US Grocery prices plunge as inflation hits four-year low

Inflation dropped to its lowest level in over four years in April, marking the third straight month of better-than-expected consumer data. The White House says President Trump’s economic policies are driving a “Golden Age” of falling prices and rising wages for American workers.

Key Details:

Grocery prices fell by the largest margin in nearly five years, while egg prices plunged 12.7%—the steepest one-month drop since 1984.
Gas prices fell for a third consecutive month, contributing to broader declines in energy and transportation costs.
Real wages are up 1.9% year-over-year, with steady growth over the last three months giving workers more buying power.

JUST IN: April’s inflation report came in below expectations for the third straight month.

Grocery prices saw their largest decline in nearly five years.

Gas prices fell for the third month in a row. pic.twitter.com/AgsyV6efkF

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 13, 2025

Diving Deeper:

The Consumer Price Index report for April, released Tuesday, shows inflation easing to a four-year low—the strongest evidence yet that President Trump’s economic policies are reversing years of price pressure on American families.

“Inflation has fallen to the lowest level in more than four years as April’s Consumer Price Index smashes expectations for the third straight month in President Donald J. Trump’s Golden Age,” the White House said in a statement.

Prices for essentials saw some of the sharpest declines in years:

Grocery prices were down 0.4% in April, while egg prices dropped 12.7%, “the most since 1984,” Bloomberg reported.
Airfare, hotel rates, used vehicles, and energy costs all declined compared to a year ago.
Workers’ real wages rose for the third straight month, climbing 1.9% over the past year.

Mainstream media outlets that previously warned of Trump’s tariff-driven inflation are now acknowledging the downturn. Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo noted: “Oil is down, eggs are down, food is down. We’re seeing that reflected, so all that hysteria over tariffs is not showing up in these numbers.”

Investopedia’s Caleb Silver added, “The smoke was much worse than the fire… That drop in gasoline and energy prices—a big deal.”

NBC’s Brian Cheung said the report was “pretty solid,” and Bloomberg highlighted that “grocery prices were down 0.4% on the month… validating some of President Donald Trump’s messaging.”

The bottom line: prices are falling, paychecks are going further.

Related Topics:MXMNews USConsumerData USGroceryPricesPlunge USInflationFourYearLow

Up Next

Veteran RCMP Investigator Warns of Coordinated Hybrid Warfare Targeting Canada

Don't Miss

Trump Reacts To James Comey’s ‘8647’ Post

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Heightened alert: Iranians in U.S. previously charged with support for terrorism

conflict / 5 hours ago

How Iran Could Shake Up Global Economy In Response To US Strikes

conflict / 5 hours ago

Americans abroad told to stay alert as Iran threatens retaliation

armed forces

How Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?

Published on June 22, 2025

Todayville

David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

To my great surprise I recently noticed that, despite being deeply engaged in wars against at least four determined enemies, Israel doesn’t spend all that much more on their military than Canada does on its forces. What might that tell us about government efficiency?

There’s fairly universal agreement that Canada doesn’t spend enough on its military. But before we can even ask how much we should be spending, we should understand how much we’re already spending. And figuring that out isn’t nearly as easy as I’d expected.

Subscribe to The Audit

According to the 2025–26 Expenditures by Purpose data released by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence (DND) was allocated $35.7 billion (CAN). However, the New York Times recently reported that Primer Minister Carney’s $9.3 billion increase would bring the total defence-related spending to $62.7 billion – which suggests that, prior to the increase, we were set to spend $53.4 billion (CAN).

So I’ll work with both of those figures: $35.7 billion ($26 billion USD) and the pre-announcement $53.4 billion ($39 billion USD). By contrast, Israel currently spends around $37 billion (USD) on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) which is in the neighborhood of 18 percent of their total budget.¹ The IDF is (literally) getting a much bigger bang for their buck.²

I’m going to compare the military inventories of both countries to get a sense of what a dollar of government spending can get you. I understand that this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison and there are many complicating factors here. But I think the exercise could lead us to some useful insights. First off, here’s a very rough estimate of existing inventories:

I’m sure there are plenty of caveats we could apply to those numbers, including how much of that equipment is actually fit for service on any given day. But they’ll have to do.

In addition, there are currently 68,000 regular troops in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) along with 22,500 reserves, while the IDF employs 169,500 regular troops and 465,000 reserves. They also cost money.

Based on some very rough estimates,³ I’d assess the value of IDF assets at around 2.6 times the value of comparable CAF assets. That means that the IDF – using their procurement systems – would need to spend just $14.4 billion (USD) to purchase the equivalent of the current set of CAF assets.

Now compare that with our actual (pre-increase) expenditures of either $26 billion USD or $39 billion USD and it seems that we’re overspending by either 80 percent or 270 percent.

I think we’d be wise to wonder why that is.

Subscribe to The Audit

For full context, Israel receives around $3.8 billion (USD) in military aid annually from the U.S.

Speaking of which, for simplicity, I completely left the ongoing costs of ordinance out of my calculations.

If you’re really interested, you can see my calculations here.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Business

Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy

Published on June 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.

The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:

• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.

• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.

• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.

• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.

“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.

“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”

Four Climate Fallacies

This study examines four climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change.
Fallacy 1: Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism. As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
Fallacy 2: Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change. Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
Fallacy 3: Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air. However, when looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change. This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three. An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.