WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal Reserve officials are expected to keep their short-term interest rate unchanged Wednesday after three cuts last year, ignoring huge pressure for lower borrowing costs from the White House in favor of waiting to see how the economy evolves.

The central bank’s rate reductions last year were intended to shore up the economy and prevent a sharper deterioration in the job market, after hiring slowed to a near-crawl in the wake of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs last April. Yet there are signs that unemployment has stabilized and the economy could be picking up. At the same time, inflation remains stubbornly above the Fed’s 2% target. All those trends argue for keeping rates where they are.

A key issue that Chair Jerome Powell will likely address at his news conference Wednesday is how long the Fed will remain on hold. The rate-setting committee remains split between those officials opposed to further cuts until inflation comes down, and those who want to lower rates to further support hiring.

In December, just 12 of the 19 participants in the committee’s meetings supported at least one more rate cut this year. Most economists forecast the Fed will cut twice this year, most likely at the June meeting or later.

Fed officials meet this week in the shadow of unprecedented pressure from the Trump White House. Powell said Jan. 11 that the Fed had received subpoenas from the Justice Department as part of a criminal investigation into his congressional testimony about a $2.5 billion building renovation. Powell in an unusually blunt video statement said the subpoenas were a pretext to punish the Fed for not cutting rates more quickly.

And last week, the Supreme Court took up Trump’s attempt from last year to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she denies. No president has fired a governor in the Fed’s 112-year history. The justices at an oral argument appeared to be leaning toward allowing her to stay in her job until the case is resolved.

At the same time, Trump has suggested he is close to naming a new Fed Chair, to replace Powell once his term ends in May. The announcement could come as soon as this week, though it has been delayed before.

The president’s efforts to pressure the Fed may have backfired, economists say, as Republicans in the Senate voiced support for Powell and threatened to block Trump’s replacement chair.

“The last couple of weeks have been pretty positive for Fed independence,” said Patricia Zobel, a former official at the New York Fed and now head of macroeconomic research at Guggenheim Invesments.

Even so, all the turmoil may have led Powell to hunker down as he nears the end of his term as chair. Vincent Reinhart, a former Fed economist and now chief economist at BNY Investments, noted that Powell has given just one speech touching on the economy since September.

He could be letting other Fed officials take on the job of explaining why the central bank may hold off on rate cuts in the coming months, Reinhart said. It also underscores that the chair does not make decisions on rates alone, he added,

“The contribution of Chair Powell to news about our understanding of the next Fed move has been as small as it’s ever been, over his tenure,” Reinhart said.

Only 12 of the 19 members of the Fed’s rate-setting committee have a vote, including all seven members of the board of governors, the president of the New York Fed, and a rotating group of four presidents from the regional Fed banks.

This year, Beth Hammack, president of the Cleveland Fed; Neel Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Fed; Lorie Logan, president of the Dallas Fed; and Anna Paulson, president of the Philadelphia Fed, will vote on rate decisions. All have recently expressed some skepticism of the need for further cuts anytime soon.

In a speech earlier this month, Paulson said an improving economy should allow more rate cuts later in the year.

“I see inflation moderating, the labor market stabilizing and growth coming in around 2% this year,” she said. “If all of that happens, then some modest further adjustments” to the Fed’s key rate “would likely be appropriate later in the year.”

Larger-than-usual tax refunds over the next few months should help fuel more consumer spending, economists expect. And faster growth could eventually boost hiring, which has been noticeably weak even as the economy is expanding.

With businesses barely adding jobs, consumers remain gloomy about the economy. The Conference Board’s measure of consumer confidence dropped to an 11-year low in January, the business research group said Tuesday.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Three of the world’s biggest tech companies face a landmark trial in Los Angeles starting this week over claims that their platforms — Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok and Google’s YouTube — deliberately addict and harm children.

Jury selection starts this week in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms. The selection process is expected to take at least a few days, with 75 potential jurors questioned each day through at least Thursday. A fourth company named in the lawsuit, Snapchat parent company Snap Inc., settled the case last week for an undisclosed sum.

At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in healthcare costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

“Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants’ products,” the lawsuit says. “They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops.”

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

Meta, YouTube and TikTok did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being. A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on whether she should at least temporarily halt the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has led to the fatal shootings of two people by government officers.

The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, five days after Renee Good was shot by an Immigration and Customs officer. Saturday’s shooting by a Border Patrol officer of Alex Pretti has only added urgency to the case.

Since the original filing, the state and cities have substantially added to their original request. They’re trying to restore the state of affairs that existed before the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge on Dec. 1.

The hearing is set for Monday morning in federal court in Minneapolis. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he plans to personally attend.

They’re asking that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Menendez order federal law enforcement agencies to reduce the numbers of officers and agents in Minnesota to levels before the surge, while allowing them to continue to enforce immigration laws within a long list of proposed limits.

Justice Department attorneys have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous” and said “Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement.” They asked the judge to reject the request or or at least stay her order pending an anticipated appeal.

Ellison said at a news conference Sunday that he and the cities filed their lawsuit because of “the unprecedented nature of this of this surge. It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that we’re looking at right now. No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.”

It wasn’t clear ahead of the hearing when the judge might rule.

The case also has implications for other states that have been or could be targets of intensive federal immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys general from 19 states plus the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Minnesota.

“If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere,” the attorneys general wrote.

Menendez is the same judge who ruled in a separate case on Jan. 16 that federal officers in Minnesota can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including people who are following and observing agents.

An appeals court temporarily suspended that ruling three days before Saturday’s shooting. But the plaintiffs in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, asked the appeals court late Saturday for an emergency order lifting the stay in light of Pretti’s killing. The Justice Department argued in a reply filed Sunday that the stay should remain in place, calling the injunction unworkable and overly broad.

In yet another case, a different federal judge, Eric Tostrud, late Saturday issued an order blocking the Trump administration from “destroying or altering evidence” related to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty asked for the order to try to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities have not yet been able to inspect. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Monday afternoon in federal court in St. Paul.

“The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison told reporters. “But now, this is what we have to do.”