Americans don’t need a press release to know that inflation is rising. Gasoline is above $4 per gallon amid the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and the release of key price data on May 28, 2026, underscores why policymakers are worried these pressures could spread into the broader economy.

The report offered a mixed but still uncomfortable picture. The month-to-month rise was softer than expected, but the change year over year still points to concern: a 3.8% jump from a year earlier, the fastest pace since 2021, and a less volatile index that excludes food and energy up 3.3%.

This increase suggests inflation isn’t limited to gasoline. Housing, utilities and recreational spending are also keeping underlying inflation elevated, even as other data shows a slowing economy and weaker income growth.

As finance and applied investments professors who study how businesses make decisions amid uncertainty, we have been watching this tension build. In our 2026 economic outlook, we warned that recession fears could persist alongside rising prices. Fresh inflation data now suggests the challenge may be deeper and longer lasting than many expected.

Are all prices rising?

The fresh inflation data comes from the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, or headline PCE, which is maintained and released by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. Headline PCE had already been getting hotter, rising to 3.5% year on year in March 2026, up from 2.8% in February. But an even more important metric for the Federal Reserve is core PCE, which excludes the more volatile categories of food and energy. Core PCE matters because it gives policymakers a clearer read on underlying inflation pressures and is generally considered a better predictor of where inflation is headed, the Fed’s chief concern. That has been rising this year as well.

The key question isn’t simply whether gas prices are rising, but whether those higher energy costs are spreading into the rest of the economy.

That’s why energy costs are both a measure of current inflation and a signal of future rising prices. They show up directly in inflation data like PCE but also affect shipping, airline fares, food production, utilities, packaging, business profit margins and consumer psychology. A one-time bump doesn’t necessarily create lasting inflation. But the risk increases when those higher costs pass through to the broader economy and people begin to expect inflation to remain high. For example, if workers believe costs will be higher in general, they might demand higher wages, which in turn can make inflation even hotter.

There’s already some evidence that the inflationary effect of energy prices is spreading. April’s Consumer Price Index report – another inflation gauge – showed a 3.8% leap, the fastest in three years, with energy prices up 18% and spending on airlines up over 20%, while grocery prices posted their largest monthly gain since 2022. Tariff-sensitive categories like apparel and household furnishings are also still climbing.

And it’s these costs, not core PCE, that households experience every day. Americans buy gas, pay utility bills, purchase groceries and start changing their spending behavior in response to these pressures. That’s why the Fed is watching to see how energy prices impact other measures of inflation.

What’s the Fed to do?

Kevin Warsh has just been sworn in as the new chair of the central bank, which means the next meeting of the Fed’s policymaking committee on June 16-17, 2026, will be his first in that role. He’ll face an unusual amount of disagreement among committee members as well as scrutiny over his own positions given his rhetorical shifts on inflation and Fed policy since he was nominated by President Donald Trump. The president has pressured the Fed to cut rates, while Warsh has recently downplayed the significance and accuracy of the PCE gauge.

The Fed’s tool for responding to inflation is to raise interest rates, but it’s not always straightforward. The Fed doesn’t just hike interest rates as a direct response to inflation. If the increase in energy prices looks temporary and inflation expectations remain “anchored” – that is, stable among consumers – the Fed may hold steady on rates or even cut them as consumers continue to dial back spending. But it may have to keep rates higher for longer or even consider additional tightening if those conditions don’t hold and inflation continues rising.

This creates a problem for the Fed’s “dual mandate” to control inflation while supporting economic growth. Higher gas prices are inflationary, but they also reduce households’ spending power and dampen growth. In that sense, higher energy prices can act like a tax on consumers: People spend more to drive, heat and cool their homes, and receive goods, leaving less income for restaurants, travel, retail and other purchases.

That’s why the Fed doesn’t have a simple answer. If it hikes interest rates to combat inflation, it still won’t resolve geopolitical conflict and increase global oil supplies. But it can reduce demand and slow inflation.

Indeed, according to notes of the most recent Fed policy committee meeting in April, many officials are increasingly concerned that persistent inflation could require additional rate hikes. While the Fed decided to hold rates steady at 3.50% to 3.75% at the time, committee members noted that inflation remains elevated, “in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices.”

Another factor: Long-term yields on Treasury bonds, which reflect what investors demand for buying U.S. debt, have reached their highest levels since 2007. That could be a sign that markets expect higher rates or more uncertainty – and it matters because yields influence mortgage rates, business borrowing costs and the value of retirement portfolios, to name a few examples. In other words, inflation concerns don’t have to wait for another Fed rate hike to affect the economy. If markets believe inflation will stay elevated, borrowing costs can rise on their own.

What to watch at the Fed’s June meeting

The leadership transition at the Fed makes this moment particularly noteworthy. Warsh’s first major challenge may not be whether to raise or cut rates immediately, but how to explain what the Fed is watching. Will he emphasize headline inflation, core inflation, other inflation measures, consumer expectations, financial conditions or signs of slowing demand? This is especially important, as some of these gauges are closer to 2% and rising more slowly while others rise more rapidly away from the Fed’s 2% target.

Artificial intelligence adds another complication. AI-related investment may be helping hold up growth even as households feel pressured by higher gas and grocery prices. That creates a divided economy: Consumers struggle with higher prices and borrowing costs, but AI-related investment supports markets, infrastructure spending and business optimism. For his part, Warsh argues that AI also will help drive down prices, allowing the Fed to cut rates sooner.

All of this makes the inflation outlook hard to read. Weakening consumer demand and wage growth argues for caution, while rising inflation expectations and businesses passing on higher costs to consumers and the broader economy argue for higher rates.

Ultimately, the key question for the Fed is not simply whether inflation is rising, but whether energy prices are reopening the inflation fight at the exact moment it’s trying to prove that price stability is still within reach. Warsh’s first months as chair will test whether the Fed can maintain inflation credibility while avoiding unnecessary damage to an already pressured consumer economy.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com.

What happens to debt when someone dies? – Lucy, age 17, Cincinnati, Ohio

Imagine everyone has a large piggy bank that represents everything they own. Inside it are items such as cash in a bank account, a home, a car, clothing, jewelry, furniture, investments and other valuables. On the outside of the piggy bank are sticky notes labeled IOU – promises to repay borrowed money some day.

These IOUs represent the debt people owe others. Examples of consumer debt include credit card balances you haven’t paid off, outstanding car loans or home loans, unpaid medical bills and student loans.

As a finance professor who teaches and studies how money works, I can explain that most debts don’t disappear when the person who owes money dies.

Usually, executors manage estates

When someone passes away, their assets and debts become what’s known as an estate. Estates include everything that person owned, such as cash in bank accounts, any homes, boats, vehicles, clothing, jewelry, furniture, stocks, bonds, retirement accounts, intellectual property – copyrights, patents and trademarks – and other valuable things.

Then, someone is appointed to manage the estate. This person, called an executor, manages the distribution of anything left in the estate. In most cases, the deceased names an executor in their will, a document that spells out what should happen to their assets after death.

Going through probate

If no executor was named before death, or if someone was named but either cannot or will not serve, a special court that deals with estates, called a probate court, appoints an administrator to handle the estate.

If the person died without a legitimate will and has no living relatives, their property goes through a process called escheatment, where the assets pass to the government after debts are paid off.

When someone has written a will, their estate – with some exceptions – goes straight into the probate process. The court confirms the will, appoints the executor and ensures that all debts and taxes are paid off before the remaining assets are distributed to people and organizations known as beneficiaries that the person who owned the assets named in their will. They may include any combination of relatives, friends and charities.

The executor looks at everything the deceased had left and adds up its total value. Next, they identify and total all debts and use the estate’s assets to pay off its debts.

As long as the estate’s assets are worth more than its debts, beneficiaries receive money and other items of value from the estate.

If someone dies without a will, they are considered intestate. In that case, the probate court appoints an administrator, often a close relative, such as a spouse or child. Later, the contents of the estate are distributed to the deceased’s relatives in accordance with state law, even if this differs from the deceased’s unwritten wishes.

In some cases, this process can take many years, and even decades, to wrap up.

When the piggy bank falls short

There are times, however, when estates are insolvent, meaning that their debts are worth more than their assets. That means they can’t afford to cover all of their IOUs. In such cases, some creditors – the people or companies owed money – may not be paid in full.

Importantly, relatives of a deceased person are not responsible for paying off any remaining debts with their own money.

However, the estate may end up using funds it would have otherwise inherited to pay off the deceased person’s outstanding debts.

And there are some situations in which others may still be responsible for repaying those debts, especially for bills tied to the medical treatments they received as part of their end-of-life care.

Different rules in some states

For example, a deceased person’s spouse may need to help pay debts if they are what’s known as a cosigner for the medical treatment or if they live in a community property state, such as Arizona, California and Texas, where spouses share ownership of most assets and debts acquired during the marriage. Some states have filial responsibility laws that could require adult children to help pay a deceased parent’s unpaid medical or nursing home bills, though these laws are rarely enforced.

Also, if someone agreed to take responsibility for a debt while the deceased person was alive, they may still be required to pay it. Furthermore, if that person shared a credit card with someone else, the surviving cardholder is typically responsible for any remaining balance. This law depends on the type of account held and may vary in some states.

If the deceased had a mortgaged property, their beneficiaries can keep it – as long as they continue to make the necessary payments. Families and friends in that situation can also sell homes and use some or all of the proceeds to pay off the loans.

When a property is underwater – meaning it’s worth less than the remaining home loan – the lender takes the loss on the unpaid balance. Heirs are not personally responsible for the deceased’s home loan, but the lender will first seek repayment from the estate.

Financial data shows that about 73% of Americans die with some unpaid debt. Each year in the United States, about 160,000 to 340,000 people die with more debt than assets. But this situation might change within two or three decades as younger Americans inherit an estimated US$110 trillion after the death of today’s older generations.

Although this topic is sad, it’s a good reminder that having money comes with responsibilities and that planning ahead can protect your loved ones. I also think that understanding how things work, even after death, can make what you need to do in your lifetime much clearer and less overwhelming.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

James Malm does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The release of the Jeffrey Epstein files in early 2026 wasn’t just a scandal about one man. It was an unexpected window into the hidden architecture of American corporate power.

When the U.S. Department of Justice published more than 3 million pages of documents on Jan. 30, 2026, most of the media focused on the famous names. But the files also revealed something broader and more troubling. Epstein’s network had infiltrated the boardrooms of hundreds of major U.S. companies, with clear consequences for corporate misconduct affecting employees and the broader business culture.

I’m a scholar of corporate finance and governance who has studied the vast reaches of Epstein’s business connections. Fellow economists Marina Gertsberg, Ekaterina Volkova and I found that the disgraced financier effectively wired corporate America into a denser, more tightly interconnected network. Companies with more Epstein-connected directors registered measurably worse governance failures over time, regardless of their size or the prominence of their executives.

There’s a bigger point as well. Networks that appear valuable because they provide access and connectivity can also encourage a social environment with serious governance problems. The Epstein files revealed a network that was hidden, vast and tied to clearly disqualifying conduct.

A hidden architecture of elite connections

The vast majority of corporate connections to Epstein went unreported by the media. Following the files’ release, journalists understandably focused on the most prominent and sensational cases. In the two weeks after the news broke, my colleagues and I found that fewer than 1 in 4 companies with Epstein-connected directors were mentioned in the news.

Our research went much further. We searched the entire document load for the names of every CEO and board member who served at a publicly listed U.S. company between 2006 and 2026, which totaled 92,698 individuals. We then used artificial intelligence to classify each document match, distinguishing meaningful contact with Epstein from accidental mentions.

What we discovered was striking. More than 2,000 public-company directors had direct contact with Epstein, either through emails or in-person meetings. Of these, about 1,000 were part of five or more communications, the threshold we used to identify the most tightly connected individuals. And we found that companies with more Epstein-connected directors experienced much worse governance over time – measured through negative media attention about executive misconduct, fraud and corruption.

Using data from RepRisk – a company that systematically tracks corporate misconduct across media, regulatory and NGO sources – we discovered that every time a board added a director who had meaningful Epstein contact, it was associated with about 1.7 more governance failures per year. In addition, there were 3.4 more incidents that breached the environmental, sustainability and governance pledges of the director’s company.

Some of the best-known cases underscore this finding. Jes Staley, who privately described Epstein as one of his closest friends, resigned as CEO of Barclays in November 2021 after the bank disclosed a regulatory probe into that relationship and found he had misled investigators. Barclays then clawed back 17.8 million British pounds in awards, or about US$24 million, and the U.K. watchdog Financial Conduct Authority fined and banned him from working in financial services.

Another example is Leon Black, who stepped down as chairman and CEO of Apollo Global Management in 2021 after an independent review found he had paid Epstein $170 million for tax and estate-planning advice, far more than initially disclosed. Apollo restructured its governance in the process.

There are also instances at the company level where connections to Epstein were followed by governance failures: Deutsche Bank paid a $150 million regulatory penalty for compliance issues tied to Epstein’s accounts, while JPMorgan Chase settled survivor claims for $290 million.

The effects were strongest for the most intensive connections. Directors who had documented in-person meetings with Epstein were 2.5 times more likely to be accused of misconduct, with 5.2 total incidents a year per connected director.

These aren’t just correlations. When an Epstein-connected director died during the period we studied – an event outside any firm’s control – their company subsequently saw a big drop in misconduct incidents in the years that followed. In short, this relationship reflected something real and causal, not just that badly governed firms were more likely to tolerate such connections in the first place.

These connections weren’t just associated with greater governance problems. In the cases where CEOs or board members were mentioned in Epstein-related news in the two weeks after the files’ January release, we found that their companies’ share prices also took a hit, falling about 3%. This tells us that investors considered Epstein contacts to be relevant for company valuations.

Too close for comfort?

Beyond individual firms, Epstein’s network reshaped the structure of corporate America itself. We found that board members in his network tended to cluster more tightly than nonconnected members.

When we mapped connections among board members, adding Epstein-mediated links increased the network’s density by 353%. In other words, it sharply reduced the degrees of separation among major companies by more than a factor of three. This increase in density is similar to what might be seen in other elite networks, such as graduating from an Ivy League school.

Before accounting for Epstein ties, the average connection between two businesses required more than two jumps between boards. Including the ties, they were typically separated by fewer than two.

The effect was especially pronounced in finance and technology, including giants such as JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. In this sector, 32 of 50 companies had at least one Epstein-connected director, while network density increased by 550%. In tech, Epstein’s ties actually bridged two previously disconnected clusters of firms, joining Microsoft, Apple, Cisco and IBM into a single connected network. Manufacturing and healthcare, by contrast, were less affected.

It’s about norms, not just networks

A natural question is whether talking to Epstein simply suggests that person was well connected – and that firms try to put well-connected people on their boards.

To test this, we considered two scenarios. Under one, Epstein expanded executives’ access to elite contacts and opportunities, potentially benefiting their firms. Under the other, exposure to Epstein’s network spread a culture of boundary-crossing behavior, making questionable conduct seem more normal.

Our research points to the second explanation. If a company became more embedded and better connected within the Epstein network, it wasn’t associated with worse governance outcomes. But when boards outside that network had members who served on other boards with Epstein-connected directors, those indirect ties consistently predicted more misconduct incidents.

A full reckoning for many of these business, in terms of governance and reputation, may still lie ahead. But investors, board-nominating committees and regulators now have the data to ask harder questions about who sits in corporate boardrooms – and whose company they kept.

Michaela Pagel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.