Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says he's convinced of two things: The U.S. will make a long list of trade deals by mid-summer, and the tariffs forcing those deals won't raise retail prices.

Why it matters: Investors, business leaders and consumers across the nation are praying he's right.

Driving the news: Lutnick, a billionaire Wall Street CEO before entering government, was nothing but optimistic in an interview with Axios' Mike Allen at the Building the Future event in Washington last night.

• When asked how many of the 18 key U.S. trading partners would have a trade deal by the time a tariff pause ends on July 8, he said "I think most countries, we'll have an idea of what we want to do with them."

The big picture: Lutnick is at the forefront of the Trump administration's sweeping efforts to rewrite the rules of global trade, the campaign that has disrupted the U.S. and international economies and created deep uncertainty for businesses and consumers.

• The president's argument: The U.S. has been treated unfairly by the world for decades, at the cost of valuable American jobs, a situation that can only be fixed by a more aggressive approach.

Between the lines: Over the last few days, the single most important question about the tariffs has been what they'll do to the American consumer.

• Lutnick recently decried "silly arguments" that tariffs raise prices. A few days later, Walmart said it would do exactly that, and a number of other companies have hinted at the same since.
• The commerce secretary didn't flinch, though. "The president has to stand strong, and you can't fix things in a day, and that's still going, but I would expect that prices in America will be unaffected," he said.

Reality check: Notwithstanding Lutnick's certainty, many retail executives still expect the cost pressures to build week by week, with price hikes much more noticeable by late June or early July.

Men are far more likely to "buy the dip," per a BlackRock survey shared first with Axios that examines how voters respond to stock market declines and considers their general feelings about retirement.

Why it matters: The findings illustrate a broader issue when it comes to investing and saving for retirement. There's a gender gap that puts women, who also have longer life expectancies, at a disadvantage.

Zoom in: BlackRock surveyed 1,000 registered U.S. voters between April 17 and April 22, asking if stock market drops make them more likely to invest because stocks are cheaper.

• 63% of men agreed compared to just 33% of women.

Zoom out: The vast majority of respondents with retirement accounts didn't change their behavior after the "Liberation Day" sell-off in early April, and given the long timelines that these accounts are on, that made sense.

• In fact, we now know retail investors rushed in to buy stocks when the markets plunged in April, which now looks like the right call.

By the numbers: 80% of BlackRock's respondents said they didn't do anything different when markets fell.

• 10% said they put more money in their retirement account. And another 9% either moved money into cash, sold investments or cashed out a retirement account early.

What they're saying: These results are "heartening," Jaime Magyera, co-head of BlackRock's U.S. wealth advisory business, said in a statement.

• "I'm reminded of a timeless piece of investment wisdom that was once told to me: 'It's not about timing the market. It's about the time you spend in the market.'"

The big picture: Women, who still earn less than men on average, are at a disadvantage across all kinds of retirement accounts — from pensions to 401(k)s — and even when it comes to Social Security benefits.

• Women take longer time-outs from the labor market, typically to care for children or other relatives, thus unable to set as much income aside.
• 37% of women had no retirement savings, per a BlackRock survey from January. 45% of current retirees, including 54% of female current retirees, said they found entering retirement to be somewhat or very stressful in terms of financial anxiety, in a recent Goldman Sachs survey.

Between the lines: BlackRock has been pushing policymakers to take a closer look at how Americans are saving for retirement, particularly as more rely on 401(k)s, instead of pension plans.

• The firm is calling it a crisis. CEO Larry Fink said "the situation is dire" in his 2025 letter to investors, which highlighted that most Americans don't have enough saved.
• Fink suggested new policies that would lead Americans to save more in private investment accounts.

The upper bound of "middle class" in America is often pegged at an annual income of between $150,000 and $250,000, but looking at legislation being drawn up by Republicans in Congress, it seems to be much, much higher.

Why it matters: Some of the proposals for the forthcoming budget raise income cutoff levels to as high as $2.5 million per year.

Driving the news: The House is considering allowing state and local tax deductions of as much as $40,000 for people making up to $500,000, Axios' Hans Nichols reported this week, a sign that some blue-state Republicans consider $500,000 to be a middle-class income.

Between the lines: President Trump considers an annual income of $1 million too modest to justify higher income taxes, per Nichols, but is fine with the idea once income reaches $2.5 million.

Where it stands: To be in the top 10% of individual earners, a U.S. worker has to earn $2,905 per week, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is $150,000 per year.

• To be in the top 10% of households in 2024, you had to earn $235,000.
• The middle class tops out at $169,800 for a family of three in 2022 dollars, which is $188,400 in 2025 dollars, according to Pew Research Center.

How it works: Some government policies only apply to people making less than a certain amount on the grounds that the rich are already comfortable.

• Looking at where that line gets drawn indicates where the upper-middle class ends and the upper class begins, at least in the eyes of Congress.

Flashback: Trump, in his first term, sent stimulus checks to everyone making $198,000 per year or less for married households filing jointly. People earning more than that were considered rich enough not to need the checks.

• Conversely, the net investment income tax — a tax on the rich — kicks in only once a married couple filing jointly makes over $250,000 per year.
• For President Biden, $400,000 was the key number, the level below which he said he would never raise taxes, and above which he wanted a new tax to help pay for Medicare.

The bottom line: Now that home values and retirement balances regularly make their way into seven-figure territory, we've solidly entered a world of middle-class millionaires.