ReportWire

Tag: trump tariffs

  • Trump is obsessed with tariffs despite legal setbacks. There’s a reason for it | Opinion

    President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address to Congress in Washington on Feb. 24, 2026.

    President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address to Congress in Washington on Feb. 24, 2026.


    Andrew Harnik

    TNS

    The most baffling part of President Trump’s State of the Union speech was his fixation on tariffs that have already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and have failed to boost the U.S. economy. But you don’t need a Ph.D. in economics to understand why he’s so obsessed with them.

    Before we get into that, let’s look at what his import duties have accomplished so far.

    When he announced the tariffs on his so-called “Liberation Day” nearly a year ago, Trump promised that they would reduce the U.S. trade deficit, bring back factories from China and Mexico, and spark a manufacturing boom in America.

    None of that has happened. Instead, the manufacturing renaissance Trump had promised — and touted again in his State of the Union speech — failed to materialize: the number of U.S. factory jobs fell by 103,000 jobs last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    The reason is simple: it’s still much cheaper for multinationals to make goods in Asia, Mexico or Canada than in America, and that’s unlikely to change anytime soon.

    As for the trade deficit, it remained virtually unchanged last year, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Despite Trump’s massive tariffs on foreign goods, it shrank by a paltry 0.2% — almost nothing.

    What makes Trump’s tariff push more puzzling is how unpopular it is. A new CNN poll shows 62% of Americans disapprove of his tariffs, while only 37% support them. A Fox News poll found even bigger opposition to the tariffs: 63% of Americans dislike them, while 37% like them.

    Most Americans feel those tariffs are simply passed on by importers to consumers who end up paying more for toys, TV sets, coffee and other imported goods.

    So why is Trump pushing so hard with his tariffs, if they are hurting his popularity and not producing economic gains?

    The answer is power. Trump wants to be at the center of the world stage, wielding a kind of power no recent U.S. president has used — the power to turn trade into a tool to punish enemies and reward friends.

    Tariffs also give Trump leverage over U.S. companies and have raised more than $200 billion in revenue, money he can redirect to programs he favors.

    Among them: a $12 billion bailout for farmers, a $2,000 “dividend” rebate check for low- and middle-income Americans and an increase in military spending. It’s not clear what will happen with these and other promises now.

    Trump has made no bones about his use of tariffs as a political weapon in foreign affairs. In his State of the Union address, he said he uses these tariffs “to make great deals for our country, both economically and on a national security basis.”

    Trump recently threatened to impose higher import duties on eight European countries if they didn’t help him negotiate a U.S. purchase or annexation of Greenland.

    Earlier, he slapped huge tariffs on Brazil, saying the country’s leftist government was carrying out a “witch hunt” against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally who faced trial for attempting a coup. Trump also publicly threatened higher tariffs on Mexico if it didn’t do more to reduce illegal immigration and fentanyl smuggling.

    Marcelo Giugale, a Georgetown University economics professor and former top World Bank official, told me tariffs have been an “extraordinary power tool” for Trump.

    “Internationally, he’s used them left and right, for whatever reasons he wanted, in whatever amounts he wanted, to the countries he wanted. And most countries bend the knee,” he said.

    “Domestically, they force American producers to line up at the White House and plead, ‘Please protect me, place a tariff on my foreign competitors,’ or conversely, ‘Please exempt me from the tariff I’ll have to pay.’”

    Trump made it clear in his address to Congress that tariffs aren’t just a temporary tactic but will remain a central pillar of his agenda. He said he will find new ways to bypass the Supreme Court ruling, and that his trade barriers will “remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes.”

    Trump admitted that his proposed new avenues to reinstate tariffs “are a little more complex” but claimed they will result in a solution that will be “even stronger than before.” Legal experts dispute his optimism, noting that it will take more than six months to set in motion a new policy and that Trump’s negotiating power could be greatly diminished if — as current polls suggest — his party loses its grip on Congress in the November midterm elections.

    One way or the other, Trump should not be taken lightly when he vows to stick with massive tariffs, despite their unpopularity at home and abroad. In his view, these aren’t just taxes — they are a political weapon to exert power, even if they do more harm than good to the economy.

    Don’t miss the “Oppenheimer Presenta” TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español or on YouTube’s “Oppenheimer Presenta” channel. Blog: andresoppenheimer.com

    Andres Oppenheimer

    Source link

  • The Most Important Supreme Court Case of the Century? | RealClearPolitics

    The Most Important Supreme Court Case of the Century?

    David French, NY Times

    Source link

  • Tariff whiplash leaves Colorado businesses facing higher costs and fewer answers

    DENVER — At downtown Denver Scandinavian clothing retailer Aktiv, every sweater, hat, and base layer is imported – and owner Nate Axvig says his profits have taken a significant hit from Trump’s global tariffs.

    “In real dollars that cost us, last fall, $25,000 more than we had expected to spend,” said Axvig.

    On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give President Donald Trump the authority to impose tariffs, leaving small business owners like Axvig cautiously optimistic.

    But within hours, Trump announced on Truth Social a new 10% tariff, then on Saturday morning, he hiked it up to 15%.

    “Our partners overseas are questioning, like, ‘What is the next step?’ And the answer is, who knows?” said Axvig.

    We Pay the Tariffs

    Last spring, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general, including Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, filed a lawsuit challenging the president’s tariffs.

    “I’m not surprised to see President Trump trying to push the envelope. But here’s the important point – under other authority, he might claim there are real restrictions on what he can do. We’re going to make sure he follows those restrictions. We’re going to make sure that the rule of law holds,” Weiser told Denver7 on Saturday.

    In the meantime, Axvig is joining a coalition of nearly 1,000 small businesses called We Pay The Tariffs, signing on to a letter demanding tariff refunds from President Trump and Congress.

    So far, 18 Colorado businesses have signed the letter.

    “The onus is really on the government to give this money back,” said Dan Anthony, executive director of We Pay The Tariffs.

    Anthony says Colorado businesses paid $1.1 billion in tariffs from March through December last year.

    Screenshot 2026-02-21 at 4.51.52 PM.png

    We Pay the Tariffs

    With the latest announcement, he warns that the situation has become more uncertain.

    “All of those great things that these business owners have told us they could do with that refund money become a whole lot less certain,” said Anthony.

    When asked how he’s planning with 15% tariffs looming, Axvig was blunt:

    “You can’t. That predictability is the number one thing that you need as a bedrock in business, and it’s taken away completely,” he said.

    Tariff whiplash leaves Colorado businesses facing higher costs and fewer answers

    adira iraheta.png

    Denver7

    Denver7 | Your Voice: Get in touch with Adria Iraheta

    Denver7’s Adria Iraheta shares stories that have an impact in all of Colorado’s communities, but specializes in reporting on education and stories in Arapahoe County. If you’d like to get in touch with Adria, fill out the form below to send her an email.

    Adria Iraheta

    Source link

  • Murky outlook for businesses after tariff ruling prompts countermoves by Trump

    NEW YORK — Businesses face a new wave of uncertainty after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under an emergency powers law and Trump vowed to work around the ruling to keep his tariffs in place.

    The Trump administration says its tariffs help boost American manufacturers and reduce the trade gap. But many U.S. businesses have had to raise prices and adjust in other ways to offset higher costs spurred by the tariffs.

    It remains to be seen how much relief businesses and consumers will actually get from Friday’s ruling. Within hours of the court’s decision, Trump pledged to use a different law to impose a 10% tariff on all imports that would last 150 days, and to explore other ways to impose additional tariffs on countries he says engage in unfair trade practices.

    “Any boost to the economy from lowering tariffs in the near-term is likely to be partly offset by a prolonged period of uncertainty,” said Michael Pearce, an economist at Oxford Economics. “With the administration likely to rebuild tariffs through other, more durable, means, the overall tariffs rate may yet end up settling close to current levels.”

    Efforts to claw back the estimated $133 billion to $175 billion of previously collected tariffs now deemed illegal are bound to be complicated, and will likely favor larger companies with more resources. Consumers hoping for a refund are unlikely to be compensated.

    The fight against tariffs continues

    With Trump’s unyielding position on tariffs, many business are braced for years of court battles.

    Basic Fun, a Florida-based maker of toys such as Lincoln Logs and Tonka trucks, last week joined a slew of other businesses in a lawsuit seeking to claw back tariffs paid to the government.

    While company CEO Jay Foreman is concerned about any new tariffs Trump may impose, he doesn’t think they will affect toys. Still, he said, “I do worry about some type of perpetual fight over this, at least for the next three years.”

    The new 10% tariff Trump announced Friday immediately raised questions for Daniel Posner, the owner of Grapes The Wine Co., in White Plains, New York. Since wine shipments take about two weeks to cross the Atlantic, he wonders if a shipment arriving Monday will be affected.

    “We’re reactive to what’s become a very unstable situation,” Posner said.

    Ron Kurnik owns Superior Coffee Roasting Co. in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, across the border from Canada. In addition to U.S. tariffs, Kurnik faced retaliatory tariffs from Canada for much of last year when he exported his coffee.

    “It’s like a nightmare we just want to wake up from,” said Kurnik, whose company has raised prices by 6% twice since the tariffs went into effect. While he’s pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling, he doesn’t think he will ever see a refund.

    Industries pine for more stability

    A wide array of industries, including retail, tech and the agricultural sector, used the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to remind Trump of how his trade policies have affected their businesses.

    The Business Roundtable, a group that lobbies on behalf of more than 200 U.S. companies, released a statement encouraging the administration to limit the focus of tariffs going forward to specific unfair trade practices and national security concerns.

    In the retail industry, stores of all stripes have embraced different ways to offset the effects of tariffs – from absorbing some of the costs themselves, to cutting expenses and diversifying their supply network. Still, they have had to pass on some price increases at a time when shoppers have been particularly sensitive to inflationary pressures.

    Dave French, executive vice president of government relations for The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail industry trade group, said he hoped lower courts would ensure “a seamless process” to refund tariffs. That issue wasn’t addressed in Friday’s ruling.

    For the technology sector, Trump’s tariffs caused major headaches. Many of its products are either built overseas or depend on imports of key components. The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents a spectrum of technology companies employing more than 1.6 million people, expressed hope that the decision will ease the trade tensions.

    “With this decision behind us, we look forward to bringing more stability to trade policy,” said Jonathan McHale, the association’s vice president for digital trade.

    Farmers, who have been stung by higher prices for equipment and fertilizer since the tariffs went into effect, and reduced demand for their exports, also spoke out.

    “We strongly encourage the president to avoid using any other available authorities to impose tariffs on agricultural inputs that would further increase costs,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall.

    Industries that aren’t feeling any relief

    The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give the president authority to tax imports, a power that belongs to Congress. But the decision only affects tariffs imposed under that law, so some industries will see no relief at all.

    The decision leaves in effect tariffs on steel, upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities, according to the Home Furnishings Association, which represents 15,000 furniture stores in North America.

    At Revolution Brewing in Chicago, the aluminum they use for cans costs as much as the ingredients that go inside them because of tariffs Trump has placed on metals that are not affected by the Supreme Court ruling. While the cans are made in Chicago, the aluminum comes from Canada, said Josh Deth, managing partner at the brewery.

    Tariffs have been just one challenge for his business, which is also affected by volatile barley prices and a slowdown in demand for craft beer.

    “Everything kind of adds up,” he said. “The beverage industry needs relief here. We’re getting crushed by the prices of aluminum.”

    Reaction overseas

    Italian winemakers hard-hit by the tariffs greeted the Supreme Court decision with skepticism, warning that the decision may just deepen uncertainty around trade with the U.S.

    The U.S. is Italy’s largest wine market, with sales having tripled in value over the past 20 years. New tariffs on the EU, which the Trump administration initially threatened would be 200%, had sent fear throughout the industry, which remained even after the U.S. reduced, delayed and negotiated down.

    “There is a more than likely risk that tariffs will be reimposed through alternative legal channels, compounded by the uncertainty this ruling may generate in commercial relations between Europe and the United States,” said Lamberto Frescobaldi, president of UIV, a trade association that represents more than 800 winemakers.

    Elsewhere in Europe, initial reaction focused on renewed upheaval and confusion regarding costs facing businesses exporting to the US.

    Trump’s tariffs could hit pharmaceuticals, chemicals and auto parts, said Carsten Brzeski, an economist at ING bank. “Europe should not be mistaken, this ruling will not bring relief,” he said. “The legal authority may be different, but the economic impact could be identical or worse.”

    ___

    Anne D’Innocenzio in New York; Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit; Michael Liedtke in San Francisco; David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany; Jonathan Matisse in Nashville, Tennessee; Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tennessee; and Nicole Winfield in Rome contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • Charlotte businesses stung by Trump tariffs relieved Supreme Court ruled against him

    Charlotte entrepreneur Shanon Kindred is feeling some relief following Friday’s major U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

    “It’s very encouraging, and I am grateful that the Supreme Court made the correct decision, and enforced the checks and balances our government was built on,” said Kindred. She founded Toushea Skincare 11 years ago. Her import suppliers span the globe from West Africa for shea butter to Spain and Italy for olive oil.

    Over the past year, Charlotte-area businesses like Kindred’s, and ranging from Latin grocers and Asian marts to builders and auto shops, have felt the effects of tariffs with rising costs and customer concerns.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling invalidates Trump’s sweeping reciprocal tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Tariffs are taxes imposed by the U.S. government on imported goods, resulting in higher prices typically passed on to consumers. Trump claimed his tariffs would lead to an increase in domestic manufacturing.

    But Kindred saw the price of cocoa butter — sourced from Africa and South America — nearly double during the height of trade tensions. With margins thinning, Kindred had no choice but to pass those higher costs on to her customers.

    Beyond rising costs, international logistics also ground to a halt. Kindred went several months without a single order from outside the U.S. The drought only broke about a month ago when she received a surprise order from Switzerland.

    “And that was a shock,” Kindred said.

    Shanon Kindred, owner of Toushea Skincare, is encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision that President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unconstitutional.
    Shanon Kindred, owner of Toushea Skincare, is encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision that President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unconstitutional. Shanon Kindred

    Tariffs forced prices up at Charlotte Asian market

    At Golden Elephant Asian Market off Old Little Rock Road in northwest Charlotte, owner Bo Sayaphet said the majority of products he sells increased in price. The majority of goods are imported from Southeast Asia, as well as other countries like China and South Korea.

    “You’ve got no choice,” he said. “I can’t sell it for what I was selling for last year.”

    He believes eliminating the tariffs could not only help bring prices down but relieve shortages on certain products. Wholesalers won’t even order dried goods like grains and mushrooms, Sayaphet said.

    Plus he’ll get more product for his money. “It definitely should help,” Sayaphet said.

    Golden Elephant Asian Market owner Bo Sayaphet, left, shown in this file photo with friend Eddie Chang and owner of Asian Market Albemarle, believes the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down some of President Donald Trump’s tariffs will be a relief.
    Golden Elephant Asian Market owner Bo Sayaphet, left, shown in this file photo with friend Eddie Chang and owner of Asian Market Albemarle, believes the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down some of President Donald Trump’s tariffs will be a relief. Catherine Muccigrosso cmuccigrosso@charlotteobserver.com

    Tariffs stifled economic growth, Charlotte economist says

    From small businesses to large companies, Trump’s tariffs led to slower economic growth, said Matthew Metzgar, UNC Charlotte economics professor.

    In 2024, the economy grew, in terms of gross domestic product, by 2.8%, Metzgar said. That number dropped to 2.2% last year.

    “If the tariffs weren’t there, the economy would have grown at the same rate in 2025 roughly as it did the year before,” Metzgar said. “The economy still grew, but it didn’t grow to what its potential could have been if those tariffs weren’t there.”

    For now, companies may start to take advantage of the decision and begin purchasing goods at a cheaper cost, Metzgar said.

    “In the short term, I think this is good for prices and inflation,” Metzgar said. “If we’re able in the next month or so to import goods without these tariffs then that could lead to lower prices for consumers.”

    But Trump is already discussing enacting tariffs under different laws. This leaves businesses wondering what next steps could be.

    “One of the reasons tariffs are supposed to go through Congress is because it creates more stability and predictability for businesses to operate,” Metzgar said.

    “When you’re talking about tariffs are here today, gone tomorrow, and then back in two months, it’s so hard for a business to order based off that and have any confidence in what their prices are going to be when they hit the shelf.”

    Tariffs effect on grocery shelves

    Last April, Phil Lempert, who analyzes consumer behavior and market trends, called tariffs a “disaster” for food prices on consumers, for brands, and for supermarkets and restaurants.

    Now that a bulk of Trump’s food-price tax has been ruled illegal, Lempert said in a special report online Friday that the “aftershock for food prices could be as disruptive as the tariffs themselves.”

    Any price relief will be slow, partial and strategic, Lempoert said, likely in the form of deals and loyalty offers rather than broad price rollbacks.

    “Tariffs are only part of the problem pushing up food prices: labor costs and climate change are also to blame,” Lempert said.

    “We can’t grow all of our food here in the U.S,” he told The Charlotte Observer on Friday.

    The uncertainty of tariffs caused concerns and supply shortages from some countries. For example, tariffs threatened export deals with Italian pasta makers.

    “But what this does is it gives a lot of power back to the exporting countries,” Lempert said. “This is going to give them a sigh of relief event, though the administration is going to try to work around it.”

    President Donald Trump’s sweeping reciprocal tariffs impacted food prices, including at The Wow Supermarket on South Boulevard in Charlotte, shown in this file photo.
    President Donald Trump’s sweeping reciprocal tariffs impacted food prices, including at The Wow Supermarket on South Boulevard in Charlotte, shown in this file photo. DIAMOND VENCES dvences@charlotteobserver.com

    Will businesses get refunds?

    Companies that had to pay the tariffs may be able to seek a refund from the Treasury Department, but the court did not address that issue. Several companies, including Costco, sued the Trump administration for refunds before the Supreme Court ruling Friday.

    If they are successful in getting money refunded, Lempert said, how does that get passed back to the consumers or does it go to food companies?

    We Pay The Tariffs, an advocacy and research coalition of 800 businesses small businesses, released a statement demanding refunds for Trump’s tariffs. Over 30 North Carolina and South Carolina businesses are part of the organization, the group told the Observer.

    “But a legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs. … These businesses need their money back now,” the group’s Executive Director Dan Anthony said.

    A Charlotte business owner’s fear of the unknown

    Because Kindred’s supply chain spans the globe, the recent climate of trade uncertainty and tariffs placed her small business in a chokehold and halted expansion.

    “The hardest thing was not knowing,” Kindred said.

    “It’s very hard to maintain consistency and continue providing customers the best products when you’re facing so many unknown variables.”

    Related Stories from Charlotte Observer

    Catherine Muccigrosso

    The Charlotte Observer

    Catherine Muccigrosso is the retail business reporter for The Charlotte Observer. An award-winning journalist, she has worked for multiple newspapers and McClatchy for more than a decade.


    Profile Image of Desiree Mathurin

    Desiree Mathurin

    The Charlotte Observer

    Desiree Mathurin covers growth and development for The Charlotte Observer. The native New Yorker returned to the East Coast after covering neighborhood news in Denver at Denverite and Colorado Public Radio. She’s also reported on high school sports at Newsday and southern-regional news for AP. Desiree is exploring Charlotte and the Carolinas, and is looking forward to taking readers along for the ride. Send tips and coffee shop recommendations.

    Catherine Muccigrosso,Desiree Mathurin,Chase Jordan

    Source link

  • Trump says he may punish countries with tariffs if they don’t back the US controlling Greenland

    COPENHAGEN, Denmark — U.S. President Donald Trump suggested Friday that he may punish countries with tariffs if they don’t back the U.S. controlling Greenland, a message that came as a bipartisan Congressional delegation sought to lower tensions in the Danish capital.

    Trump for months has insisted that the U.S. should control Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark, and said earlier this week that anything less than the Arctic island being in U.S. hands would be “unacceptable.”

    During an unrelated event at the White House about rural health care, he recounted Friday how he had threatened European allies with tariffs on pharmaceuticals.

    “I may do that for Greenland too,” Trump said. “I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security. So I may do that,” he said.

    SEE ALSO | In their words: Greenlanders talk about Trump’s desire to own their Arctic island

    He had not previously mentioned using tariffs to try to force the issue.

    Earlier this week, the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland met in Washington this week with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

    That encounter didn’t resolve the deep differences, but did produce an agreement to set up a working group – on whose purpose Denmark and the White House then offered sharply diverging public views.

    European leaders have insisted that is only for Denmark and Greenland to decide on matters concerning the territory, and Denmark said this week that it was increasing its military presence in Greenland in cooperation with allies.

    A relationship that ‘we need to nurture’

    In Copenhagen, a group of senators and members of the House of Representatives met Friday with Danish and Greenlandic lawmakers, and with leaders including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

    Delegation leader Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, thanked the group’s hosts for “225 years of being a good and trusted ally and partner” and said that “we had a strong and robust dialogue about how we extend that into the future.”

    Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said after meeting lawmakers that the visit reflected a strong relationship over decades and “it is one that we need to nurture.” She told reporters that “Greenland needs to be viewed as our ally, not as an asset, and I think that’s what you’re hearing with this delegation.”

    The tone contrasted with that emanating from the White House. Trump has sought to justify his calls for a U.S. takeover by repeatedly claiming that China and Russia have their own designs on Greenland, which holds vast untapped reserves of critical minerals. The White House hasn’t ruled out taking the territory by force.

    “We have heard so many lies, to be honest and so much exaggeration on the threats towards Greenland,” said Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic politician and member of the Danish parliament who took part in Friday’s meetings. “And mostly, I would say the threats that we’re seeing right now is from the U.S. side.”

    Murkowski emphasized the role of Congress in spending and in conveying messages from constituents.

    “I think it is important to underscore that when you ask the American people whether or not they think it is a good idea for the United States to acquire Greenland, the vast majority, some 75%, will say, we do not think that that is a good idea,” she said.

    Along with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, Murkowski has introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit the use of U.S. Defense or State department funds to annex or take control of Greenland or the sovereign territory of any NATO member state without that ally’s consent or authorization from the North Atlantic Council.

    Inuit council criticizes White House statements

    The dispute is looming large in the lives of Greenlanders. Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said on Tuesday that “if we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark. We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU.””

    The chair of the Nuuk, Greenland-based Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents around 180,000 Inuit from Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia’s Chukotka region on international issues, said persistent statements from the White House that the U.S. must own Greenland offer “a clear picture of how the US administration views the people of Greenland, how the U.S. administration views Indigenous peoples, and peoples that are few in numbers.”

    Sara Olsvig told The Associated Press in Nuuk that the issue is “how one of the biggest powers in the world views other peoples that are less powerful than them. And that really is concerning.”

    Indigenous Inuit in Greenland do not want to be colonized again, she said.

    ___

    Superville reported from Washington. Emma Burrows in Nuuk, Greenland and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    AP

    Source link

  • ‘I did this for the world’: Delusional Donald Trump claims his insane tariffs saved the ‘entire world’ from a depression | The Mary Sue

    Amid the Supreme Court hearing, Donald Trump claimed that his tariffs saved the entire world from a depression. It’s the new peak of his economics-by-ego, because neither the data nor basic trade math backs him up.

    Trump called the Supreme Court hearing against tariffs “one of the most important cases in the history of our country.” And it surely is, since it affects millions of people. But after oral arguments on Wednesday, he said that if the Supreme Court removed tariffs, it would be “devastating” (via Business Standard). He doubled down, claiming, “If we didn’t have tariffs, the entire world would be in a depression.”

    But facts suggest they did more harm than help, especially for everyday families. Tariffs are extra taxes on imports entering the country. And historically, the cost gets passed on to people who now have to pay higher prices. And the one group that gets especially squeezed in this is low-income households.

    But Trump stressed that he “did this for the world,” citing his success in striking a deal with China.

    “As an example, President XI, he hit us with the Rare Earths and I him him with the tariff, a hundred percent tariff on top of all other tariffs. And he called in 10 minutes and made a deal.”

    He also labeled the U.S.-China trade war as a “threat against the world.” He went so far as to guarantee that without his tariff impositions, “the entire world would be closed up.” While the IMF flagged U.S.–China trade frictions as a major drag on global growth, they warned against exactly what Trump did. (via WTO)

    Trump also seems to have forgotten the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was the time tariffs as insane as his were imposed, and it ended up in the Great Depression. And the U.S. has avoided that in recent years because of monetary policy, fiscal backstops, and post-pandemic normalization. But Trump believes a magical tariff dial would do the work.

    What the genius economist needs to realize is that tariffs have real costs. And they result in higher prices at the grocery store for millions before straining supply chains and slowing global trade. They don’t stop recessions, especially not one that hasn’t arrived. Unfortunately, regular Americans understand it better than him. Users on social media lashed out at Trump’s statement, proving that it’s doing no good to the people he’s supposed to protect first.

    “My God, he really just says anything. Tariffs did not prevent a depression; they made life more expensive for millions of Americans. It is nonsense, plain and simple,” one said. Another opened up about the impact of tariffs they’ve faced personally:

    “Tariffs…that $26 set of coasters I bought on Etsy from Canada, cost me an extra $36 before I could get them, and it took an extra few weeks to arrive after being hung up in Canada before finally shipping…”

    Some also tried to give him a history lesson, in hopes that he’ll understand what he’s really doing. “Donald Trump is not only the worst President in history, but he is the dumbest President. The Great Depression was when Republican President Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act,” they said. The user also revealed that after the tariff act, “a Republican president did not return to the White House for two decades.”

    But, Trump will be Trump. It seems his economics is as bad as his history and science. Someone needs to put him in a class on basic economics before he pushes the U.S. back to 1929.

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    Image of Kopal

    Kopal

    Staff Writer

    Kopal primarily covers politics for The Mary Sue. Off the clock, she switches to DND mode and escapes to the mountains.

    Kopal

    Source link

  • President Trump says he’s ending trade talks with Canada over TV ad

    President Donald Trump said late Thursday that he was ending “all trade negotiations” with Canada because of a television ad opposing U.S. tariffs that he said misstated the facts and called “egregious behavior” aimed at influencing U.S. court decisions.The post on Trump’s social media site came after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he aims to double his country’s exports to countries outside the U.S. because of the threat posed by Trump’s tariffs. Trump’s call for an abrupt end to negotiations could further inflame trade tensions that already have been building between the two neighboring countries for months.Related video above: Earlier this month, Trump explained why a deal with Canada is complicatedTrump posted, “The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs.”“The ad was for $75,000. They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts,” Trump wrote on his social media site. “TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A. Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.”Carney’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The prime minister was set to leave Friday morning for a summit in Asia, while Trump is set to do the same Friday evening.Earlier Thursday night, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute posted on X that an ad created by the government of Ontario “misrepresents the ‘Presidential Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade’ dated April 25, 1987.” It added that Ontario did not receive foundation permission “to use and edit the remarks.”The foundation said it is “reviewing legal options in this matter” and invited the public to watch the unedited video of Reagan’s address.Carney met with Trump earlier this month to try to ease trade tensions, as the two countries and Mexico prepare for a review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — a trade deal Trump negotiated in his first term, but has since soured on.More than three-quarters of Canadian exports go to the U.S., and nearly $3.6 billion Canadian (US$2.7 billion) worth of goods and services cross the border daily.Trump said earlier this week that he had seen the ad on television and said that it showed that his tariffs were having an impact.“I saw an ad last night from Canada. If I was Canada, I’d take that same ad also,” he said then.In his own post on X last week, Doug Ford, the premier of Ontario, posted a link to the ad and the message: “It’s official: Ontario’s new advertising campaign in the U.S. has launched.”He continued, “Using every tool we have, we’ll never stop making the case against American tariffs on Canada. The way to prosperity is by working together.”A spokesperson for Ford didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday night. But Ford previously got Trump’s attention with an electricity surcharge to U.S. states. Trump responded by doubling steel and aluminum tariffs.The president has moved to impose steep U.S. tariffs on many goods from Canada. In April, Canada’s government imposed retaliatory levies on certain U.S. goods — but it carved out exemptions for some automakers to bring specific numbers of vehicles into the country, known as remission quotas.Trump’s tariffs have especially hurt Canada’s auto sector, much of which is based in Ontario. This month, Stellantis said it would move a production line from Ontario to Illinois

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump said late Thursday that he was ending “all trade negotiations” with Canada because of a television ad opposing U.S. tariffs that he said misstated the facts and called “egregious behavior” aimed at influencing U.S. court decisions.

    The post on Trump’s social media site came after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he aims to double his country’s exports to countries outside the U.S. because of the threat posed by Trump’s tariffs. Trump’s call for an abrupt end to negotiations could further inflame trade tensions that already have been building between the two neighboring countries for months.

    Related video above: Earlier this month, Trump explained why a deal with Canada is complicated

    Trump posted, “The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs.”

    “The ad was for $75,000. They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts,” Trump wrote on his social media site. “TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A. Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.”

    Carney’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The prime minister was set to leave Friday morning for a summit in Asia, while Trump is set to do the same Friday evening.

    Earlier Thursday night, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute posted on X that an ad created by the government of Ontario “misrepresents the ‘Presidential Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade’ dated April 25, 1987.” It added that Ontario did not receive foundation permission “to use and edit the remarks.”

    The foundation said it is “reviewing legal options in this matter” and invited the public to watch the unedited video of Reagan’s address.

    Carney met with Trump earlier this month to try to ease trade tensions, as the two countries and Mexico prepare for a review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — a trade deal Trump negotiated in his first term, but has since soured on.

    More than three-quarters of Canadian exports go to the U.S., and nearly $3.6 billion Canadian (US$2.7 billion) worth of goods and services cross the border daily.

    Trump said earlier this week that he had seen the ad on television and said that it showed that his tariffs were having an impact.

    “I saw an ad last night from Canada. If I was Canada, I’d take that same ad also,” he said then.

    In his own post on X last week, Doug Ford, the premier of Ontario, posted a link to the ad and the message: “It’s official: Ontario’s new advertising campaign in the U.S. has launched.”

    He continued, “Using every tool we have, we’ll never stop making the case against American tariffs on Canada. The way to prosperity is by working together.”

    A spokesperson for Ford didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday night. But Ford previously got Trump’s attention with an electricity surcharge to U.S. states. Trump responded by doubling steel and aluminum tariffs.

    The president has moved to impose steep U.S. tariffs on many goods from Canada. In April, Canada’s government imposed retaliatory levies on certain U.S. goods — but it carved out exemptions for some automakers to bring specific numbers of vehicles into the country, known as remission quotas.

    Trump’s tariffs have especially hurt Canada’s auto sector, much of which is based in Ontario. This month, Stellantis said it would move a production line from Ontario to Illinois

    Source link

  • Navarro to Council on Foreign Relations: What People In This Audience Call ‘Populism’ or ‘Nationalism’ Simply Means Doing What Is Best For Americans First”

    White House senior counsel for trade and manufacturing Peter Navarro spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations on Friday morning about the administration’s “America First” policy agenda, their general attitude towards China, and economic fears over tariffs. Navarro delivered brief remarks about the gulf between the CFR and Trumpworld, participated in a discussion on the administration’s economic strategy, and answered questions from the audience.

    He began with a frank assessment of the CFR’s “establishment, technocratic, and globalist ideology” and contrasted it with the Trump administration’s “America First” policy.

    “CFR has been uniformly anti-tariff and anti-Trump, and highly skeptical of an America First form of policy that, in truth, is restoring our trade balance, rebuilding our industrial base, strengthening alliances like NATO, keeping –and as we just saw in the Mideast, negotiating– broader peace, and reasserting American sovereignty on the global stage,” Navarro began.

    The Council on Foreign Relations states that its role is “to inform U.S. engagement with the world.”

    Their official mission statement reads: “Founded in 1921, CFR is a nonpartisan, independent national membership organization, think tank, educator, and publisher, including of Foreign Affairs. It generates policy-relevant ideas and analysis, convenes experts and policymakers, and promotes informed public discussion—all to have impact on the most consequential issues facing the United States and the world.”

    Navarro said “the obvious question” is: How did the gulf between the Council on Foreign Relations and Trumpworld grow so wide?”

    “If you ask an AI search engine — try it, I did — it will tell you the Council on Foreign Relations embodies an establishment, technocratic, and globalist ideology, uncomfortably wedded with Wall Street and the multinational corporations that love open borders, cheap offshore labor, and an endless stream of subsidized imported goods,” he said. “By contrast, the Trump administration, since 2017, has stood squarely with the people who make and grow things in this country, our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers.”

    “What many in this audience dismiss as ‘populism’ or ‘nationalism’ simply means doing what is best for Americans first, protecting their jobs, communities, and industrial base,” he said.

    “This is what the Council on Foreign Relations has never understood: weakening our industrial base has never strengthened our strategic position. It has only invited aggression. That’s why, in Trump world, we do not trade off economic security for national security — we believe economic security is national security.”

    “Memo to CFR,” Navarro said. “You cannot project power if you’ve surrendered production. You cannot deter aggression when your supply chains run through your opponent’s ports. You can’t lead the free world if you can’t make what the free world needs.”

    “During the Trump first term, and you all remember this, CFR’s predictions of economic calamity widely missed the mark. The inflation and recession you forecast never came. The alliances you said would disintegrate have endured. Those wars you predicted? Four peaceful years during the Trump first term. China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia kept their powder dry,” Navarro continued. “Now, in his second term, President Donald John Trump is once again performing beautifully. And it’s long past time for the Council on Foreign Relations to catch up with the world it refuses to understand.”

    “In closing, I come to you today not to quarrel, but to simply challenge — respectfully — the assumptions that still dominate this room. The world has changed. The American people have changed. The age of blind globalization is over,” he said.

    Full transcript:

    PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE TRADE ADVISER: I’d like to thank the Council on Foreign Relations for this kind invitation. After all, it’s not every day I get to speak before an audience that has opposed nearly every policy I’ve ever helped advance in the White House. But let’s be honest with each other — CFR has been uniformly anti-tariff, anti-Trump, and highly skeptical of an America First foreign policy that, in truth, is restoring our trade balance, rebuilding our industrial base, strengthening alliances like NATO, and as we just saw in the Middle East, negotiating a broader peace and reasserting American sovereignty on the world stage.

    So let’s ask ourselves the obvious question: How did the gulf between the Council on Foreign Relations and Trump world grow so wide?

    If you ask an AI search engine — try this, I did — it will tell you that the Council on Foreign Relations embodies an establishment, technocratic, and globalist ideology, one comfortably wedded with Wall Street and the multinational corporations that love open borders, cheap offshore labor, and an endless stream of subsidized imported goods.

    By contrast, the Trump administration since 2017 has stood squarely with the people who make and grow things in this country — our farmers and ranchers, our manufacturers and workers. What many in this audience dismiss as populism or nationalism simply means doing what’s best for Americans first, protecting our jobs, communities, and the industrial base that anchors our national strength.

    History is indeed a harsh mistress here.

    Exhibit A: Council on Foreign Relations members helped negotiate NAFTA, which hollowed out the U.S. manufacturing base and triggered one of the largest illegal mass migrations in modern history. CFR analysts championed China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization — the single worst trade deal in American history. Then came the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Forgive me here, Mike — CFR sold it as a geopolitical rampart against the rise of China, yet the TPP would have surrendered much of America’s manufacturing base, including our crucial auto and auto parts sectors, to Japan, Vietnam, and ironically, ultimately China itself.

    President Trump saw this very clearly and tore up the TPP on day one. I was standing right behind him on that beautiful day.

    This is what the Council on Foreign Relations has never understood: weakening our industrial base has never strengthened our strategic position. It has only invited aggression. That’s why, in Trump world, we do not trade off economic security for national security — we believe economic security is national security.

    Memo to CFR: you cannot project power if you’ve surrendered production. You cannot deter aggression when your supply chains run through your opponent’s ports. You can’t lead the free world if you can’t make what the free world needs.

    Here’s the second big problem with the Council’s free-trade dogma: the belief that the World Trade Organization somehow delivers fair trade. By its own rules, it does not. The WTO’s “most favored nation” rule says you must treat all partners the same, but what it doesn’t say is that everyone must charge the same tariffs.

    So what happens? Virtually every country in the world charges America far higher tariffs than we charge them. Germany, for example, charges us 10% on autos; we charge them 2.5%. The result: Bavaria sells us seven cars for every one Detroit sends to Germany.

    That’s the tilted playing field that the Council on Foreign Relations has defended — and the one President Trump has begun to level with his policy of reciprocal tariffs.

    Of course, the moment President Trump uses the “T-word,” CFR waves the bloody shirt of — you know what I’m about to say — inflation and recession. But the record tells a very different story. Under President Trump’s first term, inflation stayed low, growth was strong, and the American manufacturing base saw its first real revival in decades. Far from tariff chaos, Trump world had price stability and the strongest job market in modern history.

    Let’s be clear: the inflation we’re living with today did not come from tariffs. It came from Joe Biden’s reckless fiscal expansion, his neglect of our supply chains, and a hopelessly politicized Federal Reserve that accommodated the Biden bonfire. That’s why we in Trump world now hold the credibility high ground on tariffs.

    Exhibit B: During the Trump first term — and you all remember this — CFR’s predictions of economic calamity widely missed the mark. The inflation and recession you forecast never came. The alliances you said would disintegrate have endured. Those wars you predicted? Four peaceful years during the Trump first term. China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia kept their powder dry.

    Now, in his second term, President Donald John Trump is once again performing beautifully. And it’s long past time for the Council on Foreign Relations to catch up with the world it refuses to understand.

    In closing, I come to you today not to quarrel, but to simply challenge — respectfully — the assumptions that still dominate this room. The world has changed. The American people have changed. The age of blind globalization is over.

    If the Council on Foreign Relations wants to be relevant, it must stop mistaking nationalism for isolationism, sovereignty for retreat, and strength for aggression. For ultimately, MAGA and the America First movement isn’t about pulling back — it’s about standing tall. It’s about defending what we make, who we are, and the nation we love.

    Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions — and Anna Swanson of the “conservative” New York Times is going to grill me here.

    Peter Navarro, Council on Foreign Relations

    Source link

  • How Customs Brokers Are Using AI to Cut Tariff Costs

    Both before and since President Donald Trump cemented the details of his sweeping import tariffs in August, U.S. businesses have scrambled to find ways to limit the considerable cost increases attributed to the duties. Those levies have jacked up prices on finished imported products and materials, prompting companies turn to businesses developing specialized artificial intelligence (AI) tools that permit importers to keep pace with complex and shifting rules and rates — and reduce their impact on bottom lines.

    While the new tariffs generated extra costs and considerable uncertainty for most companies, they’re a growth driver for logistics and customs brokerage businesses. That’s particularly true for relatively young and innovative startups in the sector. They’re now fielding a surge of requests for help from existing and prospective customers not seen since a pandemic-era spike in demand. Increasingly, those and other enterprises are offering specialized AI solutions to analyze the shifting details effecting importing costs — and help clients navigate those and gain insights about their best choices for the future.

    Flexport, a San Francisco freight forwarding startup and a 2022 Inc. Best in Business honoree, this week released a slate of AI tools that automate and analyze import data, and allow users to select the best options for their near and long term future. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report on the product launch, the new apps “help retailers and manufacturers comply with rapidly changing tariff policies,” and “analyze customs filings for errors and compliance risks, and that identify ways of reducing future duties.”

    The growing selection of AI-powered tech tools focus on dealing with tariff costs and compliance is as diverse as they are powerful. They optimize the timing departures and arrivals of shipments to benefit from lower transport and duty rates, and identify new suppliers in countries that face lower customs duties. Some are so granular they can audit a customer’s machinery and other assets, and identify internal parts that can be replaced with compatible alternatives with lighter levies.

    Chicago-based FourKites and New York-based Altana go even farther. Each of those startups create a digital twin of a customer’s supply chain, orders, inventory, and shipments en route. They then use that data to generate real-time risk analyses and recommendations for better and cheaper alternatives — both before and after tariffs are applied.

    On the in-house side, Salesforce released a new AI agent earlier this year that client businesses can give to their own customs specialists. The automated tech allows those experts to keep track of and respond to the frequent changes to the tens of thousand import classifications and codes applicable to individual products. Those include raw supplies like steel and lumber, as well as goods assembled from a wide variety of tariff-affected materials.

    Whether that AI tech focuses on specific areas of importing and tariffs, or provides a wider range of ways to assist importers, their objectives generally cover similar ground. That usually means optimizing procurement, automating product classification analysis, and ensuring compliance with U.S. Customs rules.

    They also forecast a company’s developing demand for imports, then simulate freight rates for various dates to limit transport costs. Their automated preparation of customs forms using updated official rules decreases the risks of errors that can stick companies with higher duties, while speeding the clearance of shipments once they arrive.

    Why should smaller businesses consider paying for AI tools to improve their supply chains and minimize the additional costs tariffs create? Because some companies risk spending even more if they don’t get that help.

    According to a recent Reuters report, many legacy players in the roughly $5 billion U.S. customs brokerage industry are increasing the $4 to $7 fees they previously charged for every code number corresponding to imported products they declare for customers. The new hikes tend to add from $1 to $5 per code, with international logistic giants like UPS, FedEx, and DHL similarly increasing rates.

    At the same time, all those businesses are also reinforcing their teams overseeing U.S. customs processing in response to higher demand, and updating their computer systems. Those investments are almost certain to be passed along to importing customers in the final bill they pay, further bloating the costs of tariffs.

    Consequently, using AI to automate, oversee, and respond to frequently changing customs rules — and improve importers’ supply chain strategies in the process — may turn out to be the most productive and cost-effective choice for many businesses.

    That same conclusion by a growing number of companies has allowed Flexports to already double its 2024 gross profit from customs brokerage this year, the Journal said. That’s expected to rise even higher in 2026.

    “It’s become very complicated to calculate tariffs… (and) we hear a lot about the need for good tools to calculate this stuff” Flexport founder and chief executive Ryan Petersen told the paper. “There’s a real big role for technology in this.”

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • India’s Exports To US Dip 11.93%, Imports Up 11.78% in September

    New Delhi:

    India’s merchandise exports to the US declined by 11.93 per cent to USD 5.46 billion in September due to the high tariffs imposed by Washington while imports increased by 11.78 per cent to USD 3.98 billion during the month, according to the commerce ministry data.

    During the April-September period of this fiscal, the country’s exports to the US increased by 13.37 per cent to USD 45.82 billion, while imports rose 9 per cent to USD 25.6 billion, the data showed.

    The US has imposed a sweeping 50 per cent tariffs on Indian goods entering American markets from August 27. The two countries are negotiating a bilateral trade agreement to boost two way commerce. The Indian team is in Washington for the trade talks.

    According to think tank GTRI, shipments to the United States plunged in September, down 17.9 per cent from USD 6.87 billion in August, the sharpest monthly fall of 2025 and the fourth consecutive decline.

    “September was also the first full month in which Indian goods faced Washington’s 50 per cent tariff on most products,” GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava said. Exports to the US have been falling since June 2025 on a monthly basis. In May, exports rose by 4.8 per cent to USD 8.8 billion, marking the last month of growth before the duties took hold.

    He added that between May and September, India’s exports to the US have dropped by almost 37.5 per cent, wiping out more than USD 3.3 billion in monthly shipment value.

    “The data confirm that the United States has become India’s most severely affected market since the tariff escalation began, with sectors such as textiles, gems and jewellery, engineering goods, and chemicals suffering the heaviest losses,” Srivastava said.

    India and the US are negotiating a bilateral trade agreement.

    China, another major trading partner of India, saw a 34.18 per cent jump in exports from India to USD 1.46 billion in September and a 21.96 per cent growth in April-September 2025-26 to USD 8.41 billion.

    Imports from the neighbouring country in September rose 16.35 per cent to USD 11.31 billion while during the first half of this fiscal, shipments rose by 11.25 per cent to USD 62.88 billion.

    The UAE, the UK, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, and Italy were also among the countries, which saw positive growth in exports from India during the month under review.

    However, exports to the Netherlands, Singapore, and France declined in September.

    On the imports front, inbound shipments in September declined from nations, including Russia, Korea, Australia, Vietnam, Germany, and Taiwan.

    However, imports rose from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, the UK and Thailand. 

    (This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)


    Source link

  • Kitchen cabinet companies hope new US tariffs pay off in the long run

    By MAE ANDERSON, AP Business Writer

    NEW YORK (AP) — Cabinet dealers, interior designers and remodeling contractors in the U.S. hope new tariffs on imported kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and upholstered wooden furniture that kicked in Tuesday will create more business for them and eventually boost domestic production of those products.

    But several small business owners in the home improvement industry say they expect some short-term pains from the import taxes: Clients with projects already on the books might balk at having to pay more for the budget-priced cabinets they selected. Potential customers may postpone kitchen and bathroom renovations until costs — and the economy — seem more stable.

    “I think the volatility around pricing is damaging to the remodeling industry,” said Allison Harlow, an interior designer in Michigan whose company, Curio Design Studio, creates and builds custom bathrooms and kitchens. “Most people will hear the headline of ‘Kitchen cabinets will go up 50%’ and might just opt out of even reaching out to our company.”

    Despite high mortgage rates having depressed sales of existing homes in recent years, a forecast of remodeling activity by Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies predicts that homeowner spending on improvements and maintenance will remain steady into the middle of 2026.

1 of 4

Josh Qian, co-founder of Linq Kitchen, a designer and maker of kitchen cabinets, shows kitchens made in Vietnam at a show room in City of Industry, Calif., Friday, Oct. 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Expand

Trump calls cheap imports a national security threat

A proclamation that President Donald Trump signed on Sept. 29 cited national security and foreign trade practices as grounds for imposing the tariffs on certain finished wood products and product components.

Of them, imported vanities and kitchen cabinets incurred the steepest tax rates: 25% until the end of the year and 50% starting on New Year’s Day.

Upholstered chairs, seats and sofas also are subject to a 25% worldwide tariff effective Tuesday, with the rate scheduled to increase to 30% on Jan. 1. In addition, the presidential proclamation put a 10% import tax on softwood timber and lumber, which comes from evergreen trees like pine and cedars.

Associated Press

Source link

  • A Raleigh small business owner struggles with the cost of Trump’s tariffs. ‘I’m just stuck.’ | Opinion

    The Videri Chocolate Factory in downtown Raleigh

    The Videri Chocolate Factory in downtown Raleigh


    Ned Barnett

    The News & Observer

    When Sam Ratto opened his Videri Chocolate Factory in Raleigh in 2011, his timing and location were as sweet as his product, but President Donald Trump’s tariffs are adding to his costs and souring that good fortune.

    “As a business owner, it’s just another day where you have to figure out how to make it work,” said Ratto, 45. The aim of the tariffs, he said, is to “bully countries into doing business with us,” but the effect is to make it harder for him to do business.

    Videri, a store and factory located in a restored, century-old railroad depot in Raleigh’s Warehouse District, opened on the cusp of an economic boom in North Carolina’s capital city. The business gained attention and support as a local boutique chocolate factory that makes a pure product from organic ingredients and pays its 25 employees a livable wage.

    Then came Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement in April of high and often arbitrary tariffs that have fallen hardest on small businesses that rely on imports.

    Businesses with fewer than 50 employees account for 86 percent of all U.S. firms that engage in overseas trade, according to a Federal Reserve analysis.

    That reliance on trade is especially true of Videri. Its chocolate is made from imported cocoa beans, cocoa butter and sugar, mostly from the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Ecuador. Now those products come with high and shifting tariffs.

    “So I just have to pay for it and I’m not making any more money. I’m actually making less money,” he said. “And I’m not able to hire more people, I’m not able to buy more things, I’m not able to invest in things. It’s just, I’m stuck.”

    Ratto was already adjusting to a surge in cocoa prices because of changes in crop yields and supply chains. In 2024 he paid $5,800 for a ton of cocoa beans from the Dominican Republic. This year, it was about $15,000.

    Tariff costs are on top of that surge. Ratto stopped buying beans from Vietnam because the tariff had soared to 75%. Tariffs on other countries vacillated from 30% to 75%.

    “Next year we will not import that many beans if this chaos keeps happening,” he said. “If we buy less, we can’t make more.”

    Trump’s idea is that high tariffs will promote more domestic production, but cocoa beans aren’t grown in the U.S. except for in Hawaii. High tariffs are pushing up the price of a basic product Ratto can’t get within the continental U.S.

    Adding to his frustration is the way the tariffs were imposed. There was no debate, no public input from businesses, trade experts and economists. The president declared an emergency where there isn’t one and used his emergency powers to slap high tariffs on virtually all imports.

    “These tariffs are illegal,” Ratto said. “Tariffs need to be put in place the correct way by going through Congress and signed into law. This current administration is just saying that these are the new tariffs.”

    The costs and disruption caused by Trump’s tariffs have forced Videri to raise its prices. A retail chocolate bar is now $12. Other small businesses that bought Videri chocolate wholesale to use in their offerings have told Ratto the chocolate has become too expensive for them.

    “We’ve had to raise our prices and customers are not happy about it,” Ratto said.

    He is adjusting and innovating to keep his business afloat, but he’s mystified by why the president thinks adding costs to his business is a good thing.

    “As a small business owner, I don’t have any power to fight this,” he said. All he can do is make good chocolate and hope that “maybe something will change.”

    Associate opinion editor Ned Barnett can be reached at 919-404-7583, or nbarnett@newsobserver.com

    This story was originally published October 12, 2025 at 9:02 PM.

    Ned Barnett

    Source link

  • Trump’s 100% Tariff on Foreign-Made Films Met With Eye Rolls at Rome’s MIA Market: ‘There’s No Better Place’ to Make Movies Than Europe

    While President Donald Trump might have reupped his threats last month to impose a 100% tariff on movies produced outside the U.S., European film and TV industry professionals aren’t flinching, with triumphant execs taking a victory lap this week at Rome’s MIA Market over the continued one-way traffic of Hollywood production across the pond.

    “It’s a very simple question, and the U.S. has understood that: There’s no better place to be when you’re a producer today than in Europe,” said Alexandra Lebret, a partner at French investment firm Axio.

    Lebret was speaking at a panel on Wednesday that gathered seasoned fund representatives, agents and producers to talk shop about the fast-evolving world of film financing. 

    With production costs spiraling worldwide and cost-conscious execs leaving no stone unturned in the hunt for savings, Europe has seen a surge in U.S. production, thanks to a bevy of competitive advantages ranging from tax breaks to soft finance schemes to generally lower production costs across the board.  

    “It’s great to shoot in Europe,” said veteran producer Rodrigo Texeira, of Brazil’s RT Features (“Call Me By Your Name,” “I’m Still Here”). “American films are coming here because they understand they don’t have those tools you guys have in Europe.”

    “We have talents. We have the tax incentives that allow any film or TV series to have a decrease of the cost by 30%. And we also have additional financing,” added Lebret. “It’s crazy. It’s fantastic. That’s why [investment firm Axio] will not go to the U.S. We will wait for the U.S. to come to us.”

    Last month President Trump renewed his threats to impose a 100% tariff on movies produced outside the U.S., posting on his Truth Social platform: “Our movie making business has been stolen from the United States of America, by other Countries, just like stealing ‘candy from a baby.’”

    Earlier this week in Rome, Italian undersecretary for culture Lucia Borgonzoni blasted the latest threats as “insane,” noting that the proposed levies “would damage the Americans themselves if they imposed them.” 

    On Wednesday, Texeira expressed the confusion shared by industry professionals across the globe over what a Trump tariff might look like in practice, quipping that the Commander-in-Chief might next try to impose a tax “on [his] shoes.” “No one knows what he means. No one knows what he’s talking about,” said the Brazilian exec.

    “He’s taxing his own companies. That makes Europe even better [as an option for U.S. films],” added Lebret.

    The ongoing tête-à-tête with the White House highlights the stakes for Hollywood at a time when “costs on everything we consume have gone up,” according to Alex Brunner, a sales agent at UTA.

    “The number one thing is to get as much on screen for our clients and try and get them the biggest budget. Cost is not our friend. So we all run around the world, trying to defray those costs…chasing tax credits, subsidies, anything that could reduce that cost factor,” he said. “That’s why we’ve seen — since COVID and the double strikes — an arms race in tax credits. That pursuit is because of the cost factor on these films.”

    Despite the optimism around Europe’s upsides as a production base, the panelists agreed that current trends are unsustainable. “The budgets are too high. There is not enough financing to [support] it,” said Lebret. “How do we decrease it? That’s the question we have to answer. It’s a key question for the market in general.”

    Last April, Lebret’s firm launched the Together Fund, billed as the first European equity fund dedicated to the support of independent production companies. With an initial capitalization of €58 million ($67 million), the fund was purpose-built to address a gap in the market. “The MGs from international distributors have decreased in films and TV series,” said Lebret. “That’s why there is now a space for equity financing where there was not before.” 

    When it comes to pre-sales — long a pillar of indie film financing — Brunner said it’s “old news” that the previous model can’t be relied on to provide producers and financiers the security it once offered.

    “Now, anything that could pre-sell, it’s become hard. That’s sort of old news,” he said. “And generally, if you go to any market now, there are things that pre-sell like gangbusters, and there are things that you have to wait and see. And we have to pivot when we do that.” 

    Ahead of next month’s American Film Market, Brunner conceded that the current landscape is “feast or famine” for most films — making it ever more imperative that sales teams put together an air-tight package before taking a project to market.

    “We’re all busy trying to package movies together. And as we go through that process, we’re trying to add elements to our screenplays and our filmmakers’ stories that we think have pre-salability,” he said. “We’re being very careful about how we put things together, the price point, what we think that finance will be to really give it a shot.”

    Rome’s MIA Market runs Oct. 6 – 10.

    Postcardjunky

    Source link

  • Trump and His Many, Many Emergencies

    Trump invoked a national emergency to enact tariffs.
    Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

    There’s little that President Donald Trump loves more than an emergency — or, more precisely, declaring an emergency. A formal pronouncement that we are under attack — by immigrants, by protesters, by economic conditions, by whatever a paranoid mind might conjure — can carry political benefits. Fear rarely fails, and Trump has a knack for taking the winning side of those 80/20 issues. And, legally, an emergency declaration can unlock fringe-extreme executive powers. But over the past few weeks, the federal courts have drawn a line. Not everything bad is an emergency, it turns out.

    When Trump went on a tariff bender this past spring, his advisers plumbed the law books and came up with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Trump declared that “large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits” pose an existential threat to our “economic sovereignty” — notwithstanding the fact that a trade deficit isn’t necessarily a bad thing (it just means we import more than we export from a given country) and that we’ve run deficits for at least five decades continuously yet somehow managed to survive.

    The trial-level Court of International Trade rejected Trump’s use of the economic emergency law in May, and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in a seven-to-four decision last week (though the court allowed the tariffs to remain in effect for now, pending final resolution of the case by the Supreme Court). In its opinion, the appeals court cast a bit of side-eye at Trump’s histrionic tendencies. “Since taking office, President Donald J. Trump has declared several national emergencies,” the court deadpanned. Indeed: several. The Supreme Court announced this week that it will take and expedite the tariff case; expect a ruling by the end of the calendar year.

    Also last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — one of the nation’s more conservative courts, covering Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas — denied Trump’s facially preposterous effort to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan street gang. In a two-to-one ruling featuring a George W. Bush nominee and a Biden nominee in the majority (against a dissenting Trump nominee), the court rejected Trump’s claim that the street gang’s presence in the United States constituted an “invasion or predatory incursion … by any foreign nation or government.”

    Trump lost on every prong. The court found that a street gang, though dangerous, is simply not the same thing as an occupying force dispatched by a foreign government. Indeed, history best illustrates the silliness of Trump’s position. Since its adoption in 1798, the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked four times: during the War of 1812, World War I, World War II, and now. To quote Sesame Street: One of these things is not like the others.

    And in June, Trump invoked a rarely used emergency law to mobilize the National Guard in California to address ongoing anti-ICE protests. He claimed (preposterously) that the protests constituted “a form of rebellion” and (more plausibly) that the National Guard was needed to enforce federal laws. District court Judge Charles Breyer initially ruled against Trump and blocked the deployment, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, citing the need to protect federal personnel and property. But last week, Judge Breyer scaled back the scope of the deployment, ruling that Guard personnel had been used illegally to perform civilian law-enforcement functions. The case is now back before the Ninth Circuit, which has temporarily paused Judge Breyer’s order.

    However that particular dispute plays out, Trump’s emergency declaration in California faces an even more formidable obstacle. California has renewed its challenge now that the purported source of the emergency — the anti-ICE protests — has essentially ended. It’s unclear how the Trump administration will respond; it’s tough to justify an emergency measure to deal with a situation that no longer exists.

    Of course, all the aforementioned rulings came from federal district courts and mid-level courts of appeals. Does any of this really matter, one might reasonably wonder, with the Supreme Court and its six-to-three conservative majority lurking above?

    The answer is definitively yes. First, the Supreme Court takes a minuscule fraction of all cases presented to it, typically 2 or 3 percent. Even if we bump up those numbers tenfold, given the unusual constitutional issues presented by these emergency cases, a substantial chance remains that the Court declines to hear any of the cases beyond the tariff matter. If that happens, then the court of appeals ruling becomes the final word. And, while the Supreme Court does whatever it darn well pleases, a well-reasoned, strongly supported lower-court ruling certainly can be influential and can provide the Court with a road map to reach a similar conclusion.

    There’s very little that’s realistically going to derail Trump’s ongoing quest to expand and flex his executive power. Trolling with all-caps social-media posts and TikToks featuring bad-boy cusswords are cute but won’t make a dent. The only meaningful speed bump on the horizon is the midterms, which bring the possibility (the probability, perhaps) that Democrats flip the House. But even a hypothetical Democratic House majority won’t take office until January 2027. Until then, it’s up to the judiciary to limit Trump’s emergency-fueled power grab. And, so far, the courts have done that job fairly and effectively.

    Elie Honig

    Source link

  • Polis releases report detailing impacts of Trump’s tariffs on Colorado

    DENVER — While costs have crept up for consumers, President Donald Trump’s tariffs haven’t yet led to the large price spikes many Coloradans feared. That has created a lot of confusion about the impact on consumers, so Denver7 is getting answers.

    On Thursday, Gov. Jared Polis released a new report showing the impact Trump’s tariffs could have on Colorado’s economy. The report said the tariffs “will likely lead to worse economic outcomes for both the U.S. and Colorado.”

    “One thing that’s clear: Everyone loses a trade war,” Polis said. “Everyone loses a tariff war. It’s a race to the bottom.”

    • Read the full report below

    The governor’s report said Colorado’s effective tariff rate, which is the actual average cost of taxes (tariffs) paid on imports, is higher than it has been in over 100 years.

    “Today, Coloradans are paying seven times more in tariff taxes than one year ago,” Polis said.

    According to the governor, the effective rate skyrocketed from 3% to 21%.
     
    Polis and the state’s top economic experts said the tariffs are bad news for Colorado businesses and families. 

    “When businesses face high tariffs and the associated uncertainty and confusion, they have difficult choices,” said Jeff Kraft, the deputy director of the governor’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade. “Companies are forced to either pass costs on to consumers, which raises prices and can reduce revenue and obviously hurts the consumer, or they have to shift funds to cover the cost of the tariffs internally. If they do that, it can lead to significant reductions in research and development, reduced employment, job cuts and over time.”

    KMGH-TV

    Colorado Gov. Jared Polis holds a press conference with officials from his economic team.

    After calling around, Denver7 learned many local companies haven’t yet passed those costs on to consumers. In a social media post last month, Trump said it was mostly companies and foreign governments picking up the tab.

    “It has been proven that even at this late stage, Tariffs have not caused Inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury’s coffers,” Trump wrote.
     
    Denver7 asked Zac Rogers, a professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, to weigh in on the tariffs and the impact on consumers.

    “I think it’s been a slow creep,” Rogers said.

    Rogers said costs from the tariffs are being spread around the supply chain, with different entities, such as suppliers and wholesalers, picking up some of the costs. By the time a product reaches the consumer, it’s not as expensive as it otherwise would have been.

    “So, consumers are certainly seeing prices go up, but we’re not getting hit with the full 25%, 40%, 50% [tariff],” he said.
     
    Rogers told Denver7 many companies stockpiled inventory ahead of the tariffs, which is also keeping prices down. However, that will change.
     
    “My guess, and based on all the people we talk to when we do our index, is that in the holiday season, we will see prices go up,” Rogers said. “50% tariffs on India, 50% tariffs on Brazil, 25% Japan, that’s not all going to be passed to consumers. But a portion of it will absolutely be passed to consumers, and it will be a bit of a game for retailers to figure out how much will consumers absorb, and how much do we have to absorb?”

    The governor’s report said key Colorado industries, such as aerospace, agriculture, construction, energy, and goods-focused businesses, are among the most vulnerable to tariffs.

    “Businesses that are hit with tariffs have to drive up costs for consumers, raise prices, might lay people off,” Polis said, adding that the analysis showed tariff escalation could push the state into a recession and cost the state budget as much as $800 million in lost revenue within two years.

    The governor said he believes Trump has exceeded his authority on tariffs and wants Congress to “show a spine.”

    “Congress absolutely can more limit the authority of the president,” Polis said. “They can do that in the spending bills that they’re considering going through right now. They can restrict the ability of any president to unilaterally impose tariffs, particularly under the circumstances that President Trump cited emergency authority. Congress can do that as part of the appropriations bills that are going through Congress now, and I would encourage Congress to include that language that prevents a president unilaterally from starting and escalating these kinds of trade wars that damage our economy.”

    Polis said the U.S. Supreme Court could ultimately decide whether the president overstepped his authority. On Wednesday, Trump urged the SCOTUS justices to overturn a lower court’s decision, which found his administration acted unlawfully by relying on emergency powers to impose many of the tariffs.

    “I’m very hopeful that that case will limit the president’s power in that area, but it doesn’t end the trade war, it doesn’t end the president’s apparent affinity for these huge tax increases,” Polis said. “Although it would be a major step forward for our economy and for Colorado.”

    Polis said his team would also provide additional analysis if there are significant updates to the tariffs.

    brandon image bar.jpg

    Denver7

    Denver7 | Your Voice: Get in touch with Brandon Richard

    Denver7 politics reporter Brandon Richard closely follows developments at the State Capitol and in Washington, and digs deeper to find how legislation affects Coloradans in every community. If you’d like to get in touch with Brandon, fill out the form below to send him an email.

    Brandon Richard

    Source link