Yields also rose across other major bond markets, including Europe and Japan, as investors remained concerned about inflation, higher oil prices and the sustainability of government borrowing.
The latest $6 billion operation follows the Treasury’s original announcement that it would at least double its long-duration buybacks from their typical $2 billion size. Yields initially fell after that announcement but later reversed sharply higher.
The Treasury is effectively repurchasing longer-dated bonds while continuing to finance itself at the front end of the yield curve. That changes the maturity profile of the government’s debt but does not reduce its overall borrowing needs.
The bond-market intervention followed earlier coordinated action by the U.S. and Japan to support the Japanese yen.
Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent challenged currency traders to bet against the intervention, declaring, “I am the house now.” A stronger yen is also in the U.S. government’s interest because it reduces the pressure on Japan to sell U.S. Treasuries to finance further currency intervention. Japan is the largest foreign holder of U.S. government debt.
Alongside rising Treasury yields, WTI crude has climbed to around $97 a barrel, matching its May high. The increase has added to concerns that higher energy costs could keep inflation elevated, making the Federal Reserve’s job more difficult.
Hernandez said five largest big tech companies alone plan to invest over a trillion dollars on AI-related projects between 2025 and 2026,. with expectations that global AI-related investment will grow from roughly $500 billion today to between $3 trillion and $4 trillion by 2030. Bridgewater Associates recently reported that Microsoft MSFT$490.41·Market Closed, Alphabet GOOG$328.41·Market Closed, Meta META$654.01·Market Closed and Amazon (AMZ), which have a combined market cap of approximately $12 trillion, expect to spend $650 billion together on AI infrastructure this year alone.
Concerns about an AI bubble have been circulating this year, such asCitrini Research’s bearish 2028 scenario that unsettled technology stocks in February.
“With U.S. stocks accounting for a large share of global equity markets, the effects could propagate globally. In some jurisdictions, windfall gains from rising AI-related exports may also contribute to domestic asset bubbles, further exacerbating financial stability concerns,” he said.
“I do not say that this is where the AI boom must lead.But the scale and speed of the current investment boom, and the weight of expected commercial returns, do warrant some caution.”
The BIS chief said AI’s promise is real, including evidence of productivity gains in coding, consulting and professional writing,but added that the eventual economic effect will depend on how widely the benefits are shared and whether policymakers invest in skills, infrastructure and competition.
UPDATED with statement from Iowa AG Brenna Bird: When all is said and done, the antitrust clash between Paramount Skydance and a dozen blue states may be best articulated by a certain Earth, Wind & Fire tune and remembering a day or two in September.
In a move that could be read as a lifeline or a death knell depending on your POV, the Supreme Court just told California Attorney General Rob Bonta and 11 of his colleagues that they have two weeks to respond to a challenge by Iowa and Montana to their efforts to kneecap the $111 billion ParaBros merger.
“Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ motion for expedited consideration, it is hereby ordered that defendants are allowed until September 25, 2026, to file responses to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint,” the SCOTUS said in an order Wednesday.
While the edict doesn’t mean the conservative High Court is taking up the red states’ request for Motion For Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, it doesn’t mean they’re not either. Today’s order could suggest the Supreme Court is considering Iowa and Montana’s request for “expedited consideration” in the partisan matter. Still, even if the red states get their way if might be months before any hearing in DC — time that will surely deepen and harden already Mariana Trench-deep animosity between the Melrose lot-based Paramount and the various state capitols.
Also, the September 25 deadline puts the coalition of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington in a bit of a bottleneck. The SCOTUS deadline is one day after the dozen blue states are set to argue against the David Ellison-owned Para’s desire for a $1.88 billion bond in front of a federal judge in Oakland. It also comes just a few days before a $7 million a day ticking fee to Warner Bros Discovery shareholders kicks in for Team Ellison. That ticking fee, which is the basis of Paramount’s protest of “extraordinary losses” out of the court case and its March 2, 2027 trial start date, adds up to over $635 million a quarter — so do the math.
Waving off MAGA-chummy Para’s leaked threats of leaving California for a kinder red state and more as “blackmail,” Golden State AG Bonta, in an August 10 guest column for Deadline, called the long anticipated July 13 filing against Paramount and WBD “a straight up antitrust enforcement case. One that is very cut and dry.” David Ellison and crew disagree, pointing to midterms real politick and CNN ownership as the true cause of the move to stymie a deal that has been approved by “good friend” Donald Trump‘s DOJ, the UK, the EU, Canada, and many more.
In her promise to take the matter to the Supreme Court, Iowa AG Brenna Bird, while seeing no sin in the DOJ white glove sign-off on the merger earlier this year, condemned Bonta and the other 11 AGs on August 25 as “more hostile to this pro-competition merger than Europe and China.”
“Attorney General Bird sued California because California is trying to raise Iowans’ costs,” Bird’s office said in a statement Tuesday to Deadline. “Today’s order for California to respond quickly shows the United States Supreme Court is taking our request seriously. We look forward to California trying to justify why it is so committed to raising prices for streaming and entertainment for Americans across the country.”
Bonta’s staff at the California Department of Justice have not responded to Deadline’s request for comment on the order by the John Roberts-led SCOTUS. Paramount reps also were as quiet as church mice on what could be a defining moment in this big stakes, big egos battle.
Or, to put it in a dance move mode, with a bit of tweak: “Do you remember/the twenty-fifth night of September? ..how the stars stole the night away?”
Calls are growing for an independent investigation into ICE after agents were filmed attacking protesters who were trying to prevent arrests in a residential area in Frederick. ICE has arrested more than 50,000 people in August, averaging 1,642 arrests a day.
Among many D.C. lobbyists, when the bet is on whether a piece of legislation will pass Congress or not, the rule of thumb always is to take the latter. Yet, a long-desired federal film and television tax incentive that’s suddenly coming to life with the recent backing of Donald Trump could prove the exception. Maybe.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are drafting legislation, with current plans for a 20% incentive and an additional 5% to 10% for rural areas or spread across several states. A bill could be introduced this month, with some announcement on the status expected when Congress returns next week, and the details are not set in stone.
“This is the best opportunity now we’ve had to get this done in really decades,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on CNN this week. On Tuesday, Schiff complimented talks among the White House, House members and some of his fellow Senators, but cautioned a deal is not yet done. “Negotiations are ongoing,” Schiff, who Trump has long attacked personally and politically, told Deadline.
So far, the anticipated multibillion-dollar federal incentive also has the advantage of backing by some members of the House Ways & Means Committee, which controls the purse strings, and that support is bipartisan. Among those said to be working on legislation are two members — Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) — each from a state that has a lot of production in its past, present and hopefully future.
That said, even though proponents see the best prospects in years for passage of something, there still is a long way to go despite the backing of a fickle POTUS and the other good intentions.
Here are some of the hurdles ahead:
Timing
With so few days left in the legislative session before the midterms, there just isn’t time left to pass legislation before then, especially a bill that is still in the works. Advocates including studio representatives and union officials are expected to up their PR campaign in the coming weeks, particularly if there is a concrete proposal on the table.
That leaves the question of when. The lame-duck session will likely focus on whether an agreement can be reached on an overall bill to fund the government, with an expiration of December 11. If the past is any guide, it’s much more likely that the bill would be attached to some end-of-year funding measure than as stand-alone legislation.
Midterm results
While a number of Republicans and Democrats are said to be on board with the legislation now, the question is what the sentiment will feel like after November 3. Would polarization only harden after a Democratic rout? What’s the appetite for bipartisan legislation if the election results are contested? That said, there is a strong desire to pass incentives legislation this year, rather than restart the process in the next Congress, when priorities could very well shift.
Getty Images
Cost
Supporters of state tax incentives long have held that the benefits greatly outweigh the costs, but there will be plenty of scrutiny on the bottom line. That typically comes via an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, so expect to see a lobbying push to outline how the incentive will save or restore jobs.
A key factor will be whether the ultimate incentive figure is large enough to persuade producers to forgo the UK or Australia or even Canada and locate in the United States. One of the big criticisms of California’s early incentive program was that it was too little, too late, especially with states like New York and Georgia offering much heftier sums of money. Proponents will have to make the case that the incentive will have to be large enough to be meaningful.
Indications are that the bulk of what is being discussed behind closed doors is based in large part on the format and execution of California’s annual program, now at $750 million. A goal of any federal incentive is to snag relocating productions, series or films first made outside the country or content that had already been assured foreign credits but haven’t yet started production.
With a few words from his pal Jon Voight, the president threw his support behind an incentive earlier this month, undoubtedly generating some momentum for getting something passed. But he also could change his mind. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that something will trigger him — particularly entertainment-related — that would cause him to shift course.
Among proponents, there’s also a push to highlight support among Republicans, in part to emphasize that the legislation would not just benefit California and New York. That could counterweight the visibility of one of the champions of a federal incentive, California’s junior senator Schiff, one of the president’s biggest foes. He recently told CNN: “Just because it’s this president, if it’s a good idea, I’m not going to oppose it. In fact, I fully support this.”
Asked by Elex Michaelson whether his relationship with the president would make passage more difficult, Schiff said, Schiff noted that Trump has “mentioned bipartisan support, mentioned my support for it, so he didn’t deterred at all by it. He thought that that was a positive.”
The entertainment industry is an easy punching bag, especially on the right, and it’s not hard to see the incentive being cast as a bailout to an elite industry dominated by the left. The Wall Street Journal editorial page quickly weighed in last week, with the headline, “Handouts for Hollywood — Really? Adam Schiff and Donald Trump unite to subsidize the rich and famous.”
“A production tax credit would provide a short-term stimulus for one industry, which primarily supports Democrats,” the Journal‘s editorial team wrote.
That’s why the support of lawmakers in red states such as Texas, Louisiana and Tennessee might be critical, even with Trump’s backing, as well as the emphasis on legislation as a jobs bill, benefiting an aspect of the manufacturing sector and across different parts of the country.
The Motion Picture Association knows the territory well, as it has sought to make issues like piracy and copyright relevant to the average public whose impressions of the entertainment industry tend toward red carpets and awards show glamour. “The use of the word ‘Hollywood’ has got to stop,” says one booster.
Former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines called WNBA fans in Minneapolis a “bunch of disgruntled lesbians.”
Rating:
In September 2026, a claim circulated online that former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines, who is now a conservative pundit, called Women’s National Basketball Association fans in Minneapolis “a bunch of disgruntled lesbians.”
I went to the WNBA game in Minneapolis… it was a bunch of disgruntled lesbians. It felt like the entire arena was booing Sophie Cunningham.
Gaines did indeed make the above remarks on Fox News’ “The Big Weekend Show” on Sept. 5. As such, we’ve rated this claim as a correct attribution.
Gaines was responding to a question from host Tomi Lahren, who asked why the WNBA wouldn’t define a “woman.” We have reproduced the exchange below (emphasis ours):
Lahren: …but what I find here so interesting is the WNBA with a “W” in their name, they won’t define a woman. And I can’t figure out if it’s because they have players that are currently playing that wouldn’t fit that definition … or is it because they don’t want to anger what they feel is a large part of their fanbase that is LGBTQ? Or is it a little bit of both?
Gaines: I’m sure it’s a little bit of both. I can tell you. I went to the WNBA game in Minneapolis. Which you can expect … what the fanbase as it pertains to the WNBA in that city looks like. And it was a bunch of, like, disgruntled lesbians. And I think that the WNBA as a league, organizationally they recognize that. It felt like virtually everyone in that arena, first of all, you audibly heard it, anytime Sophie was subbed in, stepped on the court, touched the ball, threw up a shot, her name was announced on the loudspeakers … you heard the entire arena boo. It felt like they had been advised to only put people on the jumbotron who were draped in their trans flag … And the general public knows that is not indicative of real life.
The full episode has been archived and the exchange takes place after 2:38 p.m.
Gaines was referring to Sophie Cunningham, a WNBA player with the Indiana Fever, who has expressed opposition to transgender players’ participation in women’s sports. Gaines and Cunningham have also been photographed (archived) together.
For further reading, Snopes has covered numerous satirical posts and claims about Gaines.
Sources
Izzo, Jack. “Simone Biles Was Suspended from Team USA over Comments to Riley Gaines?” Snopes, 10 June 2025, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/riley-gaines-simone-biles-team-usa/. Accessed 9 Sept. 2026.
“Love Her or Hate Her, Sophie Cunningham Won’t Be Ignored.” ESPN, 21 July 2026, https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/49306657/sophie-cunningham-finger-point-indiana-fever-wnba. Accessed 9 Sept. 2026.
The Big Weekend Show : FOXNEWSW : September 5, 2026 2:00pm-3:00pm PDT. With FOXNEWSW, 5 Sept. 2026. Internet Archive, http://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20260905_210000_The_Big_Weekend_Show. Accessed 9 Sept. 2026.
The voter registration website VoteSafe.org was funded by Elon Musk’s America PAC and it collects and shares users’ personal information.
Rating:
In September 2026, social media users circulated warnings about a website called VoteSafe.org, an online voter registration hub that allegedly collects and shares users’ personal information.
Posts on platforms such as Facebook (screenshot), Threads and Bluesky also claimed America PAC — the political action committee tech billionaire Elon Musk founded — operates and funds VoteSafe.org. Snopes readers contacted us to verify this claim.
VoteSafe.org is, indeed, funded by Musk’s America PAC, and according to the website’s privacy policy, it may collect and share users’ personal information. (VoteSafe.org also offers a way for users to opt out of having their personal information shared with third parties.)
As such, we have rated this claim as true.
The VoteSafe.org privacy policy page lists only one third party by name that it shares data with: a “business partner” called Western Creative Group. The company has no online presence; its Wyoming business license lists a law firm as its agent and organizer. The Washington Post reported in 2024 that Musk passed $20 million to “an advertising firm called Western Creative Group” to promote the idea that U.S. President Donald Trump “opposed a federal ban on abortion.”
We reached out to the law firm, Bailey Stock Harmon Cottam Lopez, to ask about its association with Western Creative Group and will update this story if we hear back. Snopes also asked America PAC for a list of third parties the political action committee shares information with. We await a response.
It is also worth noting at least one Snopes reader asked whether Musk pays for Vote.org. Vote.org, another voter registration website, was established longbefore Musk’s VoteSafe.org. Unlike VoteSafe.org, Vote.org is run by a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, and its tax filings and list of board members indicate that Vote.org has no affiliation with Musk.
The similarly named official government voter registration page is vote.gov, as the “.gov” domain indicates.
Elon Musk’s America PAC linked to Vote Safe website
The America PAC website (archived) prominently features a description on its homepage that says, “PAC Founded by Elon Musk.” According to Federal Election Commission data, the vast majority of America PAC’s funds come from Musk.
The America PAC website also includes a banner that sends users to the VoteSafe.org webpage.
On the VoteSafe.org webpage (archived), there are several additional indicators that America PAC funds VoteSafe.org. For example, the copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage says “AMERICA PAC.” Underneath the notice, a disclaimer reads:
Paid for by America PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. www.theamericapac.org.
More on VoteSafe.org’s privacy policy
VoteSafe.org’s privacy policy, last updated Aug. 29, 2026, says America PAC “may collect, use and disclose” contact information and data about users political interests, employment, demographics, social media and internet activity to third parties, including but not limited to its “business partners.”
For example, here’s the privacy policy’s explanation on what America PAC may do with contact information:
Contact Information. This may include your name, physical address, email address or telephone number.
How We May Collect It: Directly from you; passively; or from third parties.
How We May Use It: To provide and improve our Platform; to understand your interests; to communicate with you; for marketing purposes; for legal and security purposes; to combine information; as otherwise permitted by you or as we may notify you; or as directed by you.
How We May Disclose It: Internally; on our Platform; with our business partners; with our service providers; with third parties for marketing purposes; with any successors to all or part of our business; to comply with laws or to protect ourselves; for other reasons we may describe to you; or as directed by you.
We may share this information with our business partners for targeted marketing purposes or sell this information to our business partners. For more information about your right to opt out, please click here.
While the VoteSafe.org privacy policy references selling user information, it’s unclear whether America PAC directly sells information to third parties for monetary gain. That’s because — as the privacy policy notes — some U.S. privacy laws have broadened the “sale” of information to mean more than just a monetary exchange.
In California, for example, the “sale” of information can involve any exchange of a consumer’s information “by a business to a third party” for any “valuable consideration.”
There’s no clarification in the VoteSafe.org privacy policy about whether America PAC sells consumer information for money or for other reasons, aside from “targeted marketing purposes.”
It is unclear how many third parties have received information from America PAC. The political action committee’s privacy policy notes that under California law, the state’s residents have the right to ask once a year “whether we have shared personal information with third parties for their direct-marketing purposes.”
“To make a request, please submit a request via info@theamericapac.org,” the policy says.
As shared in September 2026 social media posts, a black bear took a raccoon and later a fox to a wildlife center where it had previously been treated.
Rating:
In September 2026, a rumor circulated online about a black bear that apparently took a wounded raccoon, and later a wounded fox, to a wildlife center where the bear itself had been treated.
The first time, nobody believed it. Security cameras at a wildlife center captured a black bear approaching a rear entrance carrying a wounded raccoon in its mouth. It placed the animal gently beside the door. Then disappeared into the woods.
[…]
Several weeks later, cameras recorded a bear approaching a side entrance with an injured fox. Same careful approach. Same gentle placement near the door. Same quiet exit into the trees.
Both animals were found alive and received treatment.
Workers compared the two recordings. Both bears had the same unusual white mark on their chest. Same bear. Two deliveries. Two injured animals brought to the one place that could help them.
Staff searched old photographs and records of bears previously treated at the facility. That’s when everything clicked.
Years earlier, the same bear had been rescued, treated at that very wildlife center, and released back into the wild. He had been a patient there. And now he was bringing patients back.
Officials believe the bear remembered where it had once been helped and returned because it somehow understood that injured animals would be safe there.
Snopes readers sent emails and searched the website wondering whether the story was true.
There’s no evidence supporting the rumor that a black bear took a wounded raccoon and a fox to a wildlife center it had previously received treatment at. It was posted online by a page with a history of posting heartwarming — though fictitious — animal stories generated with artificial intelligence tools.
Snopes also used Google Lens to conduct a reverse image search on multiple different images posted alongside the story purportedly taken at the unidentified wildlife center.
That search revealed the story appeared to originate from the Facebook page StoryTime, which posted (archived) prior to the other social media posts linked in this fact check.
StoryTime’s history
Snopes has been fact-checking StoryTime’s animal rumors for more than a year. The page frequently posts fictitious, AI-generated animal stories supported by AI-generated images that are usually purposefully grainy and/or blurry, all meant to generate clicks because of their surprising or heartwarming nature.
At one time, the intro section on StoryTime’s Facebook page read, “story (noun) – an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.” At present, the page’s intro section reads, “Animal rescue storytelling from around the world 🌎🐾 Real moments, inspired stories, and emotional second chances ❤️.”
Facebook users can subscribe to the page using real money, which gives the page incentive to continue pumping out the animal stories it’s known for, regardless of their reality.
AI-generated text
StoryTime’s version of the claim begins with the headline “Wildlife Center Releases Statement After Bear Saves Two Injured Animals.” StoryTime, much like the other Facebook pages telling the story, doesn’t name the wildlife center or the worker quoted, or describe any geographic details about where these events took place. (Even without those identifiers, the wildlife center’s statement, which isn’t directly quoted in the post, should have showed up in search engine results, if real.)
When we input the text of StoryTime’s version of the claim and that of another version of it into Pangram, which is widely considered the most reliable AI-text detection tool available as of this writing, it concluded that 100% of both versions were written or assisted by AI.
It’s important to note that even the best AI detection tools can be fallible. Snopes cautions against using them to find definitive answers on the authenticity of texts or images without additional corroborating evidence.
AI-generated images
Each of the four Facebook posts linked in this story uses a different pair of images of the black bear carrying the raccoon and fox to the wildlife center, which is already a major red flag for the tale’s authenticity.
In one version, the size of the object at the bottom left of the building’s wall is sized differently in the pair of images presented.
In another version, the building is different in each of the two images presented. The bottom of the pair appears to depict a door opening inward from the right even though the door’s handle is on its left side.
In a third version, the building and its door are once again inconsistent from one image to the other.
In StoryTime’s version, neither the building, the stone patio nor the gravel-covered grounds around the building are the same between the pair of images.
The general lack of consistency between images is a telltale sign of AI generation, as artificial intelligence tools usually generate each image from scrap and therefore sometimes struggle in keeping details consistent when trying to emulate multiple images of the same place.
StoryTime does not keep its DMs open, leaving Snopes unable to contact the page for comment. StoryTime has not replied to past attempts by Snopes to contact the page’s administrators, either.
After eight seasons, the beloved British spinoff of RuPaul’s franchise-spawning competition has been dropped by the BBC, with the broadcaster citing “significant financial pressures.” In April, the BBC announced a plan to cut 1,800 staffers in a bid to save £500 million ($678m).
A representative told The Hollywood Reporter on Thursday: “As the BBC continues to navigate significant financial pressures and deliver the savings required of us, we have had to make some very difficult choices, none of which have been taken lightly.”
The series currently runs on BBC Three and iPlayer. The rep continued that future shows — and its spin-off, RuPaul’s Drag Race UK Vs The World — will instead be broadcast on Wow Presents Plus, a platform owned by Drag Race UK production company World of Wonder.
“The BBC is incredibly proud of all eleven series of this groundbreaking show and we would like to thank RuPaul, World of Wonder and everyone involved, both on and off screen,” the rep added. “We are certain that viewers will enjoy the eighth [season].”
Since 2019, Drag Race UK has catapulted some of the biggest drag queens in Britain to stratospheric stardom, launching the careers of Baga Chipz, Bimini Bon-Boulash, Tayce and The Vivienne. Tia Kofi went on to become a member of the Eurovision presenting team, La Voix featured on EastEnders and StrictlyCome Dancing, and Ginger Johnson won Celebrity MasterChef last year.
The format involves amateur and professional drag queens competing in a series of challenges to win over judges RuPaul, Michelle Visage, Graham Norton and Alan Carr, and celebrity guest judges such as Jade Thirlwall, Lucy Punch, Hannah Waddingham, Andrew Garfield, Anne-Marie, Thandiwe Newton and Cat Burns.
At its peak, per BBC News, the show averaged around 1.5 million viewers per episode. Viewers will be able to continue watching existing seasons of RuPaul’s Drag Race UK and RuPaul’s Drag Race UK Vs on BBC iPlayer.
If you thought iPhone prices were going to drop this fall, you’re in for an unpleasant surprise. Unlike in previous years, Apple has raised prices across its entire smartphone lineup by $100 after launching its latest iPhones, instead of lowering them.
The hikes were a long time coming, due to rising global memory and component costs. Former CEO Tim Cook dropped hints about “unavoidable” price hikes in mid-June, and the company immediately bumped prices on Macs, HomePods, iPads, and Vision Pro.
iPhones were spared from the first round of Apple hikes, but now they’ve been hit too. The newly launched iPhone 18 Pro models cost $100 more than their iPhone 17 Pro counterparts did at launch last year. Apple has now discontinued the older 17 Pro models and slapped $100 price hikes on all other existing models, including the regular iPhone 17, iPhone Air, and iPhone 17e.
Here’s a look at the new and old prices of all the iPhones currently available for purchase at Apple, excluding the first-ever iPhone Duo ($1999):
iPhone 18 Pro: Starts at $1,199 (up from $1,099 for iPhone 17 Pro)
iPhone 18 Pro Max: Starts at $1,299 (up from $1,199 for iPhone 17 Pro Max)
iPhone 17: Increased from $799 to $899
iPhone 17e: Increased from $599 to $699
iPhone Air: Increasedfrom $999 to $1,099
iPhone 16: Increased from $699 to $799
Alongside the hikes, Apple has also released the trade-in values for the iPhone 17 series. For the iPhone 17 Pro and 17 Pro Max, you can get a maximum value of $885 and $785, respectively, while for the iPhone Air and iPhone 17, you can receive a maximum credit of $585.
In case you’d like to reduce the upfront cost of your iPhone purchase without trading in your older device, you can check out the new Apple Upgrade leasing program as well. For example, leasing starts at $34.99 per month for 24 months on the iPhone 18 Pro. The 18 Pro Max starts at $37.99 per month.
At the end of your plan, you can pay off the remaining balance and keep the device, leave the program and return the device, or upgrade to a newer model and start a new lease.
Recommended by Our Editors
Preorders for the iPhone 18 Pro models begin on Sept. 12, with shipments starting Sept. 18. Preorders for the iPhone Duo, meanwhile, begin on Oct. 16, with shipments starting Oct. 23.
Stay tuned to PCMag’s coverage for detailed reviews of all of these devices, as well as the new Apple Watches and AirPods.
About Our Expert
Experience
Jibin is a tech news writer based out of Ahmedabad, India. Previously, he served as the editor of iGeeksBlog and is a self-proclaimed tech enthusiast who loves breaking down complex information for a broader audience.
