Connect with us

Business

Trump's proposed tariffs could bring higher prices for groceries, cars and clothing

Published

on

Trump's proposed tariffs could bring higher prices for groceries, cars and clothing

Steep price hikes could be on the way if President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his pledge to impose sweeping new tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada and China.

Trump threatened to implement the tariffs on the country’s top three trading partners on his first day back in office, including a 10% tariff on products coming from China. In a pair of posts on Truth Social on Monday, he explained the decision as a way to crack down on illegal immigration and drugs.

“On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States,” he said. “It is time for them to pay a very big price!”

But it’s ultimately consumers who could end up absorbing the brunt of those costs. When tariffs are levied against foreign imports, American companies have to pay taxes to the U.S. government on their purchases from other countries; the companies often pass on those extra costs to their customers.

California’s economy could be especially hard hit because of its heavy reliance on trade with China and Mexico.

Advertisement

“This is a bully effort to put everybody on notice,” said economist Chris Thornberg, founding partner of Beacon Economics in Los Angeles. “One of the reasons he uses tariffs is because it’s one of the few places that he actually has some leverage.”

Although Thornberg noted that it’s still a “giant remains-to-be seen” whether and how Trump’s proposed tariffs are implemented, consumer goods across the board could be dramatically affected by the changes.

Here are a few top categories:

Cars and car parts

Mexico was the United States’ top goods trading partner last year, surpassing China.

Advertisement

The country is a major manufacturer of passenger vehicles, light vehicles, trucks, auto parts, supplies and electric-vehicle technologies. Eighty-eight percent of vehicles produced in Mexico are exported, with 76% headed for the U.S., according to the International Trade Administration.

Automakers with manufacturing operations in Mexico include General Motors, Ford, Tesla, Audi, BMW, Honda, Kia, Mercedes Benz, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen. GM shares fell 9% and shares of Ford declined 2.6% on Tuesday.

Even before Trump’s latest round of tariff threats, auto-related companies shared how they planned to respond if new duties were levied.

“If we get tariffs, we will pass those tariff costs back to the consumer,” Phil Daniele, chief executive of AutoZone, said in the company’s most recent earnings call. “We’ll generally raise prices ahead of … what the tariffs will be.”

Toys

Advertisement

Last year, China accounted for 77% of toy imports, about 25 times greater than the total value of toy imports from Mexico, the next largest foreign source of supply, according to the National Retail Federation. U.S. producers, meanwhile, account for less than 1% of the toy market.

Earlier this month, the federation released a study that looked at how the tariffs that Trump proposed during his campaign for a second term could play out for consumers.

It found that the proposed tariffs — a universal 10% to 20% tariff on imports from all foreign countries and an additional 60% to 100% tariff on imports specifically from China — would apply to a wide range of toys imported into the U.S., including dolls, games and tricycles.

“Our analysis found that toy prices would face one of the highest increases,” the study concluded. “Prices of toys would increase by 36% to 56%.”

Apparel

Advertisement

The National Retail Federation study also analyzed more than 500 items of clothing including tops, bottoms, underwear, swimwear and socks, and found that prices “would rise significantly” — as much as 20.6%.

That would force consumers to pare spending on apparel. The higher prices and loss of spending power would hit low-income families especially hard, the group said, because low-income households spend three times as much of their after-tax income on apparel compared with high-income households.

“U.S. apparel manufacturers would benefit from the tariffs, but at a high cost to families,” the study said. “Even after accounting for domestic manufacturing gains and new tariff revenue, the result is a net $16 billion to $18 billion loss for the U.S. economy, with the burden carried by U.S. consumers.”

Produce

With Americans already wary of high grocery prices, Trump’s proposed tariffs would increase the costs of several imported fruits and vegetables, said Jerry Nickelsburg, faculty director of UCLA Anderson Forecast, an economic forecasting organization.

Advertisement

The vast majority of U.S. produce imports come from Mexico and Canada, including avocados, cucumbers, potatoes and mushrooms. The U.S. spent $88 billion on agricultural imports from the two countries in fiscal year 2024, which ended Sept. 30.

“Grocery prices will go up because at least some of that tariff will be passed on to consumers,” Nickelsburg said. “If there are no good substitutes, then producers are going to try and pass the whole thing on.”

Household appliances and other electronics

Big-ticket electronic products such as televisions, laptops, smartphones, dishwashers and washing machines — many of which are manufactured in Mexico and China, or made with parts imported from those countries — would probably become more expensive.

The U.S. imported $76 billion worth of computers and other electronics from Mexico in 2023, and more than a quarter of U.S. imports from China consist of electronic equipment.

Advertisement

Shoes

Imported footwear products already face high U.S. duties, particularly those made in China.

On Tuesday, the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America expressed concern at the threat of new tariffs, saying such policies would make it more difficult for consumers to afford shoes and other everyday essentials.

“We hope President-elect Trump rethinks these tariffs as they relate to footwear, as such measures would place an unnecessary burden on American families when budgets are already stretched thin,” Matt Priest, the president of the trade association, said in a statement. “We urge the President to consider the profound impact these tariffs will have on working families and the broader economy.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Published

on

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.

In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”

“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.

In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.

Advertisement

The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.

“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.

Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.

The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.

Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.

Advertisement

Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.

Continue Reading

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending