An E. coli outbreak that hit McDonald’s Corp. is over, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday.

Fresh, slivered onions at McDonald’s were the likely source of the outbreak, the CDC said, in line with previous reports. Beef had been ruled out earlier as the potential cause.

The Food and Drug Administration also said Tuesday that it had closed its investigation. The announcements give “certainty and validation from leading health authorities, which will be meaningful for our customers and communities,” McDonald’s said.

A total of 104 people in 14 states reported illnesses, according to the CDC. However, the number of sickened individuals probably was much larger because many recover without medical care and aren’t tested for E. coli. McDonald’s had stopped sourcing onions from a Colorado facility of supplier Taylor Farms, which issued a recall after the outbreak.

It’s not yet clear how or at what stage E. coli entered the supply chain, a McDonald’s spokesperson said in a media briefing. That’s why the chain has stopped sourcing from both the facility that processed the onions and the farm where they originated, the representative said.

McDonald’s said it’s working with industry groups and health officials to see if additional checks are needed for produce, adding that it’s confident in its supply chain processes.

The chain disclosed the outbreak on Oct. 22 and temporarily yanked Quarter Pounders, which have the slivered onions, from many restaurants. It also pledged to spend $100 million to revive sales and support franchisees after the E. coli news scared away many diners.

In a memo sent to employees and franchisees that was seen by Bloomberg News, McDonald’s said the company was investing $35 million in marketing and ads. Additionally, the company told Bloomberg it is spending $65 million on programs that support franchisees, such as deferrals on rent and royalties.

Lately, the company has been seeking to bring customers in with the limited-time-offer McRib and the announcement of a new value menu.

Foot traffic and sales took a beating after officials announced they were investigating an E. coli outbreak linked to the fresh slivered onions.

In the week that ended Oct. 27, sales fell nearly 12% compared with the previous week, according to Bloomberg Second Measure data, which tracks debit and credit card transactions by U.S. consumers.

The outbreak came as McDonald’s had been working to overcome slow sales with splashy promotions and steep discounts. Its $5 value meal resonated with low-income customers in the U.S. and drove guest counts in the third quarter, before the chain was rocked by E. coli.

Shares of the company, which finished trading Tuesday up 0.7% at $294.50, are nearly flat for the year.

An Apple employee has sued the company, alleging it improperly requires access to personal data that employees store on the tech behemoth’s iCloud.

The lawsuit, filed by Amar Bhakta, who has worked in advertising technology for Apple since 2020, also alleges the company’s policies illegally restrict discussions about wages and working conditions among workers.

While Apple provides employees with iPhones and other equipment, it is common for employees to use their own devices or to link company-issued products to their personal iCloud accounts, according to the lawsuit. When they do so, the lawsuit alleges, Apple demands as part of its terms of employment that employees allow the company to install software that makes it possible to search a device or iCloud account. In addition, the company “actively discourages” the use of work-only iCloud accounts, the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, Apple forbade Bhakta from speaking publicly about his work in digital advertising and required him to remove information about his work from his LinkedIn profile.

These moves “limited his visibility and attractiveness in the job market” the lawsuit said.

“If you use your personal account on an Apple-managed or Apple-owned iPhone, iPad or computer, any data stored on the device (including emails, photos, video, notes and more), are subject to search by Apple,” company policy states, according to the lawsuit.

Taken together, Apple’s policies have a chilling effect on employees’ willingness to be whistleblowers on internal issues and on their freedom of movement in the job market, the lawsuit said.

Bhakta filed the suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court this week under the Private Attorneys General Act, a unique California law that allows employees to sue on behalf of the state for labor violations.

“All California employees have the right to speak about their wages and working conditions,” said Jahan Sagafi, an attorney at Outten & Golden LLP, the firm that represents Bhakta, in a Monday news release. “Apple’s broad speech suppression policies create a danger of discrimination going unchallenged.”

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Times. In a statement to the Verge, Apple spokesperson Josh Rosenstock disputed the claims in the lawsuit.

“Every employee has the right to discuss their wages, hours and working conditions and this is part of our business conduct policy, which all employees are trained on annually. We strongly disagree with these claims and believe they lack merit,” Rosenstock said.

Bhakta said that he hopes Apple will change its approach.

“Being able to speak openly about my work is so important to me,” Bhakta said in the release. “It’s disappointing that Apple, whose ethos is privacy and confidentiality, would try to monitor and censor me.”

Other Apple employees have raised similar concerns of privacy violations and overly broad policies restricting discussion of pay.

A 2021 report by the Verge revealed concerns about data privacy among Apple workers required to link their personal accounts and devices to their jobs.

And last month Apple was accused by the the National Labor Relations Board of trying to prevent employees from discussing pay equity by enforcing broad rules that prohibited workers from discussing financial incentives the company uses to reach sales goals by asserting that the topic included “confidential and proprietary information.”

Now that Donald Trump will be headed to the White House, it is all but certain that he will pursue significant new taxes on imported goods. Although a widely criticized policy, there is little stopping him from doing this due to trade powers that Congress has given the executive branch over the years. Before President Biden leaves office, his administration and the current Congress should consider scaling back the president’s power to unilaterally enact tariffs. This restraint would protect households from large tax increases, prevent economic harm and ease relations with our major trading partners.

President-elect Trump has promised to enact significant new tariffs on imports. Last week he stated that on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all imported goods from Mexico and Canada, as well as import taxes on Chinese goods as high as 60%. Others are likely to follow. Trump could also pursue more targeted tariffs on certain goods in the same way he did during his first administration.

Contrary to what Trump and many of his supporters claim, these taxes would end up placing a significant burden on American households. Just a 10% across-the-board tariff plus a 60% tariff on Chinese imports could raise more than $2.8 trillion over a decade for an average tax increase of $1,820 per household, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center.

Although these tariffs would have significant implications for the federal budget and household finances, there is little to stop Trump from unilaterally enacting these taxes under current law. Generally, the Constitution states that Congress has the authority to “lay and collect” taxes and regulate commerce with foreign nations. However, Congress outsourced much of the power to enact tariffs to the executive branch throughout the 20th century. As a result, the president now has broad authority to levy taxes on imported goods. In many cases, the administration only needs to determine there is a national emergency or a national security threat.

These unilateral tariff powers were used to great effect in the past by Trump and other presidents. During Trump’s first term he enacted tariffs on steel from most countries by claiming this served national security. Biden utilized powers from the Trade Act of 1974 to increase tariffs on Chinese imports. Decades earlier, President Nixon used existing authority to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods coming into the United States.

The current Congress and Biden should step in and enact legislation that ensures that Trump is unable to impose such significant trade measures without congressional approval. They could do this much the same way Congress stepped in to block tariffs proposed by President Carter in 1980.

Scaling back these powers would have benefits besides protecting Americans from tax increases.

First, shifting the power to lay and collect tariffs back to Congress would mean that major tariff proposals are properly debated. Congress is currently required to debate and pass legislation to make even small changes to income or payroll taxes. This should be true for tariffs as well, especially proposals that involve trillions in additional federal revenue. Trump should have to convince Congress that enacting across-the-board tariffs would be consistent with his geopolitical goals and would be worth the economic costs.

Second, handing the reins back to Congress would reduce market uncertainty. Simply the risk of tariffs can have a negative effect on the economy. Businesses that expect tariffs may be less likely to pursue investments that may be subject to taxation at some point in the future. Shifting tariff power back to Congress means that proposals to raise and repeal tariffs would be more predictable.

Third, it would help improve relations between the U.S. and its trading partners. Trump’s approach to trade policy has proved to worsen relationships between the United States and its most important trade partners. Even prior to Trump’s election, the European Union had already announced that it would hit back at the United States if Trump enacted tariffs on EU products. Trade wars with our allies run counter to Trump’s goal of countering geopolitical foes such as China and magnify the economic damage of Trump’s tariff policies.

Although legislation limiting the president’s tariff power could prevent Trump from unilaterally enacting tariffs, it may not prevent them entirely. Reports suggest that the Trump administration and Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, are discussing ways in which to incorporate tariffs into next year’s tax bill. This would be a mistake, but at the very least it would be debated before being enacted.

While there are few tax issues that the Democratic Senate, Republican House and President Biden agree on, they should be able to unite behind preventing significant, unlegislated tax increases on American households.

Kyle Pomerleau is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies federal tax policy.