2025 tariffs lifted U.S. import taxes to nearly 17%, generating $30B/month.
Framework deals struck with EU, UK, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam; China deal remains unresolved.
U.S. economy rebounded despite early contraction; AI investments and consumer spending helped growth.
Key 2026 developments include Supreme Court rulings, U.S.-China talks, and NAFTA review.
President Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 kicked off a frenetic year for global trade, with waves of tariffs on U.S. trading partners that lifted import taxes to their highest since the Great Depression, roiled financial markets and sparked rounds of negotiations over trade and investment deals.
His trade policies — and the global reaction to them — will remain front and center in 2026, but face some hefty challenges.
What happened in 2025
Trump’s moves, aimed broadly at reviving a declining manufacturing base, lifted the average tariff rate to nearly 17% from less than 3% at the end of 2024, according to Yale Budget Lab, and the levies are now generating roughly $30 billion a month of revenue for the U.S. Treasury.
Advertisement
They brought world leaders scrambling to Washington seeking deals for lower rates, often in return for pledges of billions of dollars in U.S. investments. Framework deals were struck with a host of major trading partners, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and others, but notably a final agreement with China remains on the undone list despite multiple rounds of talks and a face-to-face meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
The EU was criticized by many for its deal for a 15% tariff on its exports and a vague commitment to big U.S. investments. France’s prime minister at the time, Francois Bayrou, called it an act of submission and a “sombre day” for the bloc. Others shrugged that it was the “least bad” deal on offer.
Since then, European exporters and economies have broadly coped with the new tariff rate, thanks to various exemptions and their ability to find markets elsewhere. French bank Societe Generale estimated the total direct impact of the tariffs was equivalent to just 0.37% of the region’s GDP.
Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus defied Trump’s tariffs to surpass $1 trillion as it succeeded in diversifying away from the U.S., moved its manufacturing sector up the value chain, and used the leverage it has gained in rare earth minerals — crucial inputs into the West’s security scaffolding — to push back against pressure from the U.S. or Europe to curb its surplus.
What notably did not happen was the economic calamity and high inflation that legions of economists predicted would unfold from Trump’s tariffs.
Advertisement
The U.S. economy suffered a modest contraction in the first quarter amid a scramble to import goods before tariffs took effect, but quickly rebounded and continues to grow at an above-trend pace thanks to a massive artificial intelligence investment boom and resilient consumer spending. The International Monetary Fund, in fact, twice lifted its global growth outlook in the months following Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement in April as uncertainty ebbed and deals were struck to reduce the originally announced rates.
And while U.S. inflation remains somewhat elevated in part because of tariffs, economists and policymakers now expect the effects to be more mild and short-lived than feared, with cost sharing of the import taxes occurring across the supply chain among producers, importers, retailers and consumers.
What to look for in 2026 and why it matters
A big unknown for 2026 is whether many of Trump’s tariffs are allowed to stand. A challenge to the novel legal premise for what he branded as “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from individual countries and for levies imposed on China, Canada and Mexico tied to the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late 2025, and a decision is expected in early 2026.
The Trump administration insists it can shift to other, more-established legal authorities to keep tariffs in place should it lose. But those are more cumbersome and often limited in scope, so a loss at the high court for the administration might prompt renegotiations of the deals struck so far or usher in a new era of uncertainty about where the tariffs will end up.
Arguably just as important for Europe is what is happening with its trading relationship with China, for years a reliable destination for its exporters. The depreciation of the yuan and the gradual move up the value chain for Chinese companies have helped China’s exporters. Europe’s companies meanwhile have struggled to make further inroads into the slowing domestic Chinese market. One of the key questions for 2026 is whether Europe finally uses tariffs or other measures to address what some of its officials are starting to call the “imbalances” in the China-EU trading ties.
Advertisement
Efforts to finally cement a U.S.-China deal loom large as well. A shaky detente reached in this year’s talks will expire in the second half of 2026, and Trump and Xi are tentatively set to meet twice over the course of the year.
And lastly, the free trade deal with the two largest U.S. trading partners — Canada and Mexico — is up for review in 2026 amid uncertainty over whether Trump will let the pact expire or try to retool it more to his liking.
What analysts are saying:
“It seems like the administration is rowing back on its harshest stance on tariffs in order to mitigate some of the inflation/pricing issues,” Chris Iggo, chief investment officer for Core Investments and chair of the Investment Institute at AXA Investment Managers, said on a 2026 outlook call. “So less of a concern to markets. Could be marginally helpful to the inflation outlook if tariffs are reduced or at least not further increased.”
Ahead of midterm elections later in the year, “a confrontational trade war with China would not be great — a deal would be politically and economically better for the U.S. outlook,” he said.
Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.
Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.
Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.
As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.
He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.
Advertisement
Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.
Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.
As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.
Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.
In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.
Advertisement
“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”
—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.
My spreadsheet reviewed a WalletHub ranking of financial distress for the residents of 100 U.S. cities, including 17 in California. The analysis compared local credit scores, late bill payments, bankruptcy filings and online searches for debt or loans to quantify where individuals had the largest money challenges.
When California cities were divided into three geographic regions – Southern California, the Bay Area, and anything inland – the most challenges were often found far from the coast.
The average national ranking of the six inland cities was 39th worst for distress, the most troubled grade among the state’s slices.
Bakersfield received the inland region’s worst score, ranking No. 24 highest nationally for financial distress. That was followed by Sacramento (30th), San Bernardino (39th), Stockton (43rd), Fresno (45th), and Riverside (52nd).
Advertisement
Southern California’s seven cities overall fared better, with an average national ranking of 56th largest financial problems.
However, Los Angeles had the state’s ugliest grade, ranking fifth-worst nationally for monetary distress. Then came San Diego at 22nd-worst, then Long Beach (48th), Irvine (70th), Anaheim (71st), Santa Ana (85th), and Chula Vista (89th).
Monetary challenges were limited in the Bay Area. Its four cities average rank was 69th worst nationally.
San Jose had the region’s most distressed finances, with a No. 50 worst ranking. That was followed by Oakland (69th), San Francisco (72nd), and Fremont (83rd).
The results remind us that inland California’s affordability – it’s home to the state’s cheapest housing, for example – doesn’t fully compensate for wages that typically decline the farther one works from the Pacific Ocean.
Advertisement
A peek inside the scorecard’s grades shows where trouble exists within California.
Credit scores were the lowest inland, with little difference elsewhere. Late payments were also more common inland. Tardy bills were most difficult to find in Northern California.
Bankruptcy problems also were bubbling inland, but grew the slowest in Southern California. And worrisome online searches were more frequent inland, while varying only slightly closer to the Pacific.
Note: Across the state’s 17 cities in the study, the No. 53 average rank is a middle-of-the-pack grade on the 100-city national scale for monetary woes.
Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com
The up-and-coming fintech scored a pair of fourth-quarter beats.
Diversified fintech Chime Financial(CHYM +12.88%) was playing a satisfying tune to investors on Thursday. The company’s stock flew almost 14% higher that trading session, thanks mostly to a fourth quarter that featured notably higher-than-expected revenue guidance.
Sweet music
Chime published its fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results just after market close on Wednesday. For the former period, the company’s revenue was $596 million, bettering the same quarter of 2024 by 25%. The company’s strongest revenue stream, payments, rose 17% to $396 million. Its take from platform-related activity rose more precipitously, advancing 47% to $200 million.
Image source: Getty Images.
Meanwhile, Chime’s net loss under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) more than doubled. It was $45 million, or $0.12 per share, compared with a fourth-quarter 2024 deficit of $19.6 million.
Advertisement
On average, analysts tracking the stock were modeling revenue below $578 million and a deeper bottom-line loss of $0.20 per share.
In its earnings release, Chime pointed to the take-up of its Chime Card as a particular catalyst for growth. Regarding the product, the company said, “Among new member cohorts, over half are adopting Chime Card, and those members are putting over 70% of their Chime spend on the product, which earns materially higher take rates compared to debit.”
Today’s Change
(12.88%) $2.72
Current Price
$23.83
Advertisement
Key Data Points
Market Cap
$7.9B
Day’s Range
$22.30 – $24.63
52wk Range
Advertisement
$16.17 – $44.94
Volume
562K
Avg Vol
3.3M
Advertisement
Gross Margin
86.34%
Double-digit growth expected
Chime management proffered revenue and non-GAAP (adjusted) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) guidance for full-year 2026. The company expects to post a top line of $627 million to $637 million, which would represent at least 21% growth over the 2024 result. Adjusted EBITDA should be $380 million to $400 million. No net income forecasts were provided in the earnings release.
It isn’t easy to find a niche in the financial industry, which is crowded with companies offering every imaginable type of service to clients. Yet Chime seems to be achieving that, as the Chime Card is clearly a hit among the company’s target demographic of clientele underserved by mainstream banks. This growth stock is definitely worth considering as a buy.
