FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — The Iran war has put at risk some of the world’s most critical oil and gas infrastructure — the pipelines, refineries, and shipping terminals that keep energy flowing from the countries around the Persian Gulf to the global economy.

Strikes by Iranian drones have disrupted operations, while risk of Iranian strikes has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, the conduit for some 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas. Oil fields in countries including Iraq have cut back output as storage fills up. Qatar, a major supplier of liquefied natural gas, has shut down its exports as well.

“A lot of very critical energy infrastructure has been either forced to shut down because of direct damage from drones and missiles,” said Torbjorn Soltvedt, principal Middle East analyst at risk intelligence company Verisk Maplecroft, “or because production is effectively being shut in as a result of shipping grinding to a halt. We’re already starting to see some of the global ramifications of that.”

All that has sent prices soaring, raising the cost of everything that needs fuel: flying, running factories, transporting goods, and farming. International benchmark Brent crude has risen from $72.97 the day before the war started to almost $103 on Monday.

Here is the key infrastructure that’s at risk and why it’s important.

Ras Laffan liquefied natural gas terminal, Qatar

The terminal was shut down by state-owned QatarEnergy following a drone strike, dealing a shock to global gas markets since Qatar produces 20% of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG). The company is citing force majeure — in other words, that it’s unable to supply its contracted customers due to circumstances beyond its control.

Ras Laffan, the largest LNG export facility in the world according to the company’s website, draws gas from the world’s largest single gas field and chills it until it is liquid for loading on tankers that take it to customers, primarily in Asia. Gas purchasers in Europe will also feel the pinch as competition gets fiercer for available cargoes.

Ras Tanura port and refinery, Saudi Arabia

Located on the Persian Gulf northeast of Dammam, this is Saudi Aramco’s largest refinery and a port capable of accommodating large tankers. It was temporarily shut down after a drone impact caused a fire.

East-West pipeline, Saudi Arabia

Saudi Aramco operates this pipeline from the Aqaiq oil processing center near the Persian Gulf to the Yanbu port on the Red Sea, avoiding the Hormuz chokepoint.

Fujairah oil terminal, United Arab Emirates

A key terminal for very large oil tankers on the Gulf of Oman, it is important because it enables Abu Dhabi to export a significant share of its oil without sending it through the Strait of Hormuz. It has been reported as disrupted by the fighting by Rystad Energy data and analytical firm. The port company did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment about its status.

“Iran’s targeting of oil storage in Fujairah isn’t a coincidence; it’s attacking one of the potential reroutings of oil that’s been trapped in the Persian Gulf,” analyst Soltvedt said.

Kharg Island, Iran

A tanker terminal that has handled almost all of Iran’s roughly 1.6 million barrels per day of prewar crude exports, most of it going to China. Iran reportedly accelerated shipments in the days before the war started. Its operational status is unclear.

Leviathan natural gas field, Israel

Israel’s Energy Ministry directed operator Chevron to shut down the field, located 130 kilometers (80 miles) off the shores of Haifa, due to the security situation. It’s the largest natural gas reservoir in the Mediterranean and is a key supplier to Egypt. A shutdown during Israel’s 12-day war with Iran in June led Egypt to curtail gas supplies to industries including fertilizer producers.

Southern Iraqi oil fields

Iraq has suspended output of 1.5 million barrels per day at key fields at Rumaila and West Qurna due to dwindling storage. The Rumaila field is a so-called supergiant, meaning it holds more than a billion barrels in reserves.

Rystad Energy reports Iraq and other Gulf countries are running out of space to put the oil, meaning other fields may shut down. That could bring interruption since once shut down, oil and gas wells may need weeks or months to resume.

Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens in a few days, “it’s going to take time to restart production in some of these fields. It’s not a switch that can be turned on and off,” said Soltvedt. “It’s the same for Qatar in terms of their LNG facility. It will probably take weeks to get some of the facilities up and running again.”

Al Basra Oil Terminal, Iraq

This artificial island located 50 kilometers (30 miles) from shore in the Persian Gulf exports oil worth 80% of Iraqi’s annual GDP from the country’s oil fields.

Bapco refinery, Bahrain

The Sitra Island refinery is the backbone of Bahrain’s oil sector, processing supply from Bahraini fields and delivered from Saudi Arabia via pipeline. A missile strike halted operations and disrupted jet fuel, diesel and other supplies.

World leaders have tried and failed to curb climate change by appealing to nations to act for the common good. Now, the Iran war and its costly energy crunch have some experts wondering if selfishness and nationalism may be a more likely way to save the planet, by boosting support for homegrown renewables over imported fossil fuels.

Bombed refineries, disrupted shipping channels for oil and liquefied natural gas and skyrocketing fuel prices should point even the most reluctant leaders to a cleaner fossil free future, hope some experts.

But others are dismissive, noting the same speculation emerged, and then quickly flopped, as recently as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That prompted some European nations to replace gas with even dirtier coal.

“Just wishful thinking,” said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who tracks global emissions of carbon dioxide.

The head of the United Nations will argue otherwise on Monday.

“The turmoil we are witnessing today in the Middle East makes it evident that we are facing a global energy system largely tied to fossil fuels — where supply is concentrated in a few regions and every conflict risks sending shock waves through the global economy,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in an email to The Associated Press. “In past oil shocks, countries had little choice but to absorb the pain. Now they have an exit ramp.

“Homegrown renewable energy has never been cheaper, more accessible, or more scalable,” Guterres said. “The resources of the clean energy era cannot be blockaded or weaponized.”

Going alone versus together

Annual U.N. climate conferences aimed at global cooperation have accomplished little. The most recent meeting in Brazil, known as COP30, ended with a statement that didn’t even mention the words “fossil fuels,” much less include a timeline to reduce their use. Guterres said then that he “cannot pretend that COP30 has delivered everything that is needed.” Under President Donald Trump, whose attack on Iran has sparked new energy concerns, the U.S. didn’t even participate in the Brazil meeting.

Even though renewable energy use and new installations are soaring globally, outpacing fossil fuel growth, the world continues to increase its fossil fuel use every year with emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and methane rising to new highs year after. That’s driving atmospheric warming that increases costly and deadly extreme weather, including dangerous heat, around the world.

“The bottom line is that for at least another five years and maybe longer, emissions reduction will in fact be dealt with largely unilaterally,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton climate and international affairs professor. “If countries see the Israel-U.S.-Iran war as a further reason to head for the exits on fossil fuels by loosening domestic opposition to the necessary policies, that will be accomplished unilaterally at the domestic level.”

A moment of opportunity may be here

Caroline Baxter, director of the Converging Risks Lab at the Council on Strategic Risks in Washington, said there has already been a “dramatic slowdown” in the movement of fossil fuels to various ports due to the conflict. And for countries like Japan or South Korea that depend on tankers arriving in their ports to deliver energy, this is a really big deal, she said.

Baxter said she “wouldn’t be surprised” if some shift to green energy because of the conflict, if only because renewable energy offers more stability than fossil fuels do.

“I think there is an opportunity, rightly or wrongly, for countries to really turn inward and try to power themselves in a way that cuts off their dependence on other nations for that source,” said Baxter, who was U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for force education and training from 2021 to 2024 under the Biden administration.

Baxter said if she’s right and if “everyone does it in their backyard,” it will limit future climate change “without the thorny diplomatic negotiations and the glad-handing and the machinations behind closed doors” of international climate conferences.

The war will lead to more solar panels and heat pumps installed in coming months, said energy analyst Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz, of IEEFA Europe.

A reality check from Ukraine: ‘Exactly the wrong lesson’

More skeptical analysts point to the Russian invasion of Ukraine a few years ago, which put a massive kink in Europe’s natural gas supply, yet didn’t change the world’s fossil fuel dependence. Politicians often pivot to other fossil fuels to address war-oriented energy insecurity, such as coal, which releases even higher amounts of heat-trapping gases.

“We have seen this at the European level where actors post-2022 slowly wanted to move away from the energy transition which is exactly the wrong lesson,” said war studies lecturer Pauline Heinrichs at King’s College in the United Kingdom.

Just as Europe did then, many countries, like China and India — already the world’s No. 1 and No. 3 carbon-emitting countries — could turn to more coal use, said Ohio University’s Geoff Dabelko, an expert on climate and conflict, and University of St. Andrews’ Neta Crawford, author of “The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War: Charting the Rise and Fall of U.S. Military Emissions.”

War and militaries pollute the air

Whatever happens with nations’ energy choices, the war itself will spike emissions.

Even before it began, reports showed that the world’s militaries are responsible for 5.5% of Earth’s heat-trapping emissions each year, more than any country except China, the United States and India.

Crawford, co-founder of the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, said fighter jets consuming vast quantities of fuel, releasing carbon dioxide and other pollutants, is just one example.

“The consequences of war on emissions will far exceed any incremental offset in emissions due to increased enthusiasm for a green transition,” she said.

Borenstein reported from Washington and McDermott from Providence, Rhode Island.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

NEW YORK (AP) — Uber launched a feature Monday to allow both women riders and drivers across the U.S. to be matched with other women for trips, expanding a pilot program aimed at addressing concerns about the safety of its riding-hailing platform.

The new feature is being rolled out nationwide despite an ongoing class action lawsuit against the policy in California, filed by Uber drivers who argue that it is discriminatory against men. Rival ride-hailing company Lyft is also facing a discrimination lawsuit over a similar offering that it introduced nationwide in 2024.

The feature, announced in a blog post, allows women to request a female driver through an option on the app called “Women Drivers.” Passengers can opt for another ride if the wait for a woman is too long, and they can also reserve a trip with a woman driver in advance. A third option allows female users to set a preference for a woman driver in their app settings, which would increase the chances of being matched with a female driver, though it would not guarantee it. Uber is also allowing its teen account users to request women drivers.

Uber’s women drivers can set the app’s preferences to request trips with female riders, and they can turn off that preference at anytime.

Uber, based in San Francisco, says about one-fifth of its drivers in the U.S. are women, thought the ratio varies by city.

Two California Uber drivers filed a class-action lawsuit against Uber in November, arguing that its Women Preferences feature violates California’s Unruh Act, which prohibits sex discrimination by business enterprises. The lawsuit charges that the feature gives its minority female drivers access to the entire pool of passengers, while leaving its majority male drivers to compete for a smaller pool of passengers. The lawsuit also argues that Uber’s policy “reinforces the gender stereotype that men are more dangerous than women.”

Uber filed a motion to compel arbitration in the case, citing an agreement the plaintiffs signed when joining the app as drivers. In the motion, Uber disputed that its new feature violates the Unruh Act, saying it “serves a strong and recognized public policy interest in enhancing safety.”

“This feature is a common sense solution to a long-standing request from both women Drivers and Riders who told Uber they would feel more comfortable and safer if they could choose to ride with another woman,” the company said in the court filing.

Two Lyft drivers have filed a similar lawsuit against that company against its “Women+Connect” feature, which allows women and nonbinary riders to match with drivers of the same identification.

Uber piloted the “Women Preferences” feature in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Detroit last summer and expanded it to 26 U.S. cities in November. The company first launched a version of the feature in Saudi Arabia in 2019 following the country’s landmark law granting women the right to drive. It now offers similar options in 40 other countries, including Canada and Mexico.

Both Uber and Lyft have for years faced criticism over their safety records, including thousands of reports of sexual assaults from both passengers and drivers. In February, federal jury found Uber to be legally responsible in a 2023 case of sexual assault and the company was ordered to pay $8.5 million to an Arizona woman who said she was raped by one of its drivers.

Uber maintains that because its drivers are contractors and not employees, it’s not liable for their misconduct. But Uber says has taken multiple steps in efforts to improve safety, including teaming up with Lyft in 2021 to create a database of drivers ousted from their ride-hailing services for complaints over sexual assault and other crimes.

Uber says sexual assault reports have decreased over the years. According to reports from Uber, 5,981 incidents of sexual assault were reported in U.S. rides between 2017 and 2018 — compared to 2,717 between 2021 and 2022 (the latest years with data available), which the platform says represented 0.0001% of total trips nationwide.

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Anthropic is suing the Trump administration for what it calls an “unlawful campaign of retaliation” against the artificial intelligence company over its refusal to allow unrestricted military use of its technology.

Anthropic asked federal courts on Monday to reverse the Pentagon’s decision last week to designate the artificial intelligence company a “ supply chain risk.” The company also seeks to undo President Donald Trump’s order directing federal employees to stop using its AI chatbot Claude.

The legal challenge intensifies an unusually public dispute over how AI can be used in warfare and mass surveillance — one that has also dragged in Anthropic’s tech industry rivals, particularly ChatGPT maker OpenAI, which made its own deal to work with the Pentagon just hours after the government punished Anthropic for its stance.

Anthropic filed two separate lawsuits Monday, one in California federal court and another in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions against the San Francisco-based company.

“These actions are unprecedented and unlawful,” Anthropic’s lawsuit says. “The Constitution does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech. No federal statute authorizes the actions taken here. Anthropic turns to the judiciary as a last resort to vindicate its rights and halt the Executive’s unlawful campaign of retaliation.”

The Defense Department declined to comment Monday, citing a policy of not commenting on matters in litigation.

Anthropic said it sought to restrict its technology from being used for two high-level usages: mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other officials publicly insisted the company must accept “all lawful” uses of Claude and threatened punishment if Anthropic did not comply.

Designating the company a supply chain risk cuts off Anthropic’s defense work using an authority that was designed to prevent foreign adversaries from harming national security systems. It was the first time the federal government is known to have used the designation against a U.S. company. Hegseth said in a March 4 letter to Anthropic that it was “necessary to protect national security,” according to Anthropic’s lawsuit.

President Donald Trump also said he would order federal agencies to stop using Claude, though he gave the Pentagon six months to phase out a product that’s deeply embedded in classified military systems, including those used in the Iran war.

Anthropic’s lawsuit also names other federal agencies, including the departments of Treasury and State, after officials ordered employees to stop using Anthropic’s services.

Even as it fights the Pentagon’s actions, Anthropic has sought to convince businesses and other government agencies that the Trump administration’s supply chain risk designation is a narrow one that only affects military contractors when they are using Claude in work for the Department of Defense.

Making that distinction clear is crucial for the privately held Anthropic because most of its projected $14 billion in revenue this year comes from businesses and government agencies that are using Claude for computer coding and other tasks. More than 500 customers are paying Anthropic at least $1 million annually for Claude, according to a recent investment announcement that valued the company at $380 billion.

Anthropic said in a statement Monday that “seeking judicial review does not change our longstanding commitment to harnessing AI to protect our national security, but this is a necessary step to protect our business, our customers, and our partners.”

The lawsuit positions AI safety and “positive outcomes for humanity” as critical to Anthropic’s mission since it was founded in 2021 by CEO Dario Amodei and six other former OpenAI employees.

Its usage policy has “always prohibited the use of Anthropic’s services for lethal autonomous warfare without human oversight and surveillance of Americans en masse,” the company said in its lawsuit. Anthropic said it has never tested Claude on those applications and doesn’t have the confidence its products could “function reliably or safely if used to support lethal autonomous warfare.”

At the same time, it allowed the military to use Claude in ways that civilians could not, including military operations and in analyzing “lawfully collected foreign intelligence information.”

Until recently, Anthropic was the only of its tech industry peers approved to supply its AI model to classified military systems. The dispute has led the Pentagon to look to shift Claude’s work to Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Elon Musk’s Grok.

Anthropic’s lawsuit alleges the Trump administration’s actions are impugning its reputation, “jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars” in contracts with other businesses and attempting to “destroy the economic value created by one of the world’s fastest-growing private companies.”

Conversely, the fight has also boosted Anthropic’s reputation among some customers, and tech workers, siding with the company’s refusal to budge to pressure from the Trump administration. Amodei’s moral stance was further distinguished when his bitter rival, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, sought to replace Pentagon’s Claude with ChatGPT in a move Altman later admitted was rushed and seemed opportunistic.

Consumer downloads of Claude surged, lifting its popularity for the first time over better-known ChatGPT and Gemini.

The controversy also continues to have repercussions in the competition to retain AI industry talent, leading to the resignation of OpenAI’s head of robotics, Caitlin Kalinowski.

“This wasn’t an easy call, ” Kalinowski wrote on social media over the weekend. “AI has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got.”

Novo Nordisk is dismissing its patent infringement lawsuit against telehealth company Hims & Hers, as the two companies have reached an agreement that will see Novo Nordisk’s branded weight loss medicines sold through the Hims platform.

Early last month Hims & Hers said that it was going to launch a cheaper, off-brand version of the weight-loss pill Wegovy, just weeks after drugmaker Novo Nordisk launched its highly anticipated reformulation of the blockbuster medication. At the time, Novo Nordisk vowed to sue Hims, calling the new product “an unapproved, inauthentic, and untested knockoff” of semaglutide, the chemical name for Wegovy.

But just two days later, Hims dropped its plan to offer the cheaper, off-brand version of Wegovy. That move came a day after the Food and Drug Administration threatened to restrict access to the ingredients needed to copy popular weight-loss medications.

The FDA permits specialty pharmacies and other companies to make compounded versions of brand name drugs when they are in short supply. And the booming demand for GLP-1 drugs in recent years prompted companies like Hims to jump into the multibillion-dollar market for the drugs, with many patients willing to pay cash.

In 2024, the FDA said that GLP-1 drugs were no longer in a shortage, which was expected to put an end to the compounding. But companies like Hims relied on an exception to keep selling their versions of the medications because the practice is still permitted when a prescription is customized for the patient.

As part of the deal the two companies reached that was announced on Monday, Hims will offer oral and injectable versions of Wegovy and Ozempic on its platform later this month. Hims will also stop advertising compounded GLP-1 drugs on its platform or in its marketing.

Novo Nordisk said in a statement that it is reserving the right to refile its lawsuit in the future.

Shares of Hims & Hers Health Inc. jumped more than 36% in Monday morning trading. Despite the bump, shares are still well off their 52-week high of about $70. U.S.-listed shares of Novo Nordisk rose 1.8%.

Tax refunds are the biggest windfall of the year for many American households. And ‘tis the season: Through the week ending Feb. 13, nearly 13 million people had received 2025 federal tax refunds averaging $2,476, according to the IRS.

That average refund amount is up 14% from the same time period last year, and it’s expected to grow in the coming weeks. For example, the IRS wasn’t allowed to begin processing refunds involving the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Additional Child Tax Credit until Feb. 15. Various provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) should amplify refunds this year, including an expanded child tax credit, a larger state and local tax deduction and lower taxes on tips and overtime.

Finally, some good news in a sea of affordability concerns. Now the big question: If you’re receiving one of these tax refunds, how can you best put the money to work to improve your financial well-being?

Well, to put it bluntly, the best use for your tax refund is investing in your future — whatever that may look like for you.

If you’re buried in credit card or other debt, debt payoff is likely the way to go. If you’re dreaming of buying a home, socking that money away for your down payment is an appropriate course of action. Lacking an emergency fund? Think about putting your windfall into a rainy day account.

Your individual circumstances can help you choose the right path, but here are some guidelines to help you make the decision.

Tackle your credit card debt

Paying down credit card debt belongs at the top of the list if this is something you’re struggling with. The average credit card balance is $6,715, according to TransUnion. If you make minimum payments toward that average balance at the average credit card rate of 19.59%, you’ll be in debt for 221 months (more than 18 years) and you’ll end up paying $9,553 in interest.

This is why credit card debt payoff should be a priority — credit card rates are so much higher than most other forms of consumer debt, such as mortgages, auto loans and student loans.

Let’s say you put the average tax refund ($2,476) toward the average credit card balance. That knocks it down by more than a third. If you make minimum payments toward the remaining $4,239 at 19.59%, you’ll be in debt for 176 months with a total interest expense of $5,512. In other words, that $2,476 payment could save you more than $4,000 in interest charges and trim almost four years off your payback term.

Of course, we’d love to see you pay it off even sooner. Just over half of credit cardholders pay in full in a typical month, according to Bankrate’s 2026 Credit Card Debt Report. If you need more time, consider signing up for a card with a generous 0% balance transfer promotion. Some of these deals last up to 24 months. If you put the average tax refund toward the average credit card balance and spread the remaining $4,239 over 24 equal interest-free installments, you would only have to pay about $177 per month (not counting the typical transfer fee of 3-5%, which would cost you between $130 and $212).

Boost your emergency savings

The number one thing that gets people into credit card debt, according to our 2026 Credit Card Debt Report, is an emergency expense such as a medical bill, car repair or home repair. Credit card debt and emergency savings, therefore, are essentially two sides of the same coin.

Fewer than half of Americans have the liquidity to cover an unexpected $1,000 expense from savings or other readily available funds, Bankrate reports, which causes many to take on credit card debt. And only 46% of U.S. adults have at least three months’ worth of expenses in the bank.

Putting some or all of your tax refund into savings is a worthy choice that can help you sleep better at night and prevent incurring high-cost debt. While we’d love you to get to a point where you have six months’ expenses set aside, when people dip into their emergency savings, the most common amount is between $1,000 and $2,499. Your tax refund could more than cover that.

And remember: It doesn’t have to be an either/or decision. You could do both, splitting your refund between credit card debt payoff and emergency savings. In fact, if you have credit card debt and are feeling undersaved, a split decision probably represents the best of both worlds.

Because if you put the entire refund toward your credit card debt, you might not have enough savings for the next inevitable surprise expense, starting the credit card debt cycle all over again. But if you put it all into savings, you could be incurring 20%+ interest charges that might otherwise be avoided.

Tackling both priorities simultaneously can make sense, even if it means that you’ll take a bit longer to reach your goals. That’s okay. Paying down debt and building savings are journeys; it’s not just about the destination.

Save for a home purchase

When it comes to future financial success, home ownership remains a considerable wealth-building opportunity despite mortgage rates still well above pandemic-era lows and home prices at record highs. In fact, the speed at which home prices have risen in recent years should emphasize how much wealth you can build through home ownership.

Getting to the point where you can qualify for the best mortgage rates or best afford the home you want means getting your financial house in order first. That’s where your tax refund comes in. Assuming you’ve already paid off expensive debt and feel good about your emergency savings, your tax refund can go into your down payment fund.

No, you don’t need 20% down anymore to get into a home, but the more you can put down, the less you have to borrow. Borrowing less means lower monthly payments as well as lower interest paid out overall.

Put your money to work

If you have a bit more wiggle room in your budget, investing your tax refund can be an excellent choice. This option is especially attractive if you have a solid emergency savings cushion and are free from credit card debt.

Stocks have historically returned an average of about 10% per year, so a $2,476 tax refund invested today could grow to about $6,422 in 10 years, $16,657 in 20 years and $43,205 in 30 years. Whether you end up putting that money toward retirement costs, your kid’s college expenses, the down payment on a home or something else, it’s a nice chunk of change resulting from a single windfall.

I love these illustrations of how much your investments can grow over time, particularly if you set it and forget it. That is, pick a simple, low-cost index fund and match average market returns over the years. Your investing strategy doesn’t need to be complicated to be effective.

Have a little fun along the way

While adulting priorities are such that you should do something practical with your tax refund, you can still carve out some fun money while you’re at it. Like a diet or exercise regimen, if you go too hard, your efforts will probably fizzle.

Do something responsible with most of your tax refund — such as paying down debt, boosting your savings and/or investing for your future — while setting aside at least a couple hundred dollars for things you’ll enjoy. A nice dinner out, a new pair of shoes, a new video game system… you get the idea. Indulging in the occasional reward can actually encourage you to stick with your long-term quest for financial responsibility.

Tax refund season is a great time to make progress toward your financial goals. Think of how good it will feel to see a substantially lower credit card balance, more money in the bank toward a home purchases or emergency fund, or a larger investment portfolio. This is found money of the highest order (a lot more than the $20 you left in your coat pocket last winter), and putting it to good use can set you up for financial success throughout the remainder of 2026 and beyond.

©2026 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department said Monday that it has tentatively settled its antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster and parent company Live Nation Entertainment, striking a deal to ultimately lower ticket prices for consumers and end an illegal monopoly over live events in America.

But some states signaled they won’t join the deal and will continue an ongoing trial.

After the Justice Department announced the deal at the start of the trial day in Manhattan federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian called it “entirely unacceptable” that no one informed him of the tentative deal until late Sunday. A term sheet for the expected settlement was signed on Thursday, he said.

A senior Justice Department official, though, spoke effusively of the looming settlement on the condition of anonymity Monday during a phone call with journalists under terms set by the department to release some information about the proposed settlement.

Live Nation would pay a fine of up to $280 million and divest itself of at least 13 amphitheaters across the country as it opens up its ticketing processes so that competitors can share in the sale of tickets, the official said.

The official called it a “win-win for everybody” that will bring immediate relief for consumers and protect venues from retaliation when they choose companies other than Live Nation to handle tickets or promotions for events.

A double-digit number of states were expected to join the proposed deal, the official said.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement the Justice Department deal “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case” and that she would not agree to it.

“My attorney general colleagues and I have a strong case against Live Nation, and we will continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and restore fair competition to the live entertainment industry,” James said.

A release containing her statements said New York state was joined in its decision to continue pursuing claims by attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming and the District of Columbia.

In a release, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown said the bipartisan group of state attorneys general who joined the Justice Department’s lawsuit in May 2024 would continue because the “case against Live Nation is strong, and the state coalition is committed to holding the company accountable for its illegal behavior, protecting consumers and restoring competition to this market.”

Adam Gitlin, a lawyer for the District of Columbia, told Subramanian that several states had not decided what they would do, including Texas, Florida and Louisiana. He said Texas had expressed “serious concerns” about the deal.

Gitlin requested a mistrial on Monday, a week after opening statements, but David Marriott, a lawyer for Live Nation, opposed the request. The judge informed the jury of the proposed deal and told jurors that “certain states are proceeding” with their claims and the trial was expected to resume next week.

Live Nation didn’t immediately respond to a request by The Associated Press for comment.

The continuation of the trial will leave the states to press claims to further dismantle a monopoly the Justice Department said was squelching competition and driving up prices for fans.

The case, brought under President Joe Biden ‘s administration in 2024, accused Live Nation of using threats, retaliation and other tactics to “suffocate the competition” by controlling virtually every aspect of the industry, from concert promotion to ticketing.

The Justice Department accused Live Nation of engaging in a slew of practices that have allowed it to maintain a stranglehold over the live music scene. It has said the company uses long-term contracts to keep venues from choosing rival ticketers, blocking venues from using multiple ticket sellers and threatening venues that they could lose money and fans if they don’t choose Ticketmaster.

Live Nation has maintained that artists and teams set prices and decide how tickets are sold.

Ticketmaster and Live Nation Entertainment, based in Beverly Hills, California, have a long history of clashes with major artists and their fans, including Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen.

Ticketmaster, which was established in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010, is the world’s largest ticket seller across live music, sports, theater and more.

Neumeister reported from New York.

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. stocks trimmed much of an early loss amid growing concerns about whether the global economy can withstand spiking prices for oil, which briefly got to nearly $120 per barrel on Monday.

Wall Street had initially followed global markets on a steep descent earlier in trading and remains twitchy and quick to reverse amid all the uncertainty caused by the war with Iran.

The S&P 500 fell 0.6% after dropping as much as 1.5% in the morning. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 492 points, or 1%, as of 1:50 p.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite fell 0.3% after sliding as much as 1.5% earlier.

Since the war with Iran began with attacks by the United States and Israel, the central worry for financial markets has been how high oil prices will go because of it and how long they will stay there. Early Monday, the price for a barrel of Brent crude, the international standard, briefly touched $119.50. It hasn’t been that expensive since the summer after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, another military conflict that likewise raised the risk for blockages in the global flow of oil.

If oil prices stay very high for very long, households’ budgets already stretched by high inflation could break under the pressure. Companies, meanwhile, would see their own bills jump for fuel and to stock items on their store shelves or in their data warehouses. It all raises the possibility of a worst-case scenario for the global economy, “stagflation,” where growth stagnates and inflation remains high.

To be sure, oil prices quickly pared their huge gains Monday. A barrel of Brent crude pulled back to $98.75, though that’s still up 6.5% from Friday.

A barrel of benchmark U.S. crude, meanwhile, rose to 4% to $94.55 after briefly spiking as high as $119.48.

The U.S. stock market has a history of bouncing back relatively quickly from past military conflicts, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, as long as oil prices don’t stay too high for too long. And even with all the recent swings in the market, the S&P 500 index that sits at the heart of many 401(k) accounts is still within 4% of its record set in January.

Some professional investors continue to suggest that drops in prices for stocks could ultimately offer opportunities to buy them at cheaper levels before they rise again. Monday’s quick paring of losses for U.S. stocks was similar to the huge swings that rocked Wall Street last week, with everything keying off changes in oil prices.

“We continue to believe that the current acute shortage of oil will be reversed in the coming months as new supply comes online and oil should drop significantly,” according to Sameer Samana, head of global equities and real assets at Wells Fargo Investment Institute.

All that hinges, though, on the flow of oil returning toward normal. At the moment, it’s far from that.

Consider the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway off Iran’s coast that a fifth of the world’s oil sails through on a typical day. Now, tanker traffic has all but stopped because of worries about a possible attack by Iran.

If the strait remains closed for only a few weeks, the price of oil could push to $150 per barrel of higher, according to oil and gas strategists at Macquarie Research.

“Although we are not attempting to predict how long Hormuz transit will be substantially or completely curtailed, we are growing more confident that without an agreement and a fast cessation of all kinetic activity, the crude market will begin to break in days, and not in weeks or months,” the strategists led by Vikas Dwivedi wrote in a report.

The most immediate pain on Wall Street is hitting companies that have already big fuel bills.

Carnival lost 3.4% because it has to fill huge cruise ships with fuel and United Airlines sank 3.2%.

Helping to limit the U.S. stock market’s losses was Live Nation Entertainment, which rose 4.2%. The company behind Ticketmaster reached a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department in a case alleging an illegal monopoly over live events in the country.

In stock markets abroad, where economies are more dependent on the import of oil and natural gas, stocks fell even more. South Korea’s Kospi sank 6%, Japan’s Nikkei 225 tumbled 5.2% and France’s CAC 40 dropped 1%.

A Chinese special envoy to the Middle East, Zhai Jun, called for an end to the attacks and said strikes on non-military targets and civilians should be condemned. Meanwhile, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung warned against hoarding, panic buying and collusion between refiners and gas stations.

Both sides in the war struck new targets over the weekend, including civilian ones. Bahrain accused Iran of hitting one of the desalination plants that are crucial for drinking water in Gulf countries. Its national oil company declared force majeure after the country’s sole oil refinery was attacked. Israel struck oil depots in Tehran, sending up thick smoke and causing environmental alerts.

President Donald Trump said late Sunday that high oil prices at the moment are worth the cost.

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace,” he said in a posting on his social media network.

In the bond market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 4.13% from 4.15% late Friday.

Worries about high inflation and oil prices are pushing upward on Treasury yields, and the 10-year yield was above 4.20% early Monday. But worries about a potentially slowing economy are pulling downward at the same time. On Friday, a discouragingly weak report on the U.S. job market showed that employers cut more jobs last month than they added.

AP Writers Matt Ott, Kim Tong-hyung and Elaine Kurtenbach contributed.

Oil prices continued to soar on Monday as the Iran war intensified, threatening production and shipping in the Middle East and straining energy supplies worldwide.

The price of Brent crude, the international benchmark, briefly surged to $119.50 per barrel on Monday — its highest level since the summer after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. West Texas Intermediate, which is produced in the United States, also soared to $119.48 per barrel at one point.

Those prices fell to just under the $100 later Monday. But barrels of Brent and U.S. crude are still 36% and 42% more expensive, respectively, than they were before the U.S. and Israel launched the war against Iran on Feb. 28.

The conflict, now in its second week, is ensnaring countries and infrastructure critical to the production and transportation of oil and gas worldwide. And there’s no end in sight. On Monday, Iran named Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei to succeed his late father as supreme leader — a new sign of defiance from the country’s leaders as the U.S. and Israel continue heavy bombardment.

Fears of attacks have all but stopped tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway off Iran’s coast where a fifth of the world’s oil sails through on a typical day. Major oil producers in the region like Iraq, Kuwait and the UAE have cut production due to export constraints because they are running out of storage space. Iran, Israel and the U.S. have all struck oil and gas facilities since the war started, worsening supply concerns.

“The first week the crisis was a transportation issue, which could conceivably be resolved quickly,” Jim Burkhard, vice president and global head of crude oil research at S&P Global Energy said in an analysis Monday. But production and storage concerns are increasingly piling up, he explained, and restoration “will be a massive technical exercise that could last weeks or more.”

The war’s toll on civilian targets and the energy sector grew over the weekend as oil depots in Tehran smoldered following Sunday strikes by Israel. Meanwhile, across the Persian Gulf, nearby Bahrain accused Iran of striking a desalination plant vital to drinking water supplies. Bahrain’s national oil company declared force majeure for its shipments after an Iranian attack set its refinery complex ablaze. The legal declaration releases the company of contractual obligations because of extraordinary circumstances.

The war has also disrupted critical supply chains. Roughly 15 million barrels of crude oil — about 20% of the world’s oil — typically are shipped every day through the Strait of Hormuz, according to independent research firm Rystad Energy. The threat of Iranian missile and drone attacks has all but stopped tankers carrying oil and gas from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Iran from traveling through the strait.

Some energy experts warn all of this could contribute to higher oil prices in the near future. If the Strait of Hormuz, in particular, remains closed for only a few weeks oil and gas strategists at Macquarie Research said the price of crude could push to a $150 per barrel or higher. That would top previous peaks of around $147 reached just ahead of the 2008 financial crisis.

Others, however, expect disruptions to be more short-lived. Oxford Economics researchers predict prices will fall to an average of $80 a barrel for the quarter, but noted Monday that the “risk of a more prolonged crisis has clearly increased.”

In response to soaring prices, there has also been discussions of dipping into emergency oil stockpiles in the U.S. and elsewhere. But on Monday, the Group of Seven major industrialized powers said it had decided against using their strategic reserves, at least for now.

“We’re not there yet,” French Finance Minister Roland Lescure said after chairing a meeting of his G7 counterparts. Still, he told reporters in Brussels that the group was “ready to take necessary and coordinated steps in order to stabilize markets, such as strategic stockpiling.”

On Saturday, President Donald Trump downplayed the idea of turning to America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, maintaining U.S. supplies were ample and prices would soon fall.

Yet the surge in costs for oil and natural gas is still pushing fuel prices higher, cascading through a range of industries — and particularly travel and household energy spending for consumers. Experts like Burkhard note that Asian economies are especially vulnerable, due to the region’s heavy reliance on imports from the Middle East.

Iran exports roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, mostly to China, which has called for an immediate end to the fighting. Beijing may need to look elsewhere for supply if Iran’s exports are disrupted, another factor that could increase energy prices. In a briefing Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said China would “take necessary measures to safeguard its own energy security.”

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung also warned Monday of strict penalties for refiners and gas stations caught hoarding or colluding on prices, saying it would be wise to find alternatives to supplies that must travel through the Strait of Hormuz.

Across Southeast Asia, the spike in prices has led to long lines outside filling stations.

But price hikes are spreading worldwide. Higher energy costs can push overall inflation higher, straining household budgets and denting the consumer spending that is the dominant engine behind some big economies, including the U.S. Those worries have spilled into financial markets, pulling share prices sharply lower since the war began.

The U.S. is now a net exporter of oil, so it will “suffer less from a rally in Brent and WTI above $100” than Europe or Asia, FxPro chief market analyst Alex Kuptsikevich noted Monday. Still, he stressed that past rapid surges in oil prices have contributed to U.S. recessions.

Gas prices have already climbed for American drivers. On Monday, the average U.S. price of a gallon of regular gasoline rose to $3.48, up nearly 50 cents from a week earlier, according to AAA motor club. Diesel, used heavily in shipping, sold for about $4.66 a gallon, a weekly increase of more than 80 cents.

Kurtenbach reported from Bangkok. Associated Press journalist John Leicester in Paris contributed.

Blondie’s announced on Facebook that the restaurant’s third location will be in Union at the current site of Traveler Food & Books located at 1257 Buckley Highway, off of Exit 74 on Interstate 84.

“And just like that……Blondie’s #3,” the Facebook post reads with Blondie’s owner Julie Cook pointing at the Traveler Food & Book sign.

Blondie’s Diner already has locations in Willimantic and Chaplin. The Willimantic location is at 1681 Main St. and is open from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily. The Chaplin restaurant is at 250 Willimantic Road and serves breakfast and lunch.

Willimantic opened in 2015 and Chaplin opened about five years later in 2020.

“The love and support of the community at large are the reason those locations have been successful,” Cook said. “My staff’s hard work and dedication also is a big factor.”

Cook said the sales contract for the new Union location has been signed but they haven’t closed on it yet. That is expected to happen in about four weeks.

Cook said she had been looking to expand to a third location for a while and that this Union location “was the right fit for me.”

Cook said she’s been in discussions with Traveler about the property since October and that the property was on the market prior to that. She said the current owners are looking to retire.

Cook, who lives in Bolton, said she plans on expanding the hours that are currently at the Traveler, which is more dinner heavy. She described Blondie’s as more breakfast heavy.

Cook said the hundreds of comments on Facebook were “an overwhelming outpouring of love of what people clearly have for this restaurant.”

Traveler is known as a family restaurant that supports reading and gives books away with every meal.

The restaurant is owned by husband and wife Arthur and Karen Murdock. The restaurant was established in 1970 and the Murdocks have been at the helm since 1993.

Some of the celebrities who have visited the restaurant over the years include Bill Murray, Bruce Springsteen and Susan Sarandon.

In a Courant story last year, Karen Murdock said the restaurant has “approximately 50,000 books on-site” and allows three free books per customer and $2 for any books beyond the three.

“We give away over 100,000 books a year, and we’ve given away approximately 2 million books in 32 years,” Murdock said last year to the Courant.

Customers there are known to browse before and after their meal and the books often spark conversation between customers. The walls of the restaurant are also adorned with signed photos of noted authors. Jigsaw puzzles are also part of the décor.

Calls to the owners of the Traveler weren’t immediately returned on Sunday.

“I didn’t realize the impact that post would have,” Cook said. “I knew they were well known but it was and overwhelming outpouring of love for that place from across the state. I’m excited to add that restaurant to what I’m already doing. It’s going to be a great transition.”

Cook said the current Traveler staff of the restaurant are welcome to stay if they wish.

“They have love for the current owners and there was a lot of uncertainty they were feeling,” Cook said. “I met with some of them and to my knowledge they are going to stay. I’m excited and I think they are excited.”

There were hundreds of comments on the Blondie’s social media post announcing its expansion.

Most of the comments were asking whether Blondie’s would keep the books.

“Yes. I’m going to keep the books,” Cook said on Sunday. She did add the books may need a little “tightening up” due to a “capacity.”

Overall, the responses were positive to the Blondie’s expansion but also many customers didn’t want too much to change from the Traveler offerings.

“This is fantastic news. You have some of the best wait staff and cooks in the area. Add your magic and do your thing. Much success with your new endeavor,” one customer posted.

“Please don’t change it too much though! We love Travelers,” another one posted.

“Oh wow! We love Blondies and love here. I do hope you keep the books and staff. They are wonderful,” another post said.