The Federal Trade Commission voted to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the last days of the Biden administration that accused PepsiCo of offering sweetheart pricing to big retailers.

FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson dissented to the suit when it was filed in January, when he was one of the regulator’s commissioners. Now the agency’s leader, Ferguson on Thursday again criticized the case as “a nakedly political effort to commit this administration to pursuing little more than a hunch that Pepsi had violated the law.”

“The FTC’s outstanding staff will instead get back to work protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and competitive business environment,” he said in a statement.

The FTC voted 3-0 to drop the suit. The panel is supposed to be made up of five commissioners, no more than three of whom can share the same political party. But it is currently led by three Republicans after President Donald Trump fired its two Democratic commissioners in March. The two ousted officials have slammed their removals as illegal and are urging a judge to reinstate them.

Pepsi welcomed the FTC decision Thursday. “PepsiCo has always and will continue to provide all customers with fair, competitive, and non-discriminatory pricing, discounts and promotional value,” a spokesperson said in a statement. Beyond its namesake soda, the company makes an array of snacks and other food products, including Doritos, Rold Gold pretzels and Sabra hummus.

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, who led the commission when the agency brought its case against Pepsi, criticized the move Thursday as “disturbing behavior” by the agency.

“This lawsuit would’ve protected families from paying higher prices at the grocery store and stopped conduct that squeezes small businesses and communities across America,” she wrote on X Thursday evening. “Dismissing it is a gift to giant retailers as they gear up to hike prices.”

The decision comes little more than a week after top-ranking Democrats on Capitol Hill sent a letter to Pepsi demanding more information about its pricing strategy. They sought to revive a Biden-era focus on price-gouging as a driver of inflation, an argument that has taken a back seat to the Trump administration’s attention on purportedly unfair trade arrangements.

But major corporations continue to draw scrutiny from the White House over pricing in other ways. Last weekend, Trump slammed Walmart for warning that it was likely to raise prices to offset the costs of his import taxes, demanding on social media that it “EAT THE TARIFFS.”

In the days since then, other major consumer brands have appeared to tread cautiously around pricing. Target said Wednesday that charging customers more would be its “very last resort.” Home Depot virtually ruled out price hikes this week, and Lowe’s barely mentioned tariff impacts in its Wednesday earnings call at all.

CORRECTION (May 22, 2025, 8:45 p.m. ET): Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article misstated when congressional Democrats sent their letter to Pepsi. It was on May 11, not last weekend.

United Airlines reached an “industry-leading” tentative labor deal for its 28,000 flight attendants, their union said Friday.

The deal includes “40% of total economic improvements” in the first year and retroactive pay, a signing bonus, and quality of life improvements, like better scheduling and on-call time, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA said.

The union did not provide further details about the deal.

United flight attendants have not had a raise since 2020.

The cabin crew members voted last year to authorize the union to strike if a deal wasn’t reached. They had also sought federal mediation in negotiations.

U.S. flight attendants have pushed for wage increases for years after pilots and other work groups secured new labor deals in the wake of the pandemic. United is the last of the major U.S. carriers to get a deal done with its flight attendants.

The deal must still face a vote by flight attendants, and contract language will be finalized in the coming days, United said.

President Donald Trump on Friday cleared the merger of U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel, after the Japanese steelmaker’s previous bid to acquire its U.S. rival had been blocked on national security grounds.

“This will be a planned partnership between United States Steel and Nippon Steel, which will create at least 70,000 jobs, and add $14 Billion Dollars to the U.S. Economy,” Trump said in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

U.S. Steel’s headquarters will remain in Pittsburgh and the bulk of the investment will take place over the next 14 months, the president said. U.S. Steel shares surged more than 20% to close at $52.01 per share after Trump’s announcement.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro applauded the agreement, saying he worked with local, state and federal leaders ‘to press for the best deal to keep U.S. Steel headquartered in Pittsburgh, protect union jobs, and secure the future of steelmaking in Western Pennsylvania.’

In his own statement, Lieutenant Gov. Austin Davis called the announcement ‘promising,’ but added: ‘I want to make sure everyone involved in the deal holds up their end of the bargain. I look forward to seeing the promised investments become a reality and the workers receive everything they’ve fought for.’

President Joe Biden blocked Nippon Steel from purchasing U.S. Steel for $14.9 billion in January, citing national security concerns. Biden said at the time that the acquisition would create a risk to supply chains that are critical for the U.S.

Trump, however, ordered a new review of the proposed acquisition in April, directing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to determine “whether further action in this matter may be appropriate.”

Trump said he would hold a rally at U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh on May 30.

The once-solid relationship between President Donald Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook is breaking down over the idea of a U.S.-made iPhone.

Last week, Trump said he “had a little problem with Tim Cook,” and on Friday, he threatened to slap a 25% tariff on iPhones in a social media post.

Trump is upset with Apple’s plan to source the majority of iPhones sold in the U.S. from its factory partners in India, instead of China. Cook confirmed this plan earlier this month during earnings discussions.

Trump wants Apple to build iPhones for the U.S. market in the U.S. and has continued to pressure the company and Cook.

“I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone’s that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday.

Analysts said it would probably make more sense for Apple to eat the cost rather than move production stateside.

“In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to US,” Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X.

UBS analyst David Vogt said that the potential 25% tariffs were a “jarring headline” but that they would only be a “modest headwind” to Apple’s earnings, dropping annual earnings by 51 cents per share, versus a prior expectation of 34 cents per share under the current tariff landscape.

Experts have long held that a U.S.-made iPhone is impossible at worst and highly expensive at best.

Analysts have said that iPhones made in the U.S. would be much more expensive, CNBC previously reported, with some estimates ranging between $1,500 and $3,500 to buy one at retail. Labor costs would certainly rise.

But it would also be logistically complicated.

Supply chains and factories take years to build out, including installing equipment and staffing up. Parts that Apple imported to the United States for assembly might be subject to tariffs as well.

Apple started manufacturing iPhones in India in 2017 but it was only in recent years that the region was capable of building Apple’s latest devices.

“We believe the concept of Apple producing iPhones in the US is a fairy tale that is not feasible,” wrote Wedbush analyst Dan Ives in a note on Friday.

Other analysts were wary about predicting how Trump’s threat ultimately plays out. Apple might be able to strike a deal with the administration — despite the eroding relationship — or challenge the tariffs in court.

For now, most of Apple’s most important products are exempt from tariffs after Trump gave phones and computers a tariff waiver — even from China — in April, but Apple doesn’t know how the Trump administration’s tariffs will ultimately play out beyond June.

“We’re skeptical” that the 25% tariff will materialize, wrote Wells Fargo analyst Aaron Rakers.

He wrote that Apple could try to preserve its roughly 41% gross margin on iPhones by raising prices in the U.S. by between $100 and $300 per phone.

It’s unclear how Trump intends to target Apple’s India-made iPhones. Rakers wrote that the administration could put specific tariffs on phone imports from India.

Apple’s operations in India continue to expand.

Foxconn, which assembles iPhones for Apple, is building a new $1.5 billion factory in India that could do some iPhone production, the Financial Times reported Thursday.

Apple declined to comment on Trump’s post.