By Orphe Divounguy, The Center Square

Bottom Line: This week’s inflation data is expected to show a slight uptick in consumer prices. However, a moderation in consumer spending could limit the ability of businesses to pass tariff-induced cost increases to consumers.

This week brings the economic calendar’s main event: the May consumer price index (CPI) release on June 11 and producer price index (PPI) data on June 12. These reports will provide crucial insight into whether the recent moderation in price pressures can be sustained amid ongoing trade tensions.

April’s CPI data showed consumer prices rose 0.2% monthly, translating to a 2.3% annual rate – a reassuring deceleration from earlier in the year. Producer prices fell 0.5% in April but are expected to rise due to tariffs.

The key question is whether producers can successfully pass tariff-induced cost increases to consumers without derailing the broader disinflationary trend.

The personal savings rate jumped to 4.9% in April from 4.3% in March, reaching a one-year high. The savings rate was just 3.5% in December 2024. This isn’t just a statistical curiosity – it’s a powerful indicator that American households are pulling back on spending and preparing for potential income shocks.

When people choose to save rather than spend, it signals declining confidence in their future income prospects. This behavior directly reduces consumer demand, which in turn limits businesses’ ability to raise prices. The math is straightforward: less demand equals less pricing power.

The employment picture reinforces this demand-side story. In May’s jobs report, half of the sectors added jobs, while the other half saw payroll cuts – a sign of slowing economic momentum.

While headline unemployment remains low, beneath the surface, hiring has slowed significantly and long-term unemployment continues climbing. Many workers are dropping out of the labor force entirely, reflecting frustration with limited opportunities.

This labor market softening translates directly into reduced consumer spending. When people are out of work or uncertain about their job prospects, they naturally become more cautious with their wallets – exactly what we’re seeing in the rising savings rate.

One bright spot for inflation watchers is the continued slowdown in market rent growth. Since housing costs represent the largest component of most Americans’ budgets, and rent measures in the CPI track on-market rental costs with a lag, this moderation should continue dragging down overall consumer price inflation in the months ahead.

This housing deflation provides a crucial cushion against potential price pressures from other sources, including potential tariff pass-through effects.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) sentiment index declined to 95.8 in April, marking the second consecutive month below the 51-year average of 98. More concerning, this represents the fourth consecutive month that sales volume expectations have declined.

Perhaps most telling: only 18% of small businesses plan capital outlays in the next six months, the lowest reading since April 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. When small businesses – the backbone of American employment – are reluctant to invest in their futures, it signals deep pessimism about economic prospects. Business pessimism will hold back hiring and wage growth.

As consumers hunker down and demand weakens, businesses face an uncomfortable reality: profit margin compression. Companies that try to maintain margins by raising prices risk losing market share to competitors willing to accept thinner margins. Those that don’t raise prices see their profitability squeezed by higher input costs.

This dynamic creates a natural brake on inflation, as market forces discipline pricing behavior.

Expect the tariffs’ impact on consumer prices to remain somewhat muted, reflecting these demand-side pressures. The Federal Reserve will be watching closely to see if this economic cooling provides the breathing room needed to keep inflation near its 2% target.

Cautious consumers, struggling small businesses, and a cooling labor market suggest the bigger risk may be economic slowdown rather than runaway inflation.

By Tom Joyce, The Center Square

Montana recently became the sixth state this year to pass a ban on foreign spending on ballot measures. Watchdog organizations, however, say the state’s new law is inadequate.

Montana’s new law bars non-U.S. citizens, foreign governments, foreign political parties and foreign-owned entities from contributing to campaigns surrounding ballot measures. The legislation passed mostly along party lines, with near-unanimous Republican support and limited Democratic backing.

The new law, however, carves out an exemption for U.S.-based companies with foreign ownership if they pay state taxes and use only domestically generated funds from citizens or permanent residents.

Additionally, the measure doesn’t stop American political advocacy groups that receive money from foreigners from taking sides in ballot questions, watchdogs say.

“The problem that Montana failed to address is that you can have these intermediary groups that act as essentially money launderers, like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, raising enormous sums from foreign nationals, while simultaneously spending money on ballot measures,” Honest Elections Project executive director Jason Snead told The Center Square in a Zoom interview. “That’s why some of the measures we’ve seen passed this year, like in Missouri, for instance, require groups that spend in support of or against ballot measures have to certify that they have not taken above a certain threshold of foreign money over a four-year period. And the reason for that is to avoid this money laundering type of activity. That’s what’s missing from the Montana law.”

The Sixteen Thirty Fund, an American progressive political advocacy organization, has received at least $280 million from Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss since 2016, according to the New York Post.

The organization, for example, has actively participated in Montana’s politics. It spent over $3 million supporting a ballot initiative in Montana last year that made abortion a constitutionally protected right, according to Ballotpedia.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund has spent over $130 million on ballot questions in 25 U.S. states in the past decade, according to RealClearPolicy.

Since the Sixteen Thirty Fund is an American-based company that Wyss donates to – and doesn’t tell the organization how to spend its money – Montana’s new law won’t prevent it from spending on the state’s ballot questions.

Americans for Public Trust executive director Caitlin Sutherland said Montana should look to other states for model legislation.

“Yes, absolutely,” she told The Center Square in a Zoom interview. “Starting with Ohio last year, we have seen that foreign funding bans have really swept state houses across the country. They’re all slightly similar with the goal of banning foreign money – direct and indirect – on ballot issues. We saw that Wyoming passed a very strong ban, as did Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky and Indiana all this year.”

Once Ohio’s ban on foreign funding of ballot initiatives took effect last year, the Sixteen Thirty Fund stopped spending on The Buckeye State’s ballot questions and turned its attention elsewhere, as RealClearPolitics reports.

Heritage Action for America Montana State Director Kristen Christensen said her group wanted Gov. Greg Gianforte to veto the measure 

“Montana HB 818 was intended to safeguard Montana elections but unfortunately stopped short in protecting the integrity of elections in the Treasure State,” Christensen said. “Heritage Action urged Governor Gianforte to veto this weak legislation. It leaves loopholes open for foreign actors to pour millions of dollars into Montana’s electoral process, and leaves Montanans’ voices vulnerable to being drowned out by illegitimate and foreign influence.”

Snead also worries that foreign adversaries, like Russia and China, may one day capitalize on this campaign finance loophole and fund American ballot initiatives.

“Any loopholes that exist in our current laws or that we create with new laws can and probably will be exploited by adversarial foreign powers, like China, like Russia, that clearly mean the U.S. ill,” he said. “That’s why we should never risk playing with fire by allowing foreign powers to meddle in our politics. We need to build the protections now and make sure that money’s out of our state politics forever.”

By Taylor Barkley and Sebastian Griffin, Abundance Institute and Mountain States Policy Center

For states like Washington, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, the 10-year regulatory moratorium on artificial intelligence recently passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The committee’s decision to advance this pause on state-level AI regulations marks a crucial step toward creating the regulatory certainty needed to attract substantial tech investment to our region, diversifying our economies and creating high-paying jobs across the American West.

The Western states stand at a pivotal moment. While Washington has established itself as a tech powerhouse, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana offer untapped potential with their lower costs of living, abundant renewable energy resources, and high quality of life that increasingly attracts talented workers seeking alternatives to coastal tech hubs.

What these states need now is regulatory certainty to attract AI companies looking to expand. The proposed federal moratorium would provide exactly that—a stable, predictable environment where tech firms can invest with confidence, knowing they won’t face a confusing patchwork of conflicting regulations across state lines.

The scale of the emerging regulatory challenge is staggering. More than 1,000 AI-related bills—roughly eight every day—have been introduced across state legislatures in just the first four months of 2025. This uncoordinated flood creates precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that drives investment away from emerging tech ecosystems like those developing in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

Measures like New York’s proposed RAISE Act would require qualifying AI labs to hire third-party inspectors under ambiguous rules. If Western states feel compelled to create their own competing requirements, companies would face the burden of navigating different auditors in different states evaluating them on different metrics—directly undermining our region’s attractiveness for new facilities and jobs.

Even basic definitions aren’t consistent across proposed legislation. Terms like “developer,” “high-risk” and “consequential decision” vary widely from bill to bill. This definitional chaos creates legal uncertainty that deters the very investments our Western states need to diversify beyond traditional resource-based economies.

The moratorium provision passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would create a 10-year window of opportunity for states like Wyoming, Idaho and Montana to develop their tech ecosystems under stable, predictable conditions. This breathing room would allow our states to focus on what really matters for attracting tech investment: workforce development, infrastructure improvements, and business-friendly environments.

Importantly, the moratorium doesn’t block state efforts that remove barriers to innovation, streamline permits, or apply tech-neutral rules equally to AI and non-AI systems. Our states can and should continue creating favorable business environments while maintaining appropriate consumer protections through existing laws.

The pause would also prevent a harmful race among Western states to create competing regulatory regimes, which would fragment our regional market and undermine the collaborative interstate approach needed to compete with established tech hubs.

Critics have spread several misconceptions about the moratorium. First, it wouldn’t leave AI unregulated in our states. Existing laws covering privacy, consumer protection, civil rights, product liability, anti-fraud statutes, and tech-neutral sector rules all continue to apply. The moratorium simply prevents a maze of new, conflicting AI-specific rules.

Second, rather than primarily benefiting Big Tech, the moratorium levels the playing field for emerging tech ecosystems like ours. Without it, established companies gain an insurmountable advantage, while the smaller innovators most likely to consider our states are disadvantaged.

Finally, this isn’t about undermining states’ rights. Our states retain their traditional police powers and can enforce all their generally applicable laws—they just won’t be forced into a counterproductive regulatory arms race that fragments the regional market while Congress works on a coherent national framework.

The AI revolution presents a historic opportunity for economic diversification throughout the American West. Washington can strengthen its position as a tech leader, while Wyoming, Idaho and Montana can establish themselves as attractive alternatives to traditional coastal tech hubs.

With the committee’s approval of the moratorium provision, we’re one step closer to the regulatory certainty that will allow our Western states to focus on building the infrastructure, workforce, and business environment needed to attract AI investment.

While the moratorium still needs to pass additional legislative hurdles, the committee’s approval signals growing recognition that a patchwork of conflicting state regulations would harm American innovation and competitiveness. For Western states looking to build tech economies, this progress toward regulatory certainty couldn’t come at a better time.

If the moratorium becomes law, our Western states will have a decade to develop coordinated regional approaches that showcase our unique advantages—abundant clean energy, affordable living costs, outdoor lifestyle amenities, and a growing tech talent pool. With regulatory certainty as a foundation, we could market the Western states as a unified, innovation-friendly region.

The potential of AI to transform our regional economies is enormous. But that potential can only be realized if companies have the confidence to invest here. The committee-approved moratorium takes us one step closer to providing exactly the stable, predictable environment needed to make the American West a new frontier in artificial intelligence.

Taylor Barkley is Director of Public Policy at Abundance Institute. Sebastian Griffin is the lead researcher for the Junkermier Center for Technology and Innovation at Mountain States Policy Center.

After extensive debate about various proposals in the waning hours of the Montana State Legislature, the body passed two tax bills: House Bill 231 and Senate Bill 542. More so than tax cuts, amid claims that the new law is complicated, legislators said the new law will “rebalance” the state’s property tax system.

It shifts higher taxes onto business properties and second homes.

Having passed so late in the session, implementing the new law this year is not possible, so legislators added interim rates and a $400 rebate to serve until next year.

 Rep. Llew Jones, (R) Conrad, who introduced the bill, said that it will significantly reduce taxes for owner-occupied homes and long-term rental properties. How much they will experience a tax reduction depends upon what local governing entities, cities and towns, set as budgets. Properties not determined to be primary homes or long-term rentals are likely to see substantial tax increases.

The new law will lower the value of a property used in calculating its tax. The rate or percentage of value that must be paid in taxes, however, can be changed based upon what kind of property it is, which allows the tax burden to be shifted to a different class of property. Higher rates of taxation will be applied to business and agricultural properties.

Governor Gianforte signed into law three bills passed by the Montana State Legislature, which address the state’s environmental laws, largely in response to the Held v. Montana ruling issued by the state Supreme Court last December. Gianforte said, the new law will “provide certainty to Montana businesses, large and small, that are trying to make a living here in our state.” SB 221 was introduced by Wylie Galt (R-Martinsdale). It designates six climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions that the state must inventory in environmental reviews of energy projects — but explicitly directs state agencies to not regulate them. Another bill – -House Bill 291, sponsored by Greg Oblander (R-Billings) – prohibits state agencies from adopting air quality standards stricter than those imposed by federal agencies.

Another bill the Governor signed earlier, HB 285 introduced by Brandon Ler (R-Savage),which repealed sections of an environmental law. The new law directs agencies to consider “the potential long-range character of environmental impacts in Montana and … lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions and programs designed to maximize cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of Montana’s environment.”