Consumer News: Yamaha recalls power adaptors due to fire hazard

Former head of FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection named

Judge rules White House can't cut off funding and states weigh in, saying CFPB is essential to their operations

• Judge rules in favor of laid-off employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
• Attorneys general from 21 states file suit to force Trump White House to restore funding
• The agency has been essentially closed since shortly after Trump's inauguration

It was one of the most active federal agencies, sort of a contemporary Robin Hood. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) patrolled the consumer beat, suing businesses that mistreated borrowers and other customers, winning case after case and returning millions of dollars to consumers.

Most consumers were unaware of it and, not enjoying acronyms, usually just scrolled past stories about the CFPB's exploits on their behalf. But businesses and bankers didn't ignore it. They had a strong case of the hates for the CFPB and wanted it gone. When Donald J. Trump took office, their dreams seemed to come true.

Trump named his budget director, Russell Vought, as acting director of the bureau and Vought lost no time firing and layiing off employees and basically putting the agency into a coma. The name was chipped off the building and its offices were largely abandoned. Settlements that companies had agreed to were reversed and manycompanies got their money back, their settlements reversed on grounds consumer advocates called unfair.

But things may be starting to turn around, thanks to two new developments:

1. A federal judge this weekruled in a case brought by the CFPB employees unionthat the White House cannot cut off funding to the agency;and
2. Democratic Attorneys Generals (AGs)from 21 states and the District of Columbia filed suit, asking a federal courtto require Vought to seek State AGs file suit to force CFPB to request funding from the Federal Reserve.

Funding mechanism is questioned ... again

The suit filed by the National Treasury Employees Union had already resulted in an injunction stopping the layoffs while the case worked its way through the courts. Then, earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman ruled that the White House cannot stop funding the CFPB, rejecting the Trump administration's claim that the fundiing method is not valid.

When the CFPB was established by Congress during the Obama administration, it was set up to receive funding through the "combined earnings" of the Federal Reserve. The White House has argued that the Fed does not have any earnings since it has been operating at a loss since 2022 as a result of its efforts to combat inflation.

That argument is not new and has been floated in conservative legal circles for years but had never been tested in court, until now. In her opinion, Judge Berman said the White House was using the theory to get around the injunction instead of arguing the case on its merits. Her ruling is likely to be appealed but, for the moment, should result in the laid-off employees being paid.

The states weigh in

Meanwhile, Democratic Attorneys Generals (AGs)from 21 states and the District of Columbia have filed suit, asking a federal courtto require Vought to request funding from the Federal Reserve to operate the bureau.

Opening another front in his effort to unlawfully close the CFPB, DefendantVought has now decided to starve the agency of funds based on the implausibleproposition that Congress, in enacting the Dodd-Frank Act, intended for the CFPBto periodically shut down whenever the Federal Reserves interest expensesexceeded its interest income, the AGs said in their suit.

The AGs argue that, besides the funding question, the CFPB is essential to their efforts to protect consumers, as information about complaints filed with the CFPB are forwarded to the states.

The ban and soda and candy is part of an effort to reduce chronic diseases

• New rules taking effect Thursday limit the foods SNAP recipients can buy in five states, including soda and candy.

• The changes are part of a Trump administration push to curb chronic disease by restricting unhealthy foods.

• Retailers, advocates and researchers warn the waivers could create confusion, stigma and higher costs without clear health benefits.

Starting Thursday, Americans in five states who receive government assistance to help pay for groceries will face new restrictions on what foods they can buy, marking a significant shift in the decades-old rules governing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia are the first states to implement federal waivers banning the purchase of certain foods including soda, candy and other items with SNAP benefits. At least 18 states have applied for similar waivers or signaled plans to do so.

The changes affect roughly 1.4 million people and represent a sharp departure from longstanding federal policy that allowed SNAP benefits to be used for nearly all foods intended for human consumption, with limited exceptions.

A push to reshape food assistance

The new restrictions stem from an initiative led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who have urged states to remove foods they consider unhealthy from the roughly $100 billion program that serves about 42 million Americans.

We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create, Kennedy said in a December statement.

Administration officials say the effort is aimed at reducing chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes, which they link to consumption of sugary drinks and processed foods. The policy is a central plank of Kennedys Make America Healthy Again agenda.

Retailers warn of logistical challenges

Retailers and policy experts say the rollout is likely to be rocky. Industry groups warn that SNAP systems are unprepared for the complexity of the changes, which vary by state and lack clear, standardized lists of prohibited items.

The National Retail Federation predicts longer checkout lines, more rejected transactions and rising frustration among customers and store employees.

A report from the National Grocers Association and other trade groups estimates that retailers will face $1.6 billion in upfront costs to implement the changes, followed by about $759 million in annual ongoing expenses.

Advocates say costs will ripple outward

Anti-hunger advocates argue the added costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers.

Punishing SNAP recipients means we all get to pay more at the grocery store, said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the Food Research & Action Center.

She and other advocates also say the restrictions risk increasing stigma for people who rely on SNAP, particularly when transactions are denied at the register.

A break from decades of policy

Since the programs creation in 1964, federal law has allowed SNAP benefits to be used for any food intended for human consumption, excluding alcohol, tobacco and ready-to-eat hot foods. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 reaffirmed that approach.

Past efforts to restrict SNAP purchases including proposals to ban steak, chips or ice cream were rejected after USDA research found such limits would be costly, difficult to enforce and unlikely to improve health outcomes. Under the second Trump administration, however, states have been encouraged and in some cases incentivized to seek waivers.

The new restrictions differ significantly across the five states.

Utah and West Virginia will prohibit SNAP purchases of soda and soft drinks. Nebraska will ban soda and energy drinks. Indiana will restrict soft drinks and candy. Iowas waiver is the most expansive, barring SNAP use for taxable foods, including soda, candy and some prepared items.

Health impact remains uncertain

While administration officials frame the waivers as a health intervention, research on whether SNAP purchase restrictions improve diet quality or reduce chronic disease has produced mixed results.

Public health experts say the waivers fail to address broader structural issues affecting nutrition.

This doesnt solve the two fundamental problems, said Anand Parekh, chief policy officer at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Healthy food in this country is not affordable, and unhealthy food is cheap and ubiquitous.

The Agriculture Department says the waivers will initially run for two years, with an option to extend them for up to three additional years. States are required to evaluate the impact of the changes, a process that could shape whether the restrictions expand nationwide.

As more states consider similar moves, the debate over how far governments should go in regulating what low-income Americans can buy with food assistance is likely to intensify.

High medication levels can lead to complications

• More than 40% of U.S. adults 65 and older now take at least five prescription drugs daily, a practice known as polypharmacy.

• Studies link high medication use to falls, hospitalizations, drug interactions and slower recovery after illness.

• Clinicians say routine medication reviews and deprescribing could reduce risks without compromising care.

As Americans live longer and manage more chronic conditions, a growing share of older adults are taking multiple prescription medications each day a trend researchers say carries both benefits and serious risks.

More than 40% of adults age 65 and older now take five or more prescription drugs daily, according to recent data, and nearly one in five takes 10 or more. The practice, known as polypharmacy, has become increasingly common as doctors prescribe medications to treat conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and arthritis.

While many of these prescriptions are medically necessary, researchers warn that taking too many medications at once can put older adults at greater risk for adverse health outcomes.

What is polypharmacy?

Polypharmacy is generally defined as the concurrent use of five or more medications, though experts note there is no universally accepted cutoff. The concern is not simply the number of drugs a person takes, but whether each medication remains appropriate, effective and safe.

Some polypharmacy is unavoidable and appropriate, clinicians say, particularly for patients with multiple chronic illnesses. The problem arises when medications accumulate without regular reassessment.

Health risks tied to multiple prescriptions

A growing body of research has linked higher medication counts to negative outcomes for older adults.

Studies show that seniors taking multiple medications face an increased risk of drugdrug interactions, which can cause dizziness, confusion, falls and emergency room visits. Hospitalizations related to adverse drug effects are significantly more common among patients with high prescription burdens.

Research published in BMC Geriatrics also found that older adults discharged from hospitals on six or more medications experienced slower recovery and greater difficulty performing everyday tasks independently.

Other studies have found that among seniors with Alzheimers disease and related dementias, higher medication use is associated with more symptoms, more frequent hospital stays and lower overall physical functioning.

Experts say age-related changes in kidney and liver function can make it harder for older bodies to metabolize drugs, increasing the likelihood of side effects even at standard doses.

Why medication lists keep growing

The rise in polypharmacy is closely tied to multimorbidity the presence of multiple chronic conditions. Nearly 40% of adults over 65 have two or more long-term illnesses, making multiple prescriptions common.

But doctors acknowledge that medication lists often grow for other reasons. Some drugs are continued long after they are no longer needed, while others are added to treat side effects caused by existing prescriptions, a pattern known as a prescribing cascade.

Fragmented care can also play a role, particularly when patients see multiple specialists who may not be fully aware of one anothers prescriptions.

Push for medication reviews and deprescribing

To address the risks, clinicians and health systems are increasingly calling for regular medication reviews structured evaluations that assess whether each drug is still necessary and beneficial.

Deprescribing, a process that safely reduces or stops medications that no longer provide value, has gained traction as a way to improve patient outcomes without compromising treatment.

The goal isnt simply to reduce pill counts, researchers emphasize. Its to make sure every medication has a clear purpose and that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Better coordination among healthcare providers and clearer communication with patients are also seen as key steps in preventing unnecessary polypharmacy.

A growing public health challenge

As the U.S. population continues to age, experts say managing medication safety will become an increasingly urgent public health issue.

Balancing effective disease treatment with minimizing harm from excessive medication use, they say, will require ongoing attention from clinicians, patients and policymakers alike especially as longevity increases and more Americans live longer with chronic conditions.

Millions of Americans face a health insurance crisis in 2026

• States including California, Colorado and Maryland are stepping in after Congress failed to renew enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies.

• Most state efforts will only cover a fraction of residents facing sharp premium increases or loss of coverage.

• Lawmakers warn state budgets cannot replace federal aid indefinitely, raising pressure on Congress to act.

At least a dozen states are scrambling to protect residents from soaring health insurance costs after Congress adjourned without extending enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that helped tens of millions of Americans afford coverage.

While states from California to Maryland have announced stopgap measures, nearly all acknowledge the same limitation: They lack the resources to fully replace the expired federal assistance, leaving many people exposed to higher premiums or loss of coverage.

We can carry the cost for a little bit, but at some point, we will need Congress to act, said Javier Martnez, speaker of the New Mexico House, in a Politico report. New Mexico is the only state so far to fully cover all lapsed subsidies. No state can withstand plugging every single budget hole that the Trump administration leaves behind.

Some states move quickly as coverage losses loom

The speed of the mostly Democratic-led state response reflects growing concern about the medical and political fallout from the subsidy expiration. Millions of Americans are expected to struggle to afford insurance, potentially straining already stressed state welfare programs and hospital systems.

State responses have varied widely. Georgia and Washington state are unlikely to replace the subsidies, though for different reasons, while states such as Connecticut and New Mexico moved earlier this year to allocate funds in anticipation of congressional inaction.

California, anticipating that a GOP-led Congress would allow the subsidies to expire, was among the first to act. The state is allocating nearly $200 million to replace lost federal subsidies for about 300,000 of its lowest-income residents. Even so, the majority of the states roughly 2 million marketplace enrollees remain vulnerable.

Covered California, as the state's program is called,estimates as many as 400,000 people could go uninsured. In Maryland, which faces a smaller affected population, the poorest residents will receive enhanced assistance, while higher-income enrollees will see more limited relief.

Political and budget constraints shape responses

In battleground states such as Maine, some lawmakers worry that state-funded solutions could reduce pressure on Congress to pass a federal fix, though many say immediate coverage concerns outweigh that risk.

Partisan divides remain stark. While blue states have been far more likely to intervene, some Republican-led states are quietly taking regulatory steps to soften the blow.Texas and Wyoming have adoptedpremium alignment, a market strategy designed to stretch remaining federal subsidies and reduce out-of-pocket costs.

Most states, however, have taken no action, including both conservative states opposed to the Affordable Care Act and some progressive-led states facing fiscal or political barriers.

Cost proves the biggest obstacle

In states weighing whether to act when legislatures reconvene in January, cost remains the central hurdle. In Minnesota, efforts to replace the subsidies have drawn opposition from both parties.Washington state officials citeda budget shortfall as the reason their state cannot step in.

In states with budget surpluses, politics rather than money often blocks intervention.States that never expanded Medicaid face especially severe consequences, with hundreds of thousands of residents at risk of losing coverage entirely.

Pressure builds on Congress

As states debate whether and how to intervene, many lawmakers stress that state-level fixes are temporary at best.

This is a matter of life or death, Georgia Democratic Rep. Sam Parksaid. Peoples lives are on the line. We all have a responsibility to do what we can with what we have.

For now, the patchwork response leaves millions of Americans facing an uncertain future and intensifies pressure on Congress to revisit the issue when lawmakers return to Washington.