From Hollywood to Big Tech, major industries across the U.S. are increasingly going all-in on AI workflow tools, and theyre expecting employees to follow suit. Late last month, Business Insider reported that Microsoft has started evaluating some employees on their AI fluency, factoring their competency with AI tools into metrics like performance reviews. But in spite of the growing workplace incentive to adopt AI tools, some employees are actively resisting AI uptakeand their reasons make more sense than you might think.
According to a new study conducted by a team of researchers at Peking University and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, an emerging phenomenon is actively deterring employees from picking up AI tools, even at companies where doing so is strongly encouraged.
Dubbed the competence penalty, this bias leads to AI users being seen as less competent by their peersregardless of actual performance. Its a perception gap thats especially damaging for women in technical roles.
The background
The researchers study was conducted at an unnamed leading tech company. In an article written for the Harvard Business Review (HBR), the studys authors explain that this company had previously rolled out a state-of-the-art AI coding assistant to its developers, which was promised to boost productivity significantly. Still, 12 months later, only 41% of the nearly 30,000 surveyed engineers had even tried the coding assistant.
Adoption also varied based on employees identities. Just 39% of engineers 40 and older were using the tool, alongside a meager 31% of female engineers. Thats not for lack of trying on the companys part, either: Rather than throwing their employees into the AI deep end without guidance (a prevalent issue as AI workflow tools become more common), this company offered dedicated AI teams, adoption incentives, and free training.
So, researchers set out to understand what was going wrong.
The competence penalty
To get to the bottom of this lackluster adoption pattern, the studys authors established an experiment with 1,026 engineers from the same company. The engineers were given a snippet of Python code to evaluate. While the code was the exact same for every participant, each was told that it was created under different conditionsincluding with or without AI and by a male or female engineer.
The results showed that, when participants believed a fellow engineer had used AI to write their code, they rated that engineers competence 9% lower on average. The competence penaltys severity was also dependent on the reported gender of the engineer. If they were described as male, there was only a 6% competence reduction, compared to 13% for those described as female.
Further, the reviewers own identity and stance on AI had an impact on how they rated others. Engineers who hadnt adopted AI themselves were most critical of AI-users, and male non-adopters penalized female AI-users 26% more harshly than their male AI-using counterparts.
Through a follow-up study of 919 engineers, the researchers found that many employees were actually innately aware of this competence penalty, and were avoiding AI usage as a result.
Those who most feared competence penalties in the tech industrydisproportionately women and older engineerswere precisely those who adopted AI least, the studys authors write. The very groups who might benefit most from productivity-enhancing tools felt they couldnt afford to use them.
Women often face extra scrutiny
The studys findings offer a strong counterpoint to the oft-repeated sentiment that AI tools might even the proverbial playing field at work, presenting a one-size-fits-all solution by making everyone more productive.
Our results suggest that this is not guaranteed and in fact the opposite could be true, the authors write. In our context, which is dominated by young males, making AI equally available increased bias against female engineers.
These results could help explain patterns that have already been observed in AI uptake. According to recent research conducted by Harvard Business School associate professor Rembrand Koning, women are adopting AI tools at a 25% lower rate than men, on average.
In an article for Fast Company earlier this month, Kamales Lardi, author of the book Artificial Intelligence For Business, noted that, In my experience, women often face extra scrutiny over their skills, capabilities, and technical prowess. There may be a deep-rooted concern that leveraging AI tools may be perceived as cutting corners or reflect poorly on the users skill level.
How leaders should prepare for the competence penalty
Companies like the one in the study shouldn’t give up on implementing new AI tools, especially given that agentic AI is predicted to play a huge role in the future of work. Instead, leaders should use this data to put more AI adoption guardrails in place. In their analysis for HBR, the studys authors offer several main steps for managers to consider:
Map your organizations penalty hotspots. Leaders should focus on identifying teams where the AI competence penalty might be highest, including those with more women and older engineers reporting to male non-adopters. Monitoring these teams might help to understand where and how the competence penalty is playing out.
Convert the influential skeptics. Because non-dopters are the harshest critics of AI users, influential skeptics can have a major impact on the whole team. The studys authors suggest that breaking this cycle requires the skeptics to see respected colleagues successfully using AI without professional consequence.
Redesign evaluations to remove the signal. Based on the study’s results, flagging a product as made with AI can negatively impact performance reviews. The solution is straightforward: Stop signalling AI use in performance evaluations until your culture is ready, the authors write.
The U.S. could require bonds of up to $15,000 for some tourist and business visas under a pilot program launching in two weeks, a government notice said on Monday, an effort that aims to crack down on visitors who overstay their visas.
The program gives U.S. consular officers the discretion to impose bonds on visitors from countries with high rates of visa overstays, according to a Federal Register notice. Bonds could also be applied to people coming from countries where screening and vetting information is deemed insufficient, the notice said.
President Donald Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration a focus of his presidency, boosting resources to secure the border and arresting people in the U.S. illegally.
He issued a travel ban in June that fully or partially blocks citizens of 19 nations from entering the U.S. on national security grounds.
Trump’s immigration policies have led some visitors to skip travel to the United States. Transatlantic airfares dropped to rates last seen before the COVID-19 pandemic in May and travel from Canada and Mexico to the U.S. fell by 20% year-over-year.
Effective August 20, the new visa program will last for approximately a year, the government notice said. Consular officers will have three options for visa applicants subjected to the bonds: $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000, but will generally be expected to require at least $10,000, it said.
A similar pilot program was launched in November 2020 during the last months of Trump’s first term in office, but it was not fully implemented due to the drop in global travel associated with the pandemic, the notice said.
The State Department was unable to estimate the number of visa applicants who could be affected by the change. Many of the countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban also have high rates of visa overstays, including Chad, Eritrea, Haiti, Myanmar and Yemen.
Numerous countries in Africa, including Burundi, Djibouti and Togo also had high overstay rates, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data from fiscal year 2023.
Ted Hesson, Reuters
U.S. stocks are rallying and recovering much of their sharp losses from last week, when worries about how President Donald Trumps tariffs may be punishing the economy sent a shudder through Wall Street.
The S&P 500 jumped 1.4% in afternoon trading to claw back more than two thirds of Fridays drop. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 558 points, or 1.3%, as of 1:11 p.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 1.8% higher.
Idexx Laboratories helped lead the way and soared 26.2% after the seller of veterinary instruments and other health care products reported a stronger profit for the spring than analysts expected. It also raised its forecast for profit over the full year.
Tyson Foods likewise delivered a bigger-than-expected profit for the latest quarter, and the company behind the Jimmy Dean and Hillshire Farms brands climbed 4.3%.
They helped offset a 3% drop for Berkshire Hathaway after Warren Buffetts company reported a drop in profit for its second quarter from a year earlier. The weakening was due in part to the falling value of its investment in Kraft Heinz.
The pressure is on U.S. companies to deliver bigger profits after their stock prices shot to record after record recently. The jump in stock prices from a low point in April raised criticism that the broad market had become too expensive.
Stocks just sank to their worst week since May, not so much on that criticism but on worries that Trumps tariffs may be hitting the U.S. economy following a longer wait than some economists had expected. Job growth slowed sharply last month, and the unemployment rate worsened to 4.2%.
Trump reacted to the disappointing jobs numbers by firing the person in charge of compiling them. He also continued his criticism of the Federal Reserve, which could lower interest rates in order to shoot adrenaline into the economy. The Fed has instead been keeping rates on pause this year, in part because lower rates can send inflation higher, and Trumps tariffs may be set to increase prices for U.S. households.
Fridays stunningly weak jobs report did raise expectations on Wall Street that the Fed will cut interest rates at its next meeting in September. That caused Treasury yields to slump in the bond market, and they were mixed on Monday.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury eased a bit to 4.20% from 4.23% late Friday.
The two-year yield, which moves more closely with expectations for Fed action, rose to 3.70% from 3.69% late Friday.
In our view, if the Fed starts to cut rates at its September meeting, we believe this would be supportive for markets, according to David Lefkowitz, head of US equities at UBS Global Wealth Management.
Such hopes, combined with profit reports from big U.S. companies that have largely come in better than expected, could help steady a U.S. stock market that may have been due for some turbulence. Before Friday, the S&P had gone more than a month without a daily swing of 1%, either up or down.
This upcoming week may feature fewer fireworks on Wall Street following last weeks jobs report and profit updates from some of the U.S. stock markets most influential companies. This week’s highlights will likely include earnings reports from The Walt Disney Co., McDonalds and Caterpillar, along with updates on U.S. business activity.
On Wall Street, Wayfair jumped 11% after the retailer of furniture and home decor said accelerating growth helped it make more in profit and revenue during the spring than analysts expected.
Tesla rose 1.6% after awarding CEO Elon Musk 96 million shares of restricted stock valued at approximately $29 billion. The move, coming six months after a judge ordered the company to revoke his massive pay package, could remove potential worries that Musk may leave the company.
CommScope soared 90% after reporting a stronger-than-expected quarterly profit and saying that it will sell its connectivity and cable business to Amphenol for $10.5 billion in cash. Amphenol rose 3.1%
They helped offset a drop of 11.6% for On Semiconductor, which only matched analysts expectations for profit in the latest quarter. The company, which sells to the auto and industrial industries, said its beginning to see signs of stabilization across its customers.
Boeing was mostly unchanged after workers who build fighter jets for the troubled aerospace giant went on strike overnight.
In stock markets abroad, indexes rose across much of Europe and Asia.
South Koreas Kospi rose 0.9%, and Frances CAC 40 climbed 1.1%, while Japans Nikkei 225 was an outlier with a drop of 1.2%.
___
This version has been corrected to say that the U.S. stock market had its worst week last week since May, not April.
Stan Choe, AP business writer
AP Business Writers Matt Ott and Elaine Kurtenbach contributed.
Furniture maker Steelcase is being acquired by HNI Corporation in a $2.2 billion deal that shows the upside to office furniture at a time when return-to-office remains on the rise.
HNI Corporation, which manufactures workplace furnishings and residential building products like fireplaces, announced the acquisition with Steelcase Monday. The companies cited their complementary geographic footprints, dealer networks, and skillsets as the deal’s benefits and said they estimate an annual revenue of about $5.8 billion should shareholders agree and the transaction close by the end of 2025.
“This is a historic moment for Steelcase as we embark on the first step of a transformative combination that will unlock new possibilities for our customers, dealers, and employees alike,” Steelcase president and CEO Sara Armbruster wrote in a letter to employees obtained by Fast Company. “Together, we will be positioned to redefine what’s possible in the world of work, workers, and workplaces.”
Armbruster said Steelcase would maintain its Grand Rapids, Michigan, headquarters and continue to operate as Steelcase with its brand and business strategy following the close of the deal, but that HNI chairman, president, and CEO Jeffrey Lorenger would lead the combined company.
RTO growth
Steelcase has rebounded from pandemic lockdowns with 12 consecutive quarters of year-over-year gross margin growth, including 7.11% year-over-year growth in the most recent quarter for a reported $779 million in quarterly revenue, according to PitchBook data.
As firms instituted return-to-office (RTO) policies in the years since lockdowns, Steelcase’s office chairs, work stations, lockers, and phone booths have been in high demand. As recently as last year, RTO was still picking up steam, and fast. The percentage of employees who work “mostly in person” rose from 34% to 68% between 2023 to 2024, while the share of employees who work “mostly remote” has dropped from 44% to 17% in the same time period, according to McKinsey & Company.
Steelcase, which did not respond to a request for comment, reported strong order growth from financial services companies and large technology companies on its most recent earnings call. Armbruster noted on the call healthcare was an area of growth and said Steelcase’s work in the education space was “well-positioned” but threatened by federal policy targeting education.
When Susana Pacheco accepted a housekeeping job at a casino on the Las Vegas Strip 16 years ago, she believed it was a step toward stability for her and her 2-year-old daughter.But the single mom found herself exhausted, falling behind on bills and without access to stable health insurance, caught in a cycle of low pay and little support. For years, she said, there was no safety net in sight until now.For 25 years, her employer, the Venetian, had resisted organizing efforts as one of the last holdouts on the Strip, locked in a prolonged standoff with the Culinary Workers Union. But a recent change in ownership opened the Venetian’s doors to union representation just as the Strip’s newest casino, the Fontainebleau, was also inking its first labor contract.The historic deals finalized late last year mark a major turning point: For the first time in the Culinary Union’s 90-year history, all major casinos on the Strip are unionized. Backed by 60,000 members, most of them in Las Vegas, it is the largest labor union in Nevada. Experts say the Culinary Union’s success is a notable exception in a national landscape where union membership overall is declining.“Together, we’ve shown that change can be a positive force, and I’m confident that this partnership will continue to benefit us all in the years to come,” Patrick Nichols, president and CEO of the Venetian, said shortly after workers approved the deal.Pacheco says their new contract has already reshaped her day-to-day life. The housekeeper no longer races against the clock to clean an unmanageable number of hotel suites, and she’s spending more quality time with her children because of the better pay and guaranteed days off.“Now with the union, we have a voice,” Pacheco said.
Union strength is fading nationally
These gains come at a time when union membership nationally is at an all-time low, and despite Republican-led efforts over the years to curb union power. About 10% of U.S. workers belonged to a union in 2024, down from 20% in 1983, the first year for which data is available, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics.President Donald Trump in March signed an executive order seeking to end collective bargaining for certain federal employees that led to union leaders suing the administration. Nevada and more than two dozen other states now have so-called “right to work” laws that let workers opt out of union membership and dues. GOP lawmakers have also supported changes to the National Labor Relations Board and other regulatory bodies, seeking to reduce what they view as overly burdensome rules on businesses.Ruben Garcia, professor and director of the workplace program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas law school, said the Culinary Union’s resilience stems from its deep roots in Las Vegas, its ability to adapt to the growth and corporatization of the casino industry, and its long history of navigating complex power dynamics with casino owners and operators.He said the consolidation of casinos on the Las Vegas Strip mirrors the dominance of the Big Three automakers in Detroit. A few powerful companies MGM Resorts International, Caesars Entertainment and Wynn Resorts now control most of the dozens of casinos along Las Vegas Boulevard.“That consolidation can make things harder for workers in some ways, but it also gives unions one large target,” Garcia said.That dynamic worked in the union’s favor in 2023, when the threat of a major strike by 35,000 hospitality workers with expired contracts loomed over the Strip. But a last-minute deal with Caesars narrowly averted the walkout, and it triggered a domino effect across the Strip, with the union quickly finalizing similar deals for workers at MGM Resorts and Wynn properties.The latest contracts secured a historic 32% bump in pay over the life of the five-year contract. Union casino workers will earn an average $35 hourly, including benefits, by the end of it.The union’s influence also extends far beyond the casino floor. With its ability to mobilize thousands of its members for canvassing and voter outreach, the union’s endorsements are highly coveted, particularly among Democrats, and can signal who has the best shot at winning working-class votes.
The union has and still faces resistance
The union’s path hasn’t always been smooth though. Michael Green, a history professor at UNLV, noted the Culinary Union has long faced resistance.“Historically, there have always been people who are anti-union,” Green said.Earlier this year, two food service workers in Las Vegas filed federal complaints with the National Labor Relations Board, accusing the union of deducting dues despite their objections to union membership. It varies at each casino, but between 95 to 98% of workers opt in to union membership, according to the union.“I don’t think Culinary Union bosses deserve my support,” said one of the workers, Renee Guerrero, who works at T-Mobile Arena on the Strip. “Their actions since I attempted to exercise my right to stop dues payments only confirms my decision.”But longtime union members like Paul Anthony see things differently. Anthony, a food server at the Bellagio and a Culinary member for nearly 40 years, said his union benefits free family health insurance, reliable pay raises, job security and a pension helped him to build a lasting career in the hospitality industry.“A lot of times it is an industry that doesn’t have longevity,” he said. But on the Strip, it’s a job that people can do for “20 years, 30 years, 40 years.”Ted Pappageorge, the union’s secretary-treasurer and lead negotiator, said the union calls this the “Las Vegas dream.”“It’s always been our goal to make sure that this town is a union town,” he said.
Rio Yamat, Associated Press
At a recent JPMorgan Chase employee town hall meeting, one brave soul brought up a petition pushing back against the firms decision to force workers to return to the office five days a week.
“Don’t waste time on it. I don’t care how many people sign that f-ing petition,” CEO Jamie Dimon responded.
Dimons language might be particularly salty, but his sentiment is common among CEOs of tech and financial firms. Amazon, Disney, Google. One after another, theyve ordered employees to return to full-time, in-office work over the last few years.
Which means a whole lot of workers are grumpily packing their laptop bags and digging their hard pants out from the bottom of the closet, right?
You could be forgiven for thinking that return-to-office mandates mean tons of employees are returning to offices. But recent data suggests that a whole lot of people are responding to RTO mandates differently. Theyre ignoring them.
Bosses crack down on remote work
Employees defying bosses various schemes and requirements to get them back in the office is nothing new. A Stanford study back in 2022 found that half of workers asked to go back to the office full-time reported they were simply ignoring the request.
Since the pandemic, Reddit and other forums have been full of outraged employees calling their bosses various profane and unpleasant things for suggesting they give up their remote setups.
But these are different times. Many companies are pursuing increased efficiency, including through large-scale layoffs. Like Dimon, bosses seem all too happy to let go of any employee who might defy their RTO orders.
Which might make you think that employees are finally, begrudgingly heeding the back-to-the-office call. Not so, according to Nick Bloom, the Stanford economist behind the 2022 study and a long-time leader in research into hybrid and remote work.
Employees are still ignoring RTO orders
In 2023, Bloom shared real estate and transit data suggesting that most businesses were settling at three days in the office and two at home. The return-to-office push seems to have died, he tweeted. The RTO wars were over. Hybrid won.”
The rhetoric from bosses may have heated up since then, but according to Blooms latest data, the numbers havent really budged.
While policy requirements for office attendance have jumped 10% since early 2024, actual attendance has barely moved, increasing less than 2% during the same time period, reports Time.
The Dimons of the world may be noisy, but 67% of firms still maintain a hybrid policy (and that rises to 70% in companies with less than 500 employees). Even those who have a five-day-a-week attendance policy on paper seem to be hybrid set-ups in practice.
According to Occuspace CEO Nic Halverson, whose workplace occupancy sensor technology is deployed across Fortune 500 companies, many firms mandating five days in office see almost the same rate of utilization as those with more flexible policies, the Time report adds.
Learn to lead remotely
Entrepreneurs can take these numbers a few different ways. A few Dimon-style diehards may vow to continue the fight to the bitter end. But others, I suspect, will see an opportunity to scoop up top talent frustrated with bigger companies constant RTO hectoring.
While data suggests hybrid work is holding steady overall, job openings advertised as remote or hybrid are down. Indeed shows a decline to 7.8% of jobs from 10% in 2022, while LinkedIn saw a fall from 26% to 21%. If you put your openness to remote arrangements in a job ad, you are likely to be deluged with candidates seeking flexibility.
The other potential takeaway here is that, reluctantly or not, bosses need to finally learn to manage remote work. One 2024 survey of business leaders found a shocking 75% said their firms were still terrible at remote work. Other polls find remote employees waste vast amounts of time reassuring and performing busyness for anxious managers.
You can try to browbeat and threaten your team into coming in five days a week, but the latest data suggests you probably wont have anything close to perfect success. That makes adapting for our new world of remote work and shifting how you lead a logical choice.
Bloom and other experts have tips for making this transition, including setting communication norms and core office hours for hybrid teams and avoiding mixed messages from leadership. Read more about them here.
By Jessica Stillman
This article originally appeared on Fast Company’s sister publication, Inc.
Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
Marvel’s first family stumbled in theaters in its second weekend, but still held on to the top spot at the box office.
The Fantastic Four: First Steps earned $40 million from 4,125 North American theaters, a 66% drop from a healthy $117.6 million debut. The film was accompanied by comedies The Bad Guys 2 and The Naked Gun” in the top three box office rankings.
The superhero movie dipped significantly more than Marvel’s previous film, Thunderbolts, which took a 55% dive in its second weekend.
First Steps is the last major blockbuster of the summer. It added nearly $40 million internationally in its second weekend, bringing the film’s global total to $369 million. The movie’s box office drop off was surprising given its strong reviews, said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst for the data firm Comscore.
Though the movies debut weekend may have given box office results a strong push toward the $4 billion summer benchmark, August is off to a slow start, he said.
It’s a tough lift, but we might be able to get there. It really means that all the films are gonna have to stand on their own, Dergarabedian said. Its gonna be about getting great reviews, having that staying power, that longevity in the marketplace.
Newcomer comedy The Bad Guys 2 earned second place at the box office this weekend, with $22 million from 3,852 North American theaters. That was on par with projections and also in line with the first movie in the series, which brought in $23 million in 2022. Paramounts slapstick comedy, The Naked Gun, also in its debut weekend, snagged the third box office spot, earning $17 million from 3,344 locations.
Jim Orr, president of domestic distribution for Universal Pictures, said the solid debut for The Bad Guys 2, coupled with strong audience reaction scores, should point to a very long, very successful run through not only the rest of the summer, but really, I think into the fall.”
James Gunn’s Superman, which opened four weekends ago and already crossed $550 million globally, earned $13.8 million domestically this weekend, taking the fourth spot. Jurassic World Rebirth followed with $8.7 million.
The horror movie Together had a strong debut weekend, coming in at sixth place and earning $6.8 million domestically, proof that August is a month for edgier and off-beat films, Dergarabedian said.
Thats what this month is about. Its not just about box office,” Dergarabedian said. “Its also about providing really interesting, rewarding movie-going experiences for audiences.
Dergarabedian said he expects highly-anticipated movies hitting theaters in the next few weeks including Freakier Friday, and Zach Creggers horror movie Weapons to give August a needed boost.
The box office is currently up 9.5% from last year.
Top 10 movies by domestic box office
With final domestic figures being released Monday, this list factors in the estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Comscore:
1. The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” $40 million.
2. The Bad Guys 2, $22.2 million.
3. The Naked Gun, $17 million.
4. Superman, $13.8 million.
5. Jurassic World Rebirth, $8.7 million.
6. Together, $6.8 million.
7. F1: The Movie, $4.1 million.
8. I Know What You Did Last Summer, $2.7 million.
9. Smurfs, $1.8 million.
10. How to Train Your Dragon, $1.4 million.
Itzel Luna, Associated Press
A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump‘s argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs.
Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called “America’s big case,” and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead.
What is the case about?
The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.
It centers around Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA.
A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes.
A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday.
Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes.
What’s the status of the litigation?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump’s use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench.
The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court’s ruling declaring them illegal.
Will Trump’s tariffs be blocked if he loses in court?
A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an “administrative stay” that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit’s decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief.
Is the Supreme Court likely to step in?
The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump’s tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case.
If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6.
The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly.
How might the Supreme Court rule?
There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do.
Critics of Trump’s tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court’s decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of “vast economic and political significance” except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action.
The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs.
Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid?
If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims.
Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade.
There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted.
Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff “stacking” where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports.
And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.
Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump’s trade deals?
Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations.
The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security.
Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit.
Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the U.S. has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
Jan Wolfe and Dietrich Knauth, Reuters
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lamberts ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter.
When assessing home price momentum, ResiClub believes it’s important to monitor active listings and months of supply. If active listings start to rapidly increase as homes remain on the market for longer periods, it may indicate pricing softness or weakness. Conversely, a rapid decline in active listings could suggest a market that is heating up.
Since the national Pandemic Housing Boom fizzled out in 2022, the national power dynamic has slowly been shifting from sellers to buyers. Of course, across the country that shift has varied significantly.
Generally speaking, local housing markets where active inventory has jumped above pre-pandemic 2019 levels have experienced softer home price growth (or outright price declines) over the past 36 months. Conversely, local housing markets where active inventory remains far below pre-pandemic 2019 levels have, generally speaking, experienced more resilient home price growth over the past 36 months.
Where is national active inventory headed?
National active listings are on the rise (+25% between July 2024 and July 2025). This indicates that homebuyers have gained some leverage in many parts of the country over the past year. Some sellers markets have turned into balanced markets, and more balanced markets have turned into buyers markets.
Nationally, were still below pre-pandemic 2019 inventory levels (-11% below July 2019) and some resale markets, in particular, big chunks of Midwest and Northeast, still remain tight-ish.
While national active inventory is still up year-over-year, the pace of growth has slowed in recent weeksmore than typical seasonality would suggestas some sellers have thrown in the towel and delisted (more on that in another piece).
!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}))}();
July inventory/active listings* total, according to Realtor.com:
July 2017 -> 1,322,659
July 2018 -> 1,261,916
July 2019 -> 1,239,534
July 2020 -> 822,834
July 2021 -> 546,686
July 2022 -> 691,652
July 2023 -> 647,135
July 2024 -> 884,273
July 2025 -> 1,102,787
IF we maintain the current year-over-year pace of inventory growth (+218,514 homes for sale), we’d have:
1,321,301 active inventory come July 2026
1,539,815 active inventory come July 2027
Below is the year-over-year percentage change by state.
!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}();
While active housing inventory is rising in most markets on a year-over-year basis, some markets still remain tight-ish (although it’s loosening in those places too).
As ResiClub has been documenting, both active resale and new homes for sale remain the most limited across huge swaths of the Midwest and Northeast. Thats where home sellers this spring had, relatively speaking, more power.
In contrast, active housing inventory for sale has neared or surpassed pre-pandemic 2019 levels in many parts of the Sun Belt and Mountain West, including metro area housing markets such as Punta Gorda and Austin. Many of these areas saw major price surges during the Pandemic Housing Boom, with home prices getting stretched compared to local incomes. As pandemic-driven domestic migration slowed and mortgage rates rose, markets like Tampa and Austin faced challenges, relying on local income levels to support frothy home prices.
This softening trend was accelerated further by an abundance of new home supply in the Sun Belt. Builders are often willing to lower prices or offer affordability incentives (if they have the margins to do so) to maintain sales in a shifted market, which also has a cooling effect on the resale market: Some buyers, who would have previously considered existing homes, are now opting for new homes with more favorable deals. That puts additional upward pressure on resale inventory.
In recent months, that softening has accelerated again in West Coast markets tooincluding much of California.
!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}();
At the end of July 2025, 12 states were above pre-pandemic 2019 active inventory levels: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Hawaii, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington. (The District of Columbiawhich we left out of this analysisis also back above pre-pandemic 2019 active inventory levels too. Weakness in D.C. proper predates the current admins job cuts.)
!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("ifram");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}();
Big picture: Over the past few years weve observed a softening across many housing markets as strained affordability tempers the fervor of a market that was unsustainably hot during the Pandemic Housing Boom. While home prices are falling in many pockets of the Sun Belt, a big chunk of Northeast and Midwest markets saw a little price appreciation this spring. That said, given the current softening, ResiClub still expects that as the year progresses, more markets will fall into the year-over-year decline camp.
Below is another version of the table abovebut this one includes every month since January 2017.
!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}();
If youd like to further examine the monthly state inventory figures, use the interactive below. (To better understand ongoing softness and weakness across Florida, read this ResiClub PRO report.)
!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}();
Tesla for years had more repeat U.S. customers than any other major automotive brand but its loyalty has plunged since CEO Elon Musk endorsed President Donald Trump last summer, according to data from research firm S&P Global Mobility shared exclusively with Reuters.
The data, which has not been previously reported, shows Teslas customer loyalty peaked in June 2024, when 73% of Tesla-owning households in the market for a new car bought another Tesla, according to an S&P analysis of vehicle-registration data in all 50 states.
That industry-leading brand loyalty rate started to nosedive in July, that data showed, when Musk endorsed Trump following an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania on the Republican nominee.
The rate bottomed out at 49.9% last March, just below the industry average, after Musk launched Trumps budget-slashing Department of Government Efficiency in January and started firing thousands of government workers.
Tesla’s U.S. loyalty rate has since ticked back up to 57.4% in May, the most recent month the S&P data is available, putting it back above the industry average and about the same as Toyota but behind Chevrolet and Ford.
S&P analyst Tom Libby called it “unprecedented” to see the runaway leader in customer loyalty fall so quickly to industry-average levels. “Ive never seen this rapid of a decline in such a short period of time,” he said.
Tesla and Musk did not respond to requests for comment.
On Monday, Tesla granted Musk 96 million shares worth about $29 billion, a move aimed at keeping the billionaire entrepreneur at the helm as he fights a court ruling that voided his original pay deal for being unfair to shareholders.
The timing of Tesla’s plunging brand loyalty suggests the CEO’s involvement in politics turned off customers in the EV pioneer’s eco-conscious customer base, some analysts said. “If they have Democratic leanings, then perhaps they consider other brands in addition to Tesla,” said Seth Goldstein, an analyst at Morningstar.
Tesla’s aging model lineup also faces stiffer competition from an array of EVs from legacy automakers including General Motors, Hyundai and BMW. The only new model Tesla has released since 2020, its triangular Cybertruck, has proved a flop despite Musks prediction of hundreds of thousands of annual sales.
On an April earnings call, Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja singled out “the negative impact of vandalism and unwarranted hostility towards our brand and people,” but also said there were “several weeks of lost production” when the company retooled factories to produce a refreshed version of its top-selling Model Y.
Musk on the April call said that “absent macro issues, we don’t see any reduction in demand.”
Tesla vehicle sales overall are falling globally and have declined 8% in the United States the first five months of 2025, according to S&P. Sales fell 33% over the first six months of the year in Europe, where public backlash to Musks politicking has been particularly fierce.
Musk’s increased political activism was “very bad timing” for Tesla, said Garrett Nelson, an analyst who tracks the EV maker at CFRA Research, because it came exactly as the company faced heightened competition from Chinese EV makers and other traditional automakers. He said his top concerns for Tesla are its loss of market share and “what can be done to repair the brand damage.”
LOYALTY NOSEDIVE
Tesla remains the U.S. electric-vehicle sales leader but has seen its dominance erode as Musk last year delved into politics and focused Tesla more on developing self-driving technology than on new affordable models for human drivers.
Customer loyalty is a closely watched auto-industry metric because it is much more expensive to take new customers from competitors than to retain existing ones, said S&Ps Libby.
S&P offers some of the most detailed industry data on automotive purchases because it analyzes vehicle registration data from all 50 states on a household-by-household basis. Unlike survey data, it follows actual vehicle transactions to track how consumers migrate among brands and models.
From the fourth quarter of 2021 through the third quarter of last year, more than 60% of Tesla-owning households bought another one for their next car purchase, the data show. Only one other brand Ford posted a quarterly loyalty rate exceeding 60% during the period, and only once.
CUSTOMER DEFECTIONS
S&Ps data also examines another aspect of the automotive market: Which brands and models are taking customers away from others, and which ones are losing them?
Until recently, Tesla was in a different stratosphere than other automotive brands on this metric. For the four years prior to July 2024, Tesla, on average, acquired nearly five new households for every one it lost to another brand.
No other brand from a major automaker was even close: Hyundai’s luxury Genesis brand was the next best, acquiring on average 2.8 households for every one it lost, followed by Kia and Hyundai, which acquired on average 1.5 and 1.4 households, respectively, for every one they lost. Ford, Toyota and Honda lost more households on average than they gained during that period.
Teslas average inflow of customers started to decline in July 2024 along with its loyalty rate. Since February, Tesla has been gaining fewer than two households for every one it loses to the rest of the industry, its lowest level ever, according to the data.
The data shows clearly that the net migration to Tesla is slowing, Libby said.
Brands that now attract more Tesla customers than they lose to Tesla include Rivian, Polestar, Porsche and Cadillac, the data show.
Brian Mulberry, client portfolio manager at Tesla investor Zacks Investment Management, said he isnt concerned about Teslas long-term earnings because he expects enormous profits from its plans to operate robotaxis and license self-driving technology to other automakers.
Tesla launched a small test of robotaxis in Austin in June, giving rides to hand-picked fans and Internet personalities but the service isnt available to the general public. If Tesla succeeds in expanding the technology, Mulberry said, theres a case to be made that Tesla doesnt need to sell cars and trucks anymore.
Chris Kirkham, Reuters
