The Brief

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has allocated $2.7 billion in response to the L.A. wildfires, but some survivors say the agency’s support has fallen short of expectations.

According to an LAist analysis of FEMA data, the agency has covered a smaller portion of damage costs in response to the L.A. fires than was seen at this point after other recent natural disasters.

Assistance to eligible survivors has covered an average of about 7% of the damage costs FEMA assessed to their properties so far, less than one third of the proportion covered after the California fires in 2017 or 2018, or the 2023 Hawaii fires.

Eligible survivors of the L.A. fires have gotten an average of around $4,100 in direct FEMA assistance so far — average damage costs assessed by the agency are over $55,000 for those same survivors.

Experts who spoke to LAist cautioned against comparing disasters, but the complicated application process for receiving FEMA assistance has slowed the response here and frustrated some L.A. residents who are trying to decide whether to rebuild or relocate, often requiring them to make multiple appeals after claims that were denied for procedural reasons.

When Furmencio Quiroz’s Altadena home was destroyed in the Eaton Fire, he expected FEMA to help with some of the rebuilding costs not covered by his family’s insurance. After six months and multiple appeals of his application, Quiroz says he thinks the rebuilding process has gone slower than government officials promised.

" It feels like time is flying, and we're nowhere," Quiroz told LAist.

Rebuilding the family home

Quiroz grew up in the Altadena house before living there with his wife and six children, together with his parents and his brother’s family.

Then the Eaton Fire destroyed everything, Quiroz said.

"At first you're like, wow, like you can't even process it." Quiroz said about losing his family’s home. "Then you just start thinking about every little memory you had."

He said his father is a retired construction worker, and while they had insurance on the house they had never filed a claim until the fire. His father would always take care of any repairs himself.

But the insurance they had wasn’t nearly enough to cover the costs of rebuilding, Quiroz said.

After initially receiving a few thousand dollars from FEMA for essential items and temporary housing, Quiroz said his family applied for help with rebuilding costs.

According to FEMA policy, survivors who apply through the Individuals and Households Program (IHP) can receive up to $43,600 for housing assistance and another $43,600 to go toward other needs like child care, medical expenses, transportation or replacing damaged personal property.

Quiroz thought he would be eligible for housing assistance, but FEMA denied his family’s application. He said FEMA told him he was not eligible because he had already received an insurance payment.

"I've appealed the case about three times, because we're underinsured," Quiroz said. Even getting the maximum insurance payment under his policy still covered less than half of the expected rebuilding costs, he added.

FEMA can not duplicate benefits from insurance or other programs that are provided to applicants for the same purpose, according to federal law, but FEMA updated its policy in 2024 to expand eligibility for survivors whose insurance did not cover the cost of damages to their homes or property.

Quiroz said that on top of the costs of rebuilding he also has to find a permanent place where his family can afford to stay while making mortgage payments on the house that burned down.

In the meantime, he has been commuting from an Airbnb in Pomona to his job as a mechanic in Downey. He said he can’t seem to get straightforward answers about FEMA’s process or why he was denied assistance.

He's been going to a disaster recovery center in Altadena and calling FEMA, but he said he has gotten "a different answer every time" he has asked for clarification.

FEMA representatives did not respond to LAist's request for comment.

Navigating a bureaucratic "labyrinth" 

To get assistance, disaster survivors like Quiroz often have to navigate a complicated process that is fragmented across many agencies and programs, according to Chris Currie, director of homeland security and justice at the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, a non-partisan federal watchdog agency that examines how federal funds are spent.

"None of those programs were ever really designed to work together in concert, which makes for a very frustrating recovery process for survivors," Currie told LAist.

The GAO reports to congress and federal agencies, and keeps a list of programs across the federal government that they assess to be high risk, or most in need of reform.

Delivery of federal disaster assistance was recently added to that list, joining issues like federal oversight of food safety and contract management at the Department of Defense.

"I don't think anyone at FEMA tried to design these programs to be difficult and time consuming," Currie said. But rules put in place over the years to avoid fraud and abuse have inadvertently created a complex "labyrinth" for survivors to navigate, he added.

The GAO has pointed to the need to simplify the process for years, but Currie said that hasn’t translated to system-wide progress that's needed.

The Trump administration created the FEMA Review Council in January, and Currie is optimistic this could spark more significant reform.

"I think everyone is waiting for the results of this FEMA Council to come out, to provide the framework and the instructions on what specifically is gonna change," Currie said.

President Donald Trump threatened to "phase out" the agency last month, but the administration’s stance toward the agency has since softened, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem telling NBC News on Sunday that the president now wants to see the agency "remade."

FEMA’s response to other recent disasters

LAist analyzed public data to see how FEMA’s response to the L.A. wildfires compares with other natural disasters in recent years and found some notable differences.

According to monthly FEMA reports and estimates of total damage costs, overall financial support allocated by the agency in response to the fires has covered a much smaller portion of damage costs than seen six months after hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024.

Currie said there could be a number of reasons for differences in FEMA funding provided after natural disasters, like the types or concentration of damage.

"The scale of the destruction in Helene dwarfs [the L.A. fires], but the concentration of damage in L.A. was horrific. " Currie said. "So the cost you're going to see just to deploy across a massive geographic region in Helene is gonna be way, way higher than L.A."

The largest amount of money from FEMA goes to state and local governments in what the agency calls public assistance for things like repairing public buildings and debris cleanup, Currie told LAist.

Currie said debris cleanup is a key first step toward recovery, and that FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and leaders at state and local levels worked very quickly to clear debris compared to other large-scale natural disasters.

LAist also looked into differences in direct assistance to individuals and found that so far FEMA has covered a much smaller portion of assessed damage costs after the L.A. fires than were covered after the 2024 hurricanes, though the agency assessed that damage costs for L.A. fire survivors were higher.

This gap affects survivors like Quiroz who believe they should be eligible for more assistance and have experienced denial letters or process delays.

Currie told LAist that applications are often denied by FEMA initially for technical reasons, but they may still be eligible when they have completed more of the process.

"It can just be a very long, difficult process that requires a lot of back and forth between a survivor and FEMA or other government agencies," Currie said.

Quiroz, who has missed work from his job and is currently waiting to hear back from FEMA, said his family still plans on rebuilding but isn’t counting on more support from the agency.

"We had hope . . that they were gonna help us out," Quiroz said, "but it seems like it's not gonna be that way."

Long term recovery

Local agencies and organizations have been working to cover some of the gap in support left after insurance and FEMA assistance.

Jorge Anaya, an emergency management coordinator at the L.A. County Office of Emergency Management, told LAist that the county previously provided assistance to disaster victims of up to $18,000 through the Household Relief Grant program and has kept a comprehensive list of other existing resources for residents.

 "As we approach long-term recovery, there is existing aid," Anaya said, "However, it starts becoming a whole-of-community response, not just a whole-of-government response."

He said the county has partnered with the L.A. Region Community Recovery Organization, or LARCRO, to help people get continued assistance.

"It’s important for us to recognize that FEMA is in no way meant to make people whole with their funding," said Jenni Campbell, the executive director of LARCRO. "The community is responsible for recovery in the long term."

LARCRO is a nonprofit that was organized after the Woolsey Fire in 2018. Campbell said they work closely with FEMA and lead the recovery arm of Emergency Network Los Angeles, or ENLA, which includes other nonprofits involved in disaster response like American Red Cross, the Salvation Army and 211 LA County.

She told LAist that direct assistance from FEMA is just one part of what FEMA refers to as "the sequence of delivery," which also includes insurance, loans from the Small Business Administration and long term recovery groups.

LARCRO and ENLA have been organizing long term recovery groups to support the Pacific Palisades, Malibu and Altadena areas, bringing together nonprofit organizations, disaster case managers and community leaders to support survivors who won’t be able to recover on their own.

Those groups will soon start holding weekly meetings, but Campbell said community organizations like hers have been involved in supporting survivors since the beginning of the recovery process.

Quiroz told LAist he has gotten support from local churches to help buy food and from 211 LA County, which provided his family with Airbnbs like the one they're staying in now.

Campbell said LARCRO has connected with more than 5,000 people affected by the fires to coordinate disaster case management, and that disaster victims can learn more on their website.

Howard Berkowitz, founder and CEO of the Duck Sanctuary in Anza, was a hometown hero. He was the person called when hundreds of ducklings were about to hatch unexpectedly or when abandoned chicks and ducks needed homes after Easter festivities died down.

Now, the Riverside County Department of Animal Services says Berkowitz surrendered 480 ducks because of “overcrowding at the property,” setting off a mass adoption effort that started Wednesday.

In an interview with LAist on Wednesday, Berkowitz said his problems started after he received an unexpected call in 2024. It was from a supplier of the Filipino delicacy balut and her duck eggs were about to hatch.

He rushed over and saved around 120 hatchlings. A social media page then began accusing him of mistreating the fowl and mismanaging donations.

Berkowitz said he has taken care of hundreds of ducks, sometimes at his own expense, and still has around 500 ducks at the sanctuary. But the mental health problems caused by the accusations are prompting him to shut down the sanctuary and move to Northern California, taking many beloved ducks with him.

Because he won’t be able to take them all, he said he called the county for help. But the Riverside County Department of Animal Services said officials had to remove the animals because of “improper” breeding and care.

“Limited assessments show the animals did not receive adequate caretaking,” according to the county.

But, the county added, the California Department of Food and Agriculture tested a sample of the fowl for infectious diseases and the results came back negative.

Berkowitz said he'll transport around 500 ducks with him to Northern California, where he’s in the process of buying a 160-acre property.

The other 480 ducks, he said, were surrendered to the county to transport to another shelter.

The county now is putting the ducks in their possession up for adoption. To adopt, email shelterinfo@rivco.org or visit the San Jacinto Valley Animal Campus. Ducks will be offered on a first-come, first-serve basis. The county also is waiving adoption fees.

For California’s local governments hoping to have some say over where and how large apartment buildings get packed near major transit stops, it’s crunch time.

Last fall, state lawmakers made it legal for developers to build mid-rises — some as tall as nine stories — in major metro neighborhoods near train, subway and certain dedicated bus stops.

But the final version of Senate Bill 79, which goes into effect on July 1, offered local governments plenty of wiggle room over the where, when and how of the new law.

With the summer deadline rapidly approaching, cities across the state are starting to wiggle.

Like a statewide game of Choose Your Own Adventure, local elected officials for the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles to San Diego are exploring ways to either lean into the spirit of the law, come up with their own plan tailored to the city’s whims and needs, or slow the local roll out for as long as possible while considering their options. Those that do nothing will be forced to accept the transit-oriented rezoning prescribed by state legislators.

Los Angeles opted for a strategy of maximum delay last month when the city council voted to overhaul a portion of its zoning map in order to buy itself a few more years of planning time.

The move took advantage of a set of escape clauses written into the state law: Transit-adjacent areas that already allow at least half of the housing required under SB 79 can hold off on changing the rules until a year after the next state-mandated planning period.

For Los Angeles and much of Southern California that’s 2030.

Likewise, many lower income neighborhoods, those at risk of wildfire and sea-level rise or sites listed on a historic preservation registry also qualify for that temporary delay.

L.A.’s city council mashed every pause button it could.

Along with temporarily exempting zoning changes in poorer neighborhoods, known fire zones and historic districts, the council preemptively voted to allow modest multiplex buildings as tall as three or four stories in dozens of higher-income neighborhoods currently restricted to single family homes. That will bring those areas up above the cut-off needed for the four-year reprieve, according to the city’s planning staff.

By swallowing a little more allowable density in the short term, the city was able to ward off a whole lot more — for now. Backers of the measure said that will give the city more time to come up with a better alternative that still complies with the law.

The vote “adds meaningful housing capacity now and gives us time to decide where the rest of density should go within our own communities,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said before the vote.

When 2030 arrives, the city will either have to come up with its own plan that meets the overall density requirements of the state law — but with some allowable flexibility over where all the potential growth goes — or belatedly accept SB 79 whole cloth.

The L.A. vote came as a disappointment to many pro-development advocates, who have called upon city officials to speedily accept the state-imposed densification immediately, or barring that, to take more aggressive steps in the meantime.

“We’re pretty concerned that this is not actually going to produce housing,” said Scott Epstein, policy and research director with Abundant Housing Los Angeles, a “Yes In My Backyard” oriented advocacy group.

He noted that smaller apartment buildings are less likely to be financially feasible in areas where land costs are exceptionally high. The city’s ordinance achieves its increase in allowable density by permitting modest apartment buildings in relatively affluent neighborhoods.

But even some of the state law’s fiercest defenders see a silver lining in the city’s delay tactic.

“On the one hand, it’s disappointing because we're delaying the full potential of the law,” said Aaron Eckhouse, local policy programs director for California YIMBY, one of the sponsors of SB 79. But in Los Angeles, he noted, city officials have long been fiercely resistant to proposed zoning changes in neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes.

Now Los Angeles council members are effectively saying, “‘okay, we will do this on our terms rather than on the state’s terms,’” said Eckhouse. “But it is still happening, because the state forced the issue.”

How can cities go their own way?

The Los Angeles approach mirrors one being pursued by officials in San Francisco. There officials are considering a policy of exempting industrial areas and many of the city’s low-resource neighborhoods, while preemptively pushing up the allowable density on certain low-rise locations to get them over the 50% threshold and qualify for a delay until 2032.

But unlike Los Angeles, San Francisco doesn’t plan to spend years coming up with a bespoke local alternative. Instead, the city is proposing to roll out its own version before July 1. That task was made a bit easier given that local officials just wrapped up a citywide densification effort last year as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning Plan.”

The current proposal is set to be heard by a Board of Supervisors subcommittee later this month.

For cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that decide to come up with their own local plans, they will still need to get the approval of state housing regulators. Officials from California’s Housing Department have yet to publicly weigh in on any individual city’s plans. But their boss has. In a handful of social media posts, Gov. Gavin Newsom has lambasted Los Angeles and San Diego for their proposed efforts to shield certain portions of their city from the requirements of the law. Newsom did not suggest that either city was violating the law itself.

Some cities may simply decide not to bother. Sacramento, for example, will soon consider an ordinance that would make modest tweaks to the way it accepts development applications subject to the state law, but otherwise leaves the state-set zoning rules intact.

Other municipalities, with smaller budgets and fewer professional planners on staff, may not have much choice but to accept the requirements of the state law, said Jason Rhine, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, which opposed the bill when it was working its way through the Legislature.

Rhine said that some cities are still scrambling to understand the basics of the statute, such as how it applies to future transit infrastructure or how the law defines distance from a transit stop.

“If you’re a planner trying to come up with an alternative plan authorized by (the law), you don't have the information needed to even get started,” said Rhine. He said he is urging state lawmakers to consider extending the July 1 deadline. No one has taken him up on the idea yet.

‘A matter of urgency’

In Oakland, the decision over whether to delay or accept the state upzoning has played out at the neighborhood level.

Last month, the city’s planning staff proposed an ordinance to take the full suite of possible delays in order to buy time and develop an alternative plan. This, city staff stressed, was not about opposition to the goals of state law, but about a preference among local planners to reconsider the city’s plan comprehensively and at all once, rather than in fits and starts.

“It’s no dispute over outcome,” Oakland Planning Director William Gilchrist told the council. “I think it really comes down to a question of when and how.”

Even so, three city council members objected, arguing, in effect, that they would like the state’s override in their districts now, thank you very much.

Zac Unger, who represents some of the city’s more affluent neighborhoods in North Oakland, argued that parcels that have already achieved the 50% density threshold should not be exempt in his district, especially because the bulk of them are located along busy commercial corridors.

Change is coming, one way or another, he argued at council. “I am arguing for, in a sense, coming to grips with that reality right now rather than spending a year providing people with the false idea that we can somehow exempt ourselves from state law.”

Two other members — Charlene Wang and Ken Houston — who represent some of the low-resource neighborhoods entitled to delay, also wanted to adopt the law in their districts now. “In an urban area like Oakland we should be far exceeding the density minimums in (state law),” said Wang.

In a follow-up interview, Unger noted that the debate in Oakland may be more symbolic than it is in other cities. By happenstance, city planners have been working for years toward an overhaul of the city’s zoning map, which they aim to wrap up next year. In other words, Oakland is likely to have an alternative plan that complies with the state law’s requirements by 2027 anyway.

“If we implement SB 79 on July 1 of this year instead of July 1 of next year, there won’t be buildings blowing up from the street,” he said. “It’s just a matter of urgency — and a statement of values.”

Aside from those cities that are racing to embrace the state law and those seeking delay or their own versions, there is another possible category: Those that resist the law entirely.

After California lawmakers passed a law in 2021 allowing homeowners to split up their properties into as many as four separate units, density-averse cities pushed back. Some took the state to court, others explored adopting municipal charters, one flirted with the idea of becoming a mountain lion refuge. None of the measures ultimately succeeded.

If SB 79 is met with a similar array of resistance, we aren’t likely to see that until after the July 1 deadline, said Eckhouse with California YIMBY.

“The reason to do something now is either to lean into it or to use the provisions of the law for flexibility and deferrals,” he said. “But if they just want to stand in the door and say ‘no,’ we might not find out about that until the zoning standards go into effect.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

MacArthur Park will briefly look different this summer.

City officials and community groups are planning a two-day event for a FIFA World Cup watch party in July. The events will close a part of Wilshire Boulevard that passes through the park and turn the street into a pedestrian space.

For some residents, that change can’t come soon enough.

“I support this idea because right now kids aren’t really able to play in this area,” said Palea Hernandez, a Westlake resident and mother of three young children. “It’s not safe and clean enough for them.”

The events, scheduled for July 10 and 11, will coincide with the playoff matches. The teams have not been determined yet. Organized by Council District 1, the events will include food vendors, a large screen to view the games, and family activities.

Organizers say the goal is not just to celebrate the tournament, but to give residents a preview of what MacArthur Park could become.

The concept mirrors the proposed Reconnecting MacArthur Park project, which would permanently close the stretch of Wilshire that cuts through the park and unify its north and south sides into one continuous green space.

“They do plan to close Wilshire Boulevard between the parks to be showing the World Cup,” said Diana Alfaro of Central City Neighborhood Partners. “So that is something that’s basically the same as reconnecting MacArthur Park.”

More than 60% of surveyed residents support removing the roadway, according to preliminary findings from that study.

The World Cup events will offer a temporary version of that idea.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation plans to release a report on their outreach into the community and an evaluation on alternatives to reconnecting Wilshire Boulevard. The open streets event in the summer will preview potential changes to the area.

Organizers plan to model the event after open-street initiatives like CicLAvia, using a road closure to create space for pedestrians. Chelsea Lucktenberg, a spokesperson for Council District 1, said there will also be community organizations tabling with resources, including on where to get grocery and rental assistance. 

“We’re also looking to have activities and fun. Maybe a soccer clinic and other pop-up workshops,” she said.

The office is still finalizing details, but outreach to local vendors and businesses is expected to begin in May.

Lucktenberg said a similar event had been planned for last June but was canceled due to safety concerns during a period of heightened immigration enforcement activity in the area.

Not everyone is convinced the event alone will make a difference.

“If I’m being honest, I hate LA. I don’t like this place,” said Alex Valenzuela, who was born in Westlake and visits the area periodically when he has business at the Mexican consulate nearby. “The park is nice, but I just don’t like the fact that everywhere you see, there are homeless people, people smoking, people on drugs.”

Concerns about homelessness and drug activity came up repeatedly in interviews with residents and workers near the park.

Fernando Rodriguez, owner of Variedades A and K, where he does money transfers and sells vitamins and other household supplies, supports the idea as long as it does not disrupt access for workers. 

He believes kids could benefit from closing down Wilshire and opening it up for activities, but that the city needs to address homelessness in the area.

“Every day it’s packed with homeless people. The kids come to play in the park, but I’ve seen the homelessness and drugs,” he said. “Even if they close down to provide activities for kids, it’s not going to be safe for them if all the homeless are still here.”

Jonathan Santos, a leasing agent inside the MacArthur Park swap meet, said he would support the plan if it leads to visible improvements.

MacArthur Park will briefly look different this summer.

(

Steve Saldivar

/

The LA Local

)

“I would support this if it gets rid of the homelessness. I’m sick and tired of it,” Santos said. “I think closing down this street might be the beginning of something.”

Santos, who grew up in the neighborhood, said he no longer feels comfortable bringing his children to the park.

“My kids do not like it here … No way I would let them come here to play at MacArthur Park,” he said.

Others said more activity could help shift the feel of the park, even if temporarily.

“I feel like it will take a lot of homeless people away if they see a lot of people in the area with little kids,” said Erica Garcia, a local resident and mother. “I’ve been living here for two years now and I don’t bring my kid out here because it’s not safe.”

Garcia said she would be open to bringing her baby out to the park in July to experience the World Cup activation if there are extra security guards and police patrolling the area.

Outreach to local vendors and businesses is expected to begin in May as organizers finalize plans for the July event. Lucktenberg said residents can also expect to hear more about the events starting in May. The viewing parties at the park are just some of several that will be hosted across the city, including a block party at Liberty Park in Koreatown.

Neither of those parties are officially sanctioned by FIFA, who are planning to host their own events at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

The post FIFA World Cup events to close Wilshire through MacArthur Park for two days in July appeared first on LA Local.

Early spring means the return of warm weather and … taxes. On a recent weekend, Dan and Glynna Courter were enjoying the sun with friends over a picnic of blueberries and Cheez-Its at Birmingham's Railroad Park.

When the topic moved to how they're feeling about their tax refunds, nearly everyone at the gathering responded with a chorus of lukewarm just fines.

The lack of enthusiasm was surprising considering everyone on the picnic blanket received sizable refunds, including about $10,000 for the Courters combined. But Glynna thinks their refund wasn't that much different from last year. The couple withhold the maximum taxes from their paychecks, which helps them avoid the risk of owing taxes and leads to a bigger refund.

"We might go to a nice restaurant," Dan added, after Glynna said they'd use the refund for savings.

This is not the vibe Republican lawmakers were planning for this tax season. The White House had already declared this the "largest tax refund season in U.S. history," and so far it's on track to be, due to the Republicans' signature tax and spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The White House projected the average refund "to rise by $1,000 or more this year."

But that extra refund bump has fallen short of that projection.

So far, the average refund has totaled about $350 more than last year. By early April, the average tax refund sat at $3,462, which is 11.1% higher than the same point last year, according to the IRS.

And Americans appear to be shrugging their shoulders at the tax changes. A recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank advising on federal policy, found 62% of respondents either thought the tax changes harmed them or made no difference. Even among Republicans, only 35% said the changes favored them.

"There's a bit of a disappointment in how much those refunds are," said Tom O'Saben, the director of tax content and government relations at the National Association of Tax Professionals. "People are quietly, perhaps, happy but not to the extent where I would call it significant."

Americans who owe taxes could be seeing a bigger slice of the savings

One possible explanation for the lower refunds is that the benefits from the tax law changes could be showing up more for Americans who don't receive refunds, but owe taxes. The IRS data on tax refunds this season does not factor in how much less Americans owed compared to last year.

"The evidence is stronger that more tax relief is relatively flowing to those who otherwise would owe when they file," said Don Schneider, deputy head of U.S. policy at the investment bank Piper Sandler.

But Schneider points out that owing less money is harder to notice than getting cash in hand.

"Getting it in a refund is probably more impactful, more easy to understand than having a reduction in what you otherwise would owe," Schneider said.

Higher-income procrastinators still have to file

Wealthier filers so far seem to have received larger benefits from the tax changes.

"Higher income taxpayers are much more likely than lower income taxpayers to report significantly higher refunds this year," said Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

That's due in part to the increase in the SALT, or state and local tax, deduction cap raised by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Filers can now deduct up to $40,000 for property, sales and income taxes paid to state and local governments. The deduction primarily goes to wealthier Americans who own homes with big mortgage payments.

Since they traditionally are more likely to procrastinate sending in their returns, that could cause this year's average tax refund to grow later on, but likely still fall short of the additional $1,000 mark, Lautz said. "It is unlikely that we will see that kind of boost by the end of this."

Refunds are getting eaten up by higher gas prices

Part of the tepid response to refunds could be related to the extra cash Americans are spending at the pump.

The war with Iran has brought the average price for a gallon of regular in the U.S. well above $4. Data from the Bank of America Institute and PNC shows consumers have continued spending on gas, and depending on how long gas prices stay elevated, all of the benefits Americans received from the 2025 tax and spending bill could go solely to staying fueled up.

"The tax refund season might be very good, but it's also being offset by this price in gasoline," said Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.

Bob Jones, a retiree in Birmingham, is satisfied with his refund. He benefited from an extra deduction of $6,000 for a lot of seniors 65 and up. But the war with Iran has him worried about what that means for the price of gas, so he's put it all in savings.

"You need the savings simply for gas," Jones said.

Copyright 2026 NPR