chocolate costs.

• Despite the broader decline, prices for staples like whole bean coffee (+14.5%) and organic eggs (+13.5%) continued to rise, along with smaller increases for soda, chips, and milk.

• While several items saw significant price cuts—including salted butter, spring water, tuna, and bread—others remained flat or edged higher, highlighting persistent inflation across parts of the grocery aisle.

After three years of inflation, grocery prices remain high, but a large decline in the price of chocolate pushed the ConsumerAffairs Datasembly Shopping Cart Index lower in June.

The Index is made up of 24 commonly purchased grocery items. Datasembly tracks price changes in real time.

In June, the total cost of the 24 items was $147.50, down from $152 in June 2024. That’s an annual decline of nearly 3%. But one item in the cart was responsible for much of the decline.

In July 2024, a 14.3 oz. package of cookies cost $9.91. Last month, that package of cookies sold for $3.78, a year-over-year decine of nearly 62%. Both sugar and chocolate prices have significantly moderated over the last 12 months. The cost has declined by 41 cents since May.

But prices for several other items have remained stubbornly high:

Top 5 items with the largest price increases

In addition to cookies, prices have declined for salted butter, spring water, canned tuna and honey wheat bread.

June Shopping Cart Index