Nu Holdings stock has pulled back sharply in recent months, falling from a high of $18.95 in January to around $13.43 today. Despite the decline, the long-term growth story remains intact, supported by the company’s expanding customer base, strong presence in Brazil, and continued push into other Latin American markets such as Mexico and Colombia.

Goldman Sachs analysts also remain optimistic about Nu’s outlook, believing the stock has further upside potential in the near term. Their bullish view suggests that the recent pullback may be more of a valuation reset than a deterioration in the company’s underlying fundamentals.

Goldman Sachs is bullish on Nu Holdings

In a recent note, analysts at Goldman Sachs maintained its bullish outlook for the stock. In a note last week, they noted that the company’s entry into the United States may work out in the long term. The note argued that the company was doing so using a low-cost approach, coupled with a good customer care experience, which will help gain some market share in the country. The report added:

“We think NU’s ultra-low-cost digital approach with a strong consumer experience could allow it to successfully enter the market.”

Other analysts are largely bullish on Nu Holdings. For example, Rothschilds and Needham’s analysts set a target of $19, higher than the current $13. Wolfe Research has a target of $17, while UBS and JPMorgan Chase have targets of $18.20 and 20, respectively. 

The most recent results showed that Nu Holdings’ business continued doing well, with its number of users and customers continuing to rise. It added nearly 4 million customers in the second quarter of the year and now has 139 million globally. 

Most of these users are in Brazil, where it has close to 118 million users, a notable figure since Brazil has a population of 213 million people. Nu Holdings has also become a big neobank in Mexico, where it has 15.8 million customers. Its Colombia business has attracted over 5 million users. 

The company is now planning to launch its business in the UK, where it was said to be considering making a bid for Monzo, one of the country’s biggest neobank. It decided to walk away after Monzo insisted on a £10 billion valuation.

Nu Holdings stock price technical analysis

Nu Holdings shares chart | Source: TradingView

The daily chart shows that Nu Holdings shares have dropped by 30% from the all-time high even as its revenue and user growth accelerated. Most recently, the stock formed a down-gap after reports of its Monzo buyout emerged and then filled it after it denied the rumors.

Even so, it remains below the 50-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA), a sign that bears have prevailed. It also sits below the Strong, Pivot, Reverse level of the Murrey Math Lines tool.

Therefore, the stock will likely continue rising as bulls target the important resistance level of $15. This view will be confirmed when it jumps above the Strong Pivot Reverse level of the Murrey Math Lines at $14.

The post Goldman Sachs explains why it is bullish on Nu Holdings stock appeared first on Invezz

The post Goldman Sachs explains why it is bullish on Nu Holdings stock appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.

Senate Democrats are preparing a series of war powers votes aimed at curbing President Donald Trump’s authority to continue military operations against Iran — and forcing the administration to publicly defend its actions.

Several Senate Democrats filed war powers resolutions last week meant to handcuff Trump and his continued conflict in the Middle East. It’s a power play by the group, who say the administration has not shown enough evidence that the U.S. should have struck Iran in the first place, much less continue fighting in the region.

Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., collectively filed five war powers resolutions last week, and they’re joined by Sens. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., and Tim Kaine, D-Va. Kaine has filed resolution after resolution to curb Trump’s war authority since he took office for his second term.

Those resolutions, barring an official slate of hearings with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, could hit the Senate next week and grind down floor time.

‘This Congress should be focused on the biggest military action since the Afghanistan war, and we’re not even holding hearings on that,’ Booker told Fox News Digital. 

Murphy said that the resolutions could hit the Senate floor as soon as next week, and warned that if hearings are set in motion, Democrats would be able to ‘call up a vote every day on war powers and force at least a short debate and vote every day.’

‘There’s no excuse to hide what the administration is doing from the public,’ Murphy said. 

While the group wouldn’t reveal exactly what their gridlock-inducing floor strategy would look like, they contended that the chairs of the Senate Armed Services and Senate Foreign Relations committees had already requested that Rubio and Hegseth testify.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, R-Idaho, wouldn’t say whether he had requested Rubio to appear before his panel but blamed Senate Democrats for helping the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

‘You’ll notice the Democrats are the only entity on this planet who are helping the IRGC,’ Risch told Fox News Digital, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The group argued that Rubio and Hegseth should make the case for the war in Iran to the public and that closed-door, classified briefings on the matter weren’t enough to convince them that the war was necessary.

‘I was absolutely not convinced. In fact, nothing was offered to show me that we were under imminent attack,’ Baldwin said. ‘That we were under imminent attack, or that it was reasonable to believe that we were at risk — and that’s what would trigger the president’s authority to use military force without coming to Congress first.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged that Democrats’ strategy would eat away at floor time but cautioned that ‘we’ll see how the next few days in the conflict go.’

‘I’m sure there’ll be some decisions made around that, but maybe that’ll affect whether or not they try to trigger all those,’ Thune said.

Thune said that ‘there always are’ hearings and noted that the Senate Armed Services Committee would be holding hearings soon on the annual National Defense Authorization Act.

‘So they’re going to have all those folks coming through on a fairly routine basis anyway, and I’m sure this will be a subject of discussion,’ Thune said.

The post Democrats threaten to grind Senate to a halt to force public Iran hearings appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.

. — As Republicans aim to hold their fragile House and Senate majorities in the 2026 midterm elections, they’ve got an ally in the politically potent and deep-pocketed fiscally conservative group Club for Growth.

Framing the midterms, Club for Growth President David McIntosh emphasized in an exclusive Fox News Digital interview on the sidelines of the group’s annual economic conference ‘what’s at stake’ in the midterms.

‘It’s the difference between all the great progress, the jobs, the good economy, turning America around,’ that McIntosh said President Donald Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill have accomplished over the past year, ‘versus letting the socialists back in, they’ll shut it all down.’ 

For a quarter-century, the club has been one of the biggest backers of Republican candidates and causes, as it pushes its pro-growth and limited-government conservative agenda.

McIntosh, in a presentation to major donors to the group, highlighted that the club spent more than $160 million in the GOP primaries and general election during the 2024 election cycle, ‘and won nearly 80%’ of its races.

In 2026, the group aims to raise and spend $175 million in the midterms, and says it’s already brought in $65 million from donors.

The club plans to spend $75 million on Senate races, $55 million on House showdowns, $20 million in ballot box battles for governors, and $20 million — mostly already spent — on issue advocacy in support of Trump’s tax cuts, school choice efforts and the push for congressional redistricting.

‘I think the House is the most vulnerable,’ McIntosh said as he pointed to the GOP’s fragile 218–214 majority. 

‘So we’ve already started raising money for the general. I’ve got a House fund, an ambitious goal of $40 million to help our guys win,’ he added as he spotlighted a fund for vulnerable House Republican incumbents.

As the party in power, Republicans are facing traditional political headwinds which usually result in the loss of congressional seats in the midterms. And Democrats are energized, thanks to a slew of ballot box victories and overperformances in off-year and special elections in the 14 months since Trump returned to the White House, as they stay laser focused on affordability amid persistent inflation.

But the GOP also is dealing with a low propensity midterms issue that it didn’t have to worry about before Trump upended the political order: MAGA voters who don’t always go to the polls when Trump’s name isn’t on the ballot.

‘We’ve got to get the folks who voted for President Trump,’ McIntosh said. ‘They don’t necessarily come out in the midterms. We have to share with them what’s at stake.’ 

‘We’re going to work with President Trump on that so they know he wants them to vote,’ he said. ‘He wants them to come out. He needs them so he can keep going.’

McIntosh said the Club will highlight that ‘Republicans have a plan that will help make things more affordable. It will keep cutting taxes. They will see the benefits.’

‘But the bigger message is going to be, you can’t let the Democrats back in, because they’ll shut everything down,’ he claimed. ‘It’ll be back to the Biden days, high inflation, higher taxes, fewer jobs. That’s what’s at stake, and our job is to tell the voters, we need you to vote because it makes all the difference.’

The economy, and specifically inflation, was a key issue that boosted Trump and Republicans to sweeping victories in 2024. But affordability boosted Democrats at the ballot box in 2025 and so far in 2026. 

And with oil and gas prices surging since the start of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran a week and a half ago, Republicans face more potential political headaches.

But McIntosh predicted that ‘by the end of the year, we’re going to be back to a robust economy because the Trump tax cuts are going to kick in. People will keep more of their money. There’s a huge incentive for companies to build factories back here in America again, and that will kick in. People will say, ‘Yeah, I like the direction we’re going. Things are turned around. We can’t let the Democrats ruin that.’’

Most Democrats obviously disagree with the political narrative coming from the club.

And the Democratic National Committee has long criticized the group for its ‘extreme positions on banning abortion and cutting Social Security and Medicare.’

While the club is ramping up for the general election showdowns, it’s already playing in this year’s GOP primaries.

In the battle for the Senate, the club recently made a major endorsement, backing Rep. Mike Collins of Georgia, who’s involved in an ugly three-way fist fight for the Republican nomination in the race to take on Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in the southeastern swing state.

‘We’re definitely going to be there in Georgia to help Mike Collins win,’ McIntosh pledged.

The club enjoyed a major victory March 3, as the candidate it was backing, Texas state Rep. Steve Toth, toppled high-profile incumbent U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL officer, in the GOP primary for a Houston-area congressional seat.

But in this case, the club kept quiet its efforts to support Toth, as it put its funding in an aligned startup PAC.

McIntosh said he ‘knew if Club for Growth came in guns blazing, then the Washington money would come in to help Crenshaw.’

‘We don’t need the glory. We don’t need to take credit for it,’ McIntosh said. And pointing to Tosh, he added, ‘He did the job, but we were able to bring the funds in that let the voters know what their choice was.’

The post McIntosh: Midterms a choice between Trump’s ‘great progress’ and ‘socialists back in’ appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.

Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., was in college when her father was ‘raking up thousands of dollars of debt’ while battling a crippling gambling addiction she says was brought on by medication to treat his Parkinson’s disease diagnosis.

Now, the Indiana Republican is working to make sure other American families can seek help for their loved ones before facing the same monetary problems.

‘The POINTS Act is about helping people who are struggling with gambling addiction, by utilizing existing excise tax revenue to issue grants to states and jurisdictions, including Indian tribes across the country, for the use of education and training on preventing and treating gambling addiction,’ Houchin told Fox News Digital.

Her bipartisan bill, the Providing Opportunities for Individuals in Need of Treatment and Support (POINTS) Act, is a rare bipartisan initiative in Congress being co-led with Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Ore.

It’s an issue Houchin said she is passionate about, given her own family history — which she said is ‘not unique.’

‘Unfortunately, many families across the country have had similar experiences, if not from Parkinson’s, but from other illnesses and just suffering from addiction in general,’ she said. ‘And it can cripple families and ruin their future if it’s not treated.’

Her own father was 55 when he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s, Houchin said, and the gambling addiction set in soon after.

‘My mom would tell stories that, you know, they often would go out west if they’d take a vacation, and it would be difficult for her to get him through the airport at Las Vegas because of the casino that’s right there as you pass through,’ Houchin said.

She told Fox News Digital that her father’s doctors knew little about why the medication caused his gambling addiction, but suggested it took her family years to financially recover.

‘My mom just let me know that she just paid off a second mortgage, took her about 10 to 15 years to pay it off, around $91,000 of gambling debt that my dad had raked up over the course of his illness after being prescribed this medication,’ Houchin said. ‘So we want other families to have the support system necessary to have the resources to treat gambling addiction.’

Her legislation, which is also backed by Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, and Troy Carter, D-La., would create a first-of-its-kind federal fund dedicated to specifically addressing gambling addiction.

She also pointed out that it would not be funded by any new taxes on Americans.

‘This is existing excise taxes that are going to be distributed in the form of grants for states that adhere to the principles in the POINTS Act, which is providing resources, not just to healthcare professionals, but also for families on how to access gambling addiction treatment,’ Houchin said.

Both she and Salinas also argued the legislation was critical now, given the meteoric rise of sports betting via apps and other easily accessible means.

‘As sports betting and online gambling continue to expand across the country, we have a responsibility to ensure people struggling with addiction are not left behind. Gambling addiction can devastate individuals and families, yet too many communities still lack the resources needed to provide prevention, treatment, and recovery support,’ Salinas told Fox News Digital.

‘The POINTS Act helps close that gap by investing existing gambling excise tax revenue into programs that expand care, raise awareness, and connect people to the help they need.’

The post After her father’s addiction led to a $91K gambling spiral, GOP Rep Erin Houchin pushes addiction reform appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.

The Trump administration, citing Iran, is taking more action against the Muslim Brotherhood—this time in one of the world’s worst conflicts: the civil war in Sudan.

On Monday, the State Department declared the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood (SMB) to be a ‘Designated Global Terrorist and intends to designate the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, effective March 16, 2026.’ The statement also contained a warning to Iran regarding its meddling in the conflict.

‘The SMB has contributed upwards of 20,000 fighters to the war in Sudan, many receiving training and other support from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,’ the statement noted. 

It added, ‘As the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, the Iranian regime has financed and directed malign activities globally through its IRGC. The United States will use all available tools to deprive the Iranian regime and Muslim Brotherhood chapters of the resources to engage in or support terrorism.’

In November, the State Department sanctioned the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, declaring it to be a terrorist organization in those countries.

The organization, the State Department noted, is ‘composed of the Sudanese Islamic Movement and its armed wing – the al-Baraa Bin Malik Brigade (BBMB), (and) uses unrestrained violence against civilians to undermine efforts to resolve the conflict in Sudan and advance its violent Islamist ideology.’

The statement added that the group’s ‘fighters have conducted mass executions of civilians in areas they captured, and repeatedly and summarily executed civilians based on race, ethnicity or perceived affiliation with opposition groups.’

Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told Fox News Digital that the Muslim Brotherhood’s links within the Sudanese government’s Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) are deep and contribute aggressively in the war against the Rapid Support Forces.

Fitton-Brown, a former U.K. ambassador to Yemen, added that the Brotherhood has a ‘strong component’ in the Sudanese regular army.

Adding that the Brotherhood in Sudan has historical links with Osama Bin Laden, responsible with al Qaeda for the 9/11 terrorist attack, Fitton-Brown stated that the State Department’s move is significant. ‘It is the first concrete indication that the November executive order was only the start of a process.’

On the sanctioning of the Brotherhood in several countries in the region, he said, ‘I expect there will be many more, possibly starting with al-Islah in Yemen.’ He said the move ‘puts Sudan under political pressure because it is effectively associating its government with a terrorist entity.’

The effects of the nearly three-year-long civil war on the people of Sudan are dire. Last month, the Council on Foreign Relations’ global conflict tracker stated the ‘death toll estimates vary widely, with the former U.S. envoy for Sudan suggesting as many as 400,000 have been killed since the conflict began on April 15, 2023. More than 11 million have been displaced, giving rise to the worst displacement crisis in the world.

On Monday, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho., posted on X, ‘This is a vital step to curb the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in the region, especially as hardline Islamists seek to reassert themselves. Now, we must also seriously consider the same FTO designation for the genocidal Rapid Support Forces and their terror campaign in Sudan.’

Fitton-Brown said the State Department’s designation against the Brotherhood in Sudan ‘is good because it objectively targets a group of people who have brought untold misery to Sudan over decades. It is not a statement of support for the RSF. It is potentially empowering of democratic forces inside Sudan, although it will not be sufficient to change the way Sudan is governed or end the civil war, without much more proactive external involvement in the country.’

Nicholas Coghlan, a former Canadian diplomat in Khartoum, was not as hopeful, telling Toronto’s Globe and Mail that hardline factions within leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s government alliance ‘will push him now to ignore the U.S. and other potential mediators and go all out,’ adding ‘they have nothing further to lose by holding back.’

The post Iran regime cited as Trump admin set to designate Sudan’s Muslim Brotherhood a terror group appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that Russia ‘should not be involved’ in the escalating conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran, even as analysts point to Russian military activity that aligns with reports Moscow may be aiding Tehran.

‘The president maintains strong relationships with world leaders, which creates opportunities and options for us in very dynamic ways,’ Hegseth said when asked about President Donald Trump’s recent call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

But as it relates to the Middle East conflict, he added, Russia ‘should not be involved.’

The administration’s messaging comes amid reports that Russia has provided information that could help Iran identify U.S. military assets in the Middle East. Moscow has not publicly confirmed the claims. 

Intelligence assessments have reportedly said Russia provided Iran with information that could help identify the locations of American warships, aircraft and other military assets. Officials reportedly stressed there is no public evidence that Moscow is directing Iranian strikes, but said the information could assist Tehran’s targeting efforts.

The scope, timing and operational impact of that information have not been publicly detailed.

While there is no public evidence definitively proving Russia is providing real-time targeting data, George Barros, a Russia expert at the Institute for the Study of War, said open-source indicators are consistent with the type of support described in the reports.

Barros pointed to Russian military reconnaissance satellites, including Cosmos-2550, a radar and electronic signature spacecraft that recently passed over the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea — areas where U.S. forces have been operating.

‘They’re specialized for naval reconnaissance and detecting ships, because the radar signature off the water really pings it quite well,’ Barros said. ‘These are known capabilities of the Russians.’

Such radar systems can detect maritime targets and electronic emissions that reveal force positioning. Barros said those capabilities align with known gaps in Iran’s own space-based intelligence collection.

Although he cautioned that he does not have dispositive proof of real-time targeting support, Barros said the convergence of Russian reconnaissance capabilities, satellite positioning and reported cooperation ‘makes total sense.’

Trump on Monday described his recent conversation with Putin as ‘very good’ and ‘constructive,’ saying the Russian leader ‘wants to be very constructive.’ Trump suggested Moscow could be more helpful by helping bring the war in Ukraine to an end.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, acknowledged over the weekend that Russia is assisting Iran ‘in many different directions’ in its war with the United States and Israel. Pressed on whether that includes intelligence sharing, Araghchi said, ‘They are helping us in many different directions,’ but added, ‘I don’t have any detailed information.’

Beyond intelligence collection, analysts say battlefield patterns suggest tactical cross-pollination between Russia and Iran. 

During the war in Ukraine, Iran supplied Russia with Shahed one-way attack drones, which Moscow deployed extensively against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Over time, Russian forces refined strike packages combining drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles to overwhelm integrated Western air defense systems.

‘The Russians got really, really good at learning how to launch drones against integrated Western air defense systems,’ Barros said.

Those lessons, he said, appear to have informed Iranian strike tactics in the Middle East, where Tehran has launched large-scale combined missile and drone attacks against U.S. and allied targets.

If confirmed, Barros argued, intelligence sharing that materially supports Iranian targeting would amount to Moscow acting as a ‘co-belligerent.’

‘The Russians are coming out with Iran as a co-belligerent,’ he said, adding that the Kremlin has long viewed the United States as a geopolitical adversary.

At the same time, Russia remains constrained in how far it can go. 

Russian ground forces are tied down in Ukraine and are not in a position to deploy to assist Iran. Analysts say any Russian support is far more likely to come in the form of intelligence sharing, technology transfers or drone production rather than boots on the ground.

One potential avenue involves drone manufacturing.

Russia operates large-scale Shahed-derived drone production facilities that were initially enabled by Iranian technology transfers. If Iran’s domestic drone factories are degraded by strikes, Russian production could theoretically help sustain Tehran’s aerial campaign, though there is no confirmed evidence that such transfers are occurring.

Defense officials have publicly downplayed the operational impact of any reported Russian assistance, saying U.S. commanders are tracking foreign intelligence activity and factoring it into planning.

The contrast between Trump’s characterization of Putin as ‘constructive’ and Hegseth’s warning that Russia should stay out of the conflict underscores the delicate balance the administration is attempting to strike — pursuing diplomacy in Ukraine while confronting the possibility of deeper cooperation between Moscow and Tehran in the Middle East.

For now, analysts say the evidence stops short of conclusive proof. But the alignment of Russian reconnaissance capabilities, battlefield tactics refined in Ukraine and Tehran’s own acknowledgment of assistance has intensified scrutiny of Moscow’s role as the regional war unfolds.

Russia has not publicly responded to the allegation of intelligence sharing with Iran, but has broadly called for de-escalation of the conflict. 

The Russian embassy could not immediately be reached for comment.

The post Hegseth warns Russia as signs point to Moscow sharing intel with Iran  appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.

A week and a half into the U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran, the latest national public opinion poll indicates that more than half of American voters oppose U.S. military action.

But the survey from Quinnipiac University in Connecticut is the latest to indicate a wide partisan divide when it comes to support for the U.S. military operation, known as Epic Fury, which has resulted in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the decimation of the country’s military.

Fifty-three percent of voters questioned in the poll, which was conducted Friday through Sunday, said they oppose the U.S. military action against Iran, which was ordered by President Donald Trump, with 40% supporting the operation.

The Quinnipiac poll joins other recent surveys from NPR/PBS/Marist (44%–55%), CBS News (44%–56%), NBC News (41%–54%), Washington Post (39%–52%), CNN (41%–59%), and Reuters/Ipsos (27%–43%), in indicating minority support for U.S. military action.

But the latest Fox News poll, conducted Feb. 28–March 2, showed Americans split at 50% in their support or opposition to the fighting.

And three other national polls conducted over the past week and a half indicated majority or plurality support for the operation.

The surveys highlight the divergence between Democrats and Republicans over the fighting.

More than 8 in 10 Republicans surveyed by Fox News said they approved of the U.S. use of force against Iran, with 6 in 10 saying the president’s actions on Iran are making the U.S. safer. 

But nearly 8 in 10 Democrats and 6 in 10 independents disapproved of the U.S. strikes and said things are less safe because of Trump’s performance.

The vast majority of Democrats surveyed by Quinnipiac University, as well as 6-in-10 independents, said they opposed the strikes on Iran, with 85% of Republicans supporting the military action.

A majority (55%) questioned by Quinnipiac said they didn’t think Iran posed an imminent military threat to the U.S. before the attacks, with nearly four in ten disagreeing. 

Again, there was a partisan divide, with 83% of Democrats and 63% of independents saying Iran didn’t pose an imminent threat, while nearly three quarters of Republicans said Tehran did pose an imminent threat.

But there was no partisan gap when it came to the possibility of sending U.S. ground troops into Iran.

Nearly three quarters of voters opposed sending U.S. ground troops into Iran, including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents and 52% of Republicans.

Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have repeatedly not ruled out using ground troops in Iran.

Asked how long the fighting between the U.S. and Iran, which has retaliated with strikes against Israel and other nations in the volatile Middle East, will last, just 3% of Quinnipiac pollees said days, 18% offered weeks, 32% guessed months, 13% thought the attacks could last a year, and just over a quarter said more than a year.

‘Very soon,’ Trump said at a news conference Monday, when asked when the strikes would end. ‘Look, everything they have is gone, including their leadership.’

And the president described the operation as an ‘excursion.’

Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Peter Malloy noted that ‘perhaps compelled by memories of long wars, Americans see no early end to the enormous upheaval in the Middle East.’

Trump recently dismissed the polling on Iran, telling the New York Post March 2: ‘I don’t care about polling. I have to do the right thing. I have to do the right thing. This should have been done a long time ago.’

Trump’s overall approval rating stood at 37% in the Quinnipiac poll, with 57% giving the president a thumbs down on the job he’s doing in the White House.

The president stood at 43% approval in the Fox News poll, and at 44% in the NBC News survey. An average of the latest national surveys that gauged the president’s performance put Trump at 43% approval and 54% disapproval.

The post Where American support for Trump’s Iran strikes stand as new polls roll in appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.

Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh had a dispute over the high court’s approach to its emergency docket in a rare, candid discussion during an event Monday night.

Jackson, a Biden appointee, signaled that the high court’s willingness to side with President Donald Trump most of the time when it comes to the emergency docket, sometimes known as the ‘shadow docket,’ was a ‘problem.’ The liberal justice is one of three, and all have frequently sided against Trump in emergency decisions, which have often broken 6-3 in favor of the president.

‘The administration is making new policy … and then insisting the new policy take effect immediately, before the challenge is decided,’ Jackson said, according to reports from The Associated Press and NBC News. ‘This uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved in cases on the emergency docket is a real unfortunate problem.’

Jackson said: ‘It’s not serving the court or this country well.’

Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, countered that the Supreme Court’s approach to emergency requests was not unique to the Trump administration and that the high court handled the Biden administration the same way despite there being fewer interim requests under the former president.

Kavanaugh said presidents ‘push the envelope’ more with executive orders because Congress is passing less legislation.

‘Some are lawful, some are not,’ Kavanaugh said, later adding, ‘None of us enjoy this.’

The pair spoke in a courtroom during an annual lecture honoring the late Judge Thomas Flannery of the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., while several federal judges, including high-profile ones like Judge James Boasberg, looked on.

Jackson’s criticism is not new; she has been perhaps the most vocal dissenter in emergency docket cases.

In August, she lambasted the Supreme Court majority for ‘lawmaking’ from the bench in a dissent to an emergency decision to temporarily allow the National Institutes of Health’s cancellation of about $738 million in grant money.

‘This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,’ Jackson wrote.

The Trump administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits and adverse rulings in the lower courts, and the Department of Justice’s solicitor general’s office, which represents the government before the Supreme Court, often does not elevate cases to that level.

Such emergency requests allow the government to bypass the lengthy court process, involving extensive briefings and oral arguments, to seek immediate relief in the face of restraining orders and injunctions in the lower courts.

The Trump administration has brought about 30 emergency applications to the Supreme Court and secured victories about 80% of the time, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Through the emergency docket, the Supreme Court has greenlit Trump’s mass firings and curtailed nationwide injunctions. The high court has also cleared the way for deportations and immigration stops viewed as controversial by critics of the administration. The justices have also found that the government can, for now, discharge transgender service members from the military.

But Trump has not won out all the time by taking this route. The justices required the administration to give more notice to alleged illegal immigrants being deported under the Alien Enemies Act and agreed with a lower court that the president improperly federalized the National Guard as part of his immigration crackdown in Chicago.

The post Jackson-Kavanaugh tensions surface in candid exchange over Supreme Court ‘shadow docket’ appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.

President Donald Trump, who rode promises of affordability back to the White House, is now confronting Iran-driven volatility that’s undermining that message as fuel costs rise nationwide — and putting fresh pressure on Republicans heading into the midterms.

With the Iran conflict rattling oil markets and raising fears of supply disruptions, gas prices are climbing again, squeezing Americans already worn down by inflation.

This week, oil prices surged past $100 a barrel for the first time since 2022 as fallout from the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran continued to roil global markets and investors priced in the risk of tighter supply. 

With oil higher, gasoline and diesel prices are rising fast.

The national average gas price climbed to $3.53 per gallon, up 59 cents over the past week, according to GasBuddy. Diesel prices also jumped, with the national average up 97 cents to $4.72 per gallon.

With control of Congress at stake, uneven gas price spikes are becoming a new midterm flashpoint, especially in hard-hit battleground states. 

The steepest week-over-week increases were in Indiana (up 58 cents), Florida (up 57 cents), Michigan (up 55 cents), Ohio (up 54 cents), and California (up 51 cents).

The lowest average prices were in Kansas ($2.90), Oklahoma ($2.95) and Arkansas ($2.98), while the highest were in California ($5.14), Washington ($4.58), and Hawaii ($4.33) — a regional divide that could sharpen midterm attacks over energy costs and inflation.

That kind of pocketbook pressure is exactly what Democrats have been eager to exploit. Last fall, Democrats leaned heavily on affordability themes in state and local elections, and it paid off.

In places like Virginia, New York and New Jersey, where voters have been squeezed by high housing costs and utility bills, Democratic candidates seized on Trump’s early economic moves, including his trade policy, to argue that his policies were worsening the affordability crisis rather than easing it.

They promised to rein in energy costs, expand affordable housing and protect middle-class wages, a message that resonated with voters.

With the ongoing conflict driving gasoline prices higher, the White House is weighing steps to protect shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and keep prices from climbing further. That waterway is critical to global energy supply.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage between Iran and Oman, carries roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day and about one-fifth of the global supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG). 

When conflict flares in the region, even the threat of disruption can rattle markets because so much of the world’s energy moves through that single corridor.

Asked about the risk of disruptions, Trump said Monday evening he would keep the route open and threatened retaliation if Iran tried to interfere.

‘I will not allow a terrorist regime to hold the world hostage and attempt to stop the globe’s oil supply. And if Iran does anything to do that, they’ll get hit at a much, much harder level,’ Trump said during a press conference in Florida.

‘In the long run, oil supplies will be dramatically more secure without the threat of Iranian ships, drones, missiles,’ he added.

The post Gas prices surge, pinching Americans and handing the GOP a new midterm headache appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.

Inflation looks better than it did a month ago, but not because it improved much in August. Revisions from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) lowered estimates of recent inflation without materially changing the rapid growth in overall spending, which is still rising too quickly for inflation to return to the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target. In short, the Fed still has work to do.

The Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (PCEPI), the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation, rose 0.3 percent in August, according to new data from the BEA, up from 0.1 percent in July. The index has risen at an annualized rate of 3.6 percent over the last six months and is 3.4 percent higher than a year ago, unchanged from July’s rate.

Core PCEPI, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, increased 0.2 percent in August, up from 0.1 percent in July. It has risen at an annualized rate of 2.7 percent over the last six months and is 3.0 percent higher than a year ago, also unchanged from July.

In August, the BEA reported that prices had risen 3.7 percent between July 2025 and July 2026. After this week’s annual update of the national accounts, the BEA now estimates that prices rose just 3.4 percent over the same period. The apparent improvement therefore reflects revisions to earlier data, not a decline in the year-over-year inflation rate in August. The revisions reflect more than the BEA’s regular updating of recent estimates. The annual update incorporated newly available and revised source data, improved estimation methods, and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Among other changes, the BEA revised how it measures prices for portfolio-management services, legal services, and computer software.

As the chart below shows, the old and revised figures track each other closely through 2025 before beginning to diverge this spring. The BEA now estimates that inflation reached 3.8 percent in May, rather than the 4.1 percent reported last month, and that core inflation was 3.0 percent in July, rather than 3.3 percent. On the revised data, both headline and core inflation were unchanged in August.

The revisions lowered the level of recent inflation. They did not change its trend. Even on the revised data, prices are rising faster than they were a year ago, when the inflation rate was 2.7 percent. Over the past three years, both headline and core prices have risen at an average annual rate of about 2.9 percent, above the Fed’s 2-percent target. That trend is why the Fed raised its target range for the federal funds rate by a quarter point, to 3.75 to 4 percent, at its September meeting. “Inflation remains elevated,” the committee’s statement said, and the increase “will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2-percent goal.”

The trend that matters most for where inflation is headed is in total spending. Nominal spending, the dollar value of all final goods and services produced in the economy, grew 6.3 percent over the year ending in the second quarter, according to the third estimate the BEA released on Wednesday. That is slightly below the 6.6 percent previously reported, but the revision does little to change the underlying trend. Nominal spending growth has exceeded 4 percent in every year-over-year comparison since early 2021, and has averaged about 5.8 percent annually over the past three years. More importantly, it has accelerated recently, rising from 4.8 percent in the year ending in the second quarter of 2025 to 6.3 percent over the latest year.

Nominal spending cannot consistently outpace the economy’s productive capacity without ultimately leading to higher inflation. The Fed’s latest Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) puts longer-run real output growth at 2 percent per year. Add the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target, and nominal spending should grow about 4 percent per year over the longer run. Instead, nominal spending has grown 6.3 percent over the past year, more than 2 percentage points above that benchmark. At that pace, nominal spending is rising too fast for inflation to return to 2 percent, which means monetary policy remains too loose.

There has been progress. Core inflation has risen at an annualized rate of 2.7 percent over the last six months, down from 3.9 percent over the six months ending in May. And because monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, the full effects of the Fed’s September rate increase have yet to appear in the inflation data. But with spending growing this fast, inflation is unlikely to return to 2 percent without further rate hikes.

That rapid rise in nominal spending should shape the Fed’s next move at its October 27–28 meeting. But markets read the report differently: the downward revisions to recent inflation likely reduced the perceived need for further tightening, contributing to a decline in the odds of an October rate increase. Those revisions do little to change the case for tighter policy. Measured inflation fell by a few tenths of a percentage point, but the trend in nominal spending did not change. 

December’s meeting will bring the Fed’s first Summary of Economic Projections incorporating the BEA’s revised inflation and spending data. In September, 16 of 18 participants projected at least one more increase this year, and four projected two. Lower inflation figures should not lead them to scale back while overall spending in the economy is still running this hot. 

Unfortunately, the BEA releases third-quarter GDP the day after the Fed’s October meeting ends. If it shows nominal spending still growing well above 4 percent over the past year, monetary policy is likely still too loose. Until that gap closes, the Fed’s inflation fight is anything but over.

The post Revised Inflation Data Don’t Change the Fed’s Job appeared first on Girls Rock Investing.