Business
Inside the Party Switch that Blew Up North Carolina Politics

When Tricia Cotham, a former Democratic lawmaker, was considering another run for the North Carolina House of Representatives, she turned to a powerful party leader for advice. Then, when she jumped into the Democratic primary, she was encouraged by still other formidable allies.
She won the primary in a redrawn district near Charlotte, and then triumphed in the November general election by 18 percentage points, a victory that helped Democrats lock in enough seats to prevent, by a single vote, a Republican supermajority in the state House.
Except what was unusual — and not publicly known at the time — was that the influential people who had privately encouraged Ms. Cotham to run were Republicans, not Democrats. One was Tim Moore, the redoubtable Republican speaker of the state House. Another was John Bell, the Republican majority leader.
“I encouraged her to run because she was a really good member when she served before,” Mr. Bell recalled in an interview.
Three months after Ms. Cotham took office in January, she delivered a mortal shock to Democrats and to abortion rights supporters: She switched parties, and then cast a decisive vote on May 3 to override a veto by the state’s Democratic governor and enact a 12-week limit on most abortions — North Carolina’s most restrictive abortion policy in 50 years.
Overnight, Ms. Cotham became a heroine to Republicans and anti-abortion advocates across the country, even as Democrats vilified her as a traitor whose unexpected party flip had changed health care policy in a politically purple state of more than 10 million people.
More perplexing to many Democrats was why she did it. Ms. Cotham came from a family with strong ties to the Democratic Party, campaigned as a progressive on social issues and had even co-sponsored a bill to codify a version of Roe v. Wade into North Carolina law.
Interviews with former and current political allies depict her as someone who had grown alienated from Democratic Party officials and ideals. Republican leaders cultivated her before she ran and, seeing her growing estrangement, seized a chance to coax her across party lines.
Before the switch, Ms. Cotham chafed at what she perceived as a lack of support from other Democrats. Once she was elected, Mr. Moore said, he made it clear that she would be welcomed by Republicans.
“Never in my life did I think that one person could have that kind of impact, that will affect the lives of thousands of people for years to come,” said Ann Newman, a Democratic activist in Ms. Cotham’s district. Ms. Newman recently asked for — and received — a refund of the $250 she had donated to Ms. Cotham’s 2022 campaign.
Her change of parties has left many of Ms. Cotham’s constituents feeling angry and betrayed, and has allowed Republicans to flex the power of their new supermajority well beyond the abortion issue, overturning a string of vetoes by the state’s Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, including six on June 27 alone.
Ms. Cotham, 44, has defended her switch and said she had delivered on many promises she made to voters.
“I campaigned on Medicaid expansion,” she said in a statement to The New York Times. “I campaigned on supporting children, housing, safer communities, a strong economy and increasing health care options. I’ve done all of this and more.”
Yet there is no question that Ms. Cotham has dealt a grievous blow to Democratic policy goals in North Carolina.
Late in March, just a few days before switching parties, she skipped a pivotal gun-control vote, helping Republicans loosen gun restrictions in the state. After she became a Republican, she sponsored a bill to expand student eligibility for private-school vouchers, voted to ban gender-affirming care for minors and voted to outlaw discussions of race or gender in state job interviews.
“This switch has been absolutely devastating,” said state Representative Pricey Harrison, a Democrat from Greensboro.
Ms. Cotham received a standing ovation at North Carolina’s state Republican convention in June. She was invited to meet privately there with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and former Vice President Mike Pence.
“She’s a rock star among the Republican Party activists and voter base,” said U.S. Representative Dan Bishop, a Republican who said he encouraged Ms. Cotham to join his party and who stood behind her when she announced the decision.
A Democratic upbringing
Ms. Cotham had deep Democratic roots when she first entered the state House in 2007, replacing a lawmaker who resigned amid corruption charges. At 28, she became the state’s youngest legislator.
Her mother was active in party politics, and later ran successfully for the Mecklenburg County Commission. A first cousin became a Democratic Party leader in Maine, and ran a political action committee supporting abortion rights.
As a student, Ms. Cotham volunteered for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign and interned for John Edwards, then a United States Senator.
A lot of people in the Democratic Party “have known her since she was a child,” said Ms. Cotham’s mother, Pat Cotham.
In the North Carolina House, Tricia Cotham was re-elected to four full terms and became a progressive force, calling for higher taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents to help close budget gaps. She criticized charter schools. She fought against the so-called bathroom bill that required people to use restrooms in accordance with their birth gender.
She repeatedly railed against waiting periods for abortions, and speaking on the House floor in 2015, invoked her personal experience.
“Legislators, you do not hold shares in my body,” she said in a speech that has now become famous, “so stop trying to manipulate my mind.”
In 2016, Ms. Cotham chose to run for Congress, rather than for another term in the legislature, and was defeated.
Lacey Williams, a former advocacy director at the Charlotte-based Latin American Coalition who considered Ms. Cotham a friend for years, said Ms. Cotham “felt she did not get the gratitude or spotlight that she felt she deserved,” and added, “she was jealous that other Democrats were getting the adulation from the party.”
In response, Ms. Cotham said Ms. Williams “has a right to her feelings,” but “I do not perceive it that way — I’m a very confident and accomplished woman.”
The Lobbyist
For a time, Ms. Cotham left elective politics and went into lobbying, with a focus on education. In 2019, she and three partners founded a firm called BCHL. One of the partners was C. Philip Byers, a major donor to state Republicans who was also president of a company that built charter schools.
In office, Ms. Cotham had criticized charter schools, but now her firm supported private investments in the public school system and charter schools. (Ms. Cotham said she had been supportive of public school alternatives “for years.”)
In 2019, she also became president of an education organization called Achievement for All Children, which was chosen by state officials to turn around a foundering public school in Robeson County. For the next year and a half, Ms. Cotham commuted to the school, Southside-Ashpole Elementary, which is about 100 miles from her home outside Charlotte.
Ms. Cotham fought policy battles energetically, recalled Brenda McCallum, an office manager at the school. She also appealed to her younger constituents, once dressing as the Cat in the Hat for a reading event.
“She was an excellent advocate for our school,” said Ms. McCallum. “The kids loved her.”
In early 2020, Ms. Cotham fell sick with Covid-19, a diagnosis that hobbled her for the next two years. In a local television interview in 2022, she said she was still struggling with the virus’s lingering effects.
It was around that time that state Democratic Party officials were homing in on a redrawn state House district in Mecklenburg County, where Ms. Cotham lived, and where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans. Partly because of her public Covid battle, party leaders didn’t seriously consider nominating her, but she surprised them by filing at the deadline in March to run for the seat.
Some Democrats welcomed her return, seeing her as a reliable ally on social issues like abortion, but activist Democrats in the Charlotte area said she never responded to their offers of help. Text messages from political allies and friends, wishing her well, were met with silence.
She fumed that Lillian’s List, an abortion rights organization, had “really screwed” her by endorsing another Democrat in the primary, according to a message she sent to a campaign worker, Autumn Alston, that was reviewed by The New York Times.
Ms. Cotham seemed to have embraced a me-versus-them mentality, said Jonathan Coby, her former campaign consultant. “She would say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to talk to that group, they’re out to get me; they don’t like me,’” Mr. Coby recalled.
Ms. Cotham said that Mr. Coby, who worked with her for nearly a decade, including on her most recent campaign, was not a reliable source of information.
Meanwhile, as Ms. Cotham grew leery of activists and groups on the left, she was receiving counsel from prominent Republicans. “I reached out to her and told her good luck, I hope she wins,” said Mr. Moore, the House speaker. “She was somebody I realized we could work with.”
Ms. Cotham said that Mr. Moore and “others” were pleased that she was running. She called their well wishes “pretty common.”
Both Mr. Moore and John Bell, the Republican majority leader, said they didn’t know at that time that Ms. Cotham would change parties.
Ms. Cotham’s top campaign donors included the North Carolina Dental Society PAC — which gave almost exclusively to Republican candidates — and the North Carolina Health Care Facilities PAC, which gave mainly to Republicans.
“Those groups have honored me with their support for years,” Ms. Cotham said. “I’ve earned it.”
A rocky return
In January, Ms. Cotham was part of a small group of lawmakers who escorted Mr. Moore to the dais to be sworn in as speaker. Some Democrats said they were surprised to see Ms. Cotham play such a role.
In a recent interview, Mr. Moore praised Ms. Cotham’s ability to “work with Republicans at all times.”
Democrats, including Ms. Cotham, sponsored a House bill that month to write Roe v. Wade’s protection of abortion rights into state law. Yet she refused to meet or take phone calls from Planned Parenthood, according to Jillian Reilly, a lobbyist for the group.
Ms. Cotham told Mr. Coby and her mother that she was put off that Democrats treated her as a newcomer when she returned to the House, inviting her to freshman orientation and offering her a mentor. She declined both.
Ms. Cotham would later say she was offended by what she regarded as bullying and groupthink inside the Democratic caucus, which was no longer the “big tent” she had once known. She said the caucus focused too much on process over the hard work of governance.
Democrats said they were baffled by the accusations she later aired. Text messages between Ms. Cotham and house Democratic Party leader Robert Reives reviewed by The Times show friendly dialogue.
“It never would have crossed my mind that she was having issues,” said Mr. Reives.
Mr. Bell, the Republican majority leader, said he was aware of Ms. Cotham’s unease. He and Mr. Moore tried to engage her about joining the G.O.P., telling her “you have a home over here.”
After Ms. Cotham was criticized for missing the vote on gun regulations, Mr. Bishop, the Republican congressman, called her and said he had heard she was thinking of joining his party.
“I got the sense when we talked that she was much farther along in that decision than I had understood before calling her,” he recalled.
After the gun vote, Mr. Coby said he found Ms. Cotham to be angry. “She said, ‘I’m either going to switch parties or resign,’” he remembered. “The things she was telling me then were like, ‘The Democrats don’t like me, the Republicans have helped me out a lot and been nice to me’.”
Four days later Ms. Cotham announced her decision to defect. “The party wants to villainize anyone who has free thought,” she said of the Democrats during a news conference.
She accused Democrats of spreading “vicious rumors” about her — perhaps alluding to chatter that she and Mr. Moore were romantically linked. Mr. Moore has denied the assertion; Ms. Cotham called it “insulting.”
Ms. Cotham was soon fielding thousands of texts, emails and phone messages calling her a traitor and liar, delivering vulgarities her mother described “as a new low in society” and demanding that she resign.
Four months after Ms. Cotham’s party switch, the bitterness still runs deep.
Linda Meigs, a political activist from Charlotte, drove to Ms. Cotham’s district this month for a meeting with local lawmakers hosted by Common Cause North Carolina and other liberal advocacy groups.
Ms. Meigs said she had come prepared to confront Ms. Cotham over how she could have campaigned on “Democratic Party values such as women’s rights to reproductive freedom and L.G.B.T.Q. rights,” only to reverse her support. Ms. Cotham was invited to speak, but didn’t attend.
“When I’m talking to somebody and asking them a question, I usually like to look them in the face,” Ms. Meigs told a crowded room at a Mint Hill church. “I can’t do that tonight.”
Instead, she pointed to a front-row chair. “So,” she said to cheers, “I’m going to talk to this empty chair.”
Bryan Anderson contributed reporting from Raleigh, N.C. Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Business
Video: Fed Chair Says Trump Tariffs Could Worsen Inflation

new video loaded: Fed Chair Says Trump Tariffs Could Worsen Inflation
transcript
transcript
Fed Chair Says Trump Tariffs Could Worsen Inflation
Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, stressed that the tariffs announced so far go well beyond what the Fed had expected even in its worst-case scenario.
-
The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated, and the same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth. We may find ourselves in the challenging scenario in which our dual mandate goals are in tension. If that were to occur, we would consider how far the economy is from each goal and the potentially different time horizons over which those respective gaps would be anticipated to close. These are very fundamental changes in — long-held in some cases — policies in the United States, and there’s not any real experience. I mean, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were actually not this large and they were 95 years ago. So there isn’t a modern experience of how to think about this. And businesses and households are saying in surveys that they are experiencing incredibly high uncertainty. I mean, your question really is what if the uncertainty remains high? I think that’s a difficult environment. If the United States were to become a jurisdiction where risks are just structurally higher going forward, that would make us less attractive as a jurisdiction. We don’t know that at this point. But I think that would be the effect.
Recent episodes in Business
Business
Commentary: Trump's Kafkaesque attack on Social Security–Declaring living people as dead
In so many ways the Trump administration has given us a window into a dystopian world — flouting a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, elevating scientific myth into healthcare policy and so on. But its latest attack on the Social Security system is arguably the most frightening of all.
Reportedly pressured by Elon Musk’s DOGE team and by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the current stewards of Social Security have allowed the government to declare 6,300 people “dead” in a crucial Social Security database, even though they’re very much alive.
The initial reports of this action were reported by the New York Times and Washington Post, but it was confirmed for me, if somewhat obliquely, by a White House spokeswoman.
You’d have a hard time explaining this to someone in a way that doesn’t seem dystopian.
— Devin O’Connor, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
“President Trump promised mass deportations and by removing the monetary incentive for illegal aliens to come and stay, we will encourage them to self-deport,” the spokeswoman, Elizabeth Huston, told me by email.
The White House claims that “DHS identified over 6,300 temporarily paroled aliens on the terrorist watch list or with FBI criminal records,” and as of April 8 “terminated” their right to hold Social Security numbers or receive benefits.
“To prevent them from receiving any payments,” the White House told me, the Social Security Administration moved their numbers into what the White House calls the “Ineligible Master File.”
What’s that? It’s what is officially known as Social Security’s “Death Master File,” the database of deceased number holders.
Make no mistake: In effect, these 6,300 living, breathing individuals have been declared “dead” by Trump administration fiat.
“You’d have a hard time explaining this to someone in a way that doesn’t seem dystopian,” says Devin O’Connor, an expert on Social Security at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Social Security advocates are aghast. “As with most of the actions of the Social Security Administration since Trump came into office, we cannot make rational sense of the policy to place immigrants on the SSA’s list of deceased persons,” says Max Richtman, chief executive of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
“These are people who are in the United States legally and need active Social Security numbers in order to work and transact personal business,” Richtman says. “By placing them on the list of dead persons, the Trump administration is needlessly preventing them from utilizing their Social Security numbers for legitimate reasons.”
Before we delve further into the consequences of this action — for the newly “dead,” for all Social Security beneficiaries and indeed American citizens, and for the Social Security system itself — a few words on how this came about.
It started on inauguration day, when Trump abruptly terminated four Biden administration humanitarian programs granting legal U.S. residence to applicants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela seeking asylum. By the end of Biden’s term, more than 500,000 applicants had been granted so-called parole via the programs known collectively as CHNV. Typically, they feared political violence or death in their home countries.
After passing national security and public safety scrutiny and showing that they had a U.S. sponsor to provide housing and other support, they were granted a “parole” of up to two years permitting them to work legally, which required them to obtain Social Security numbers and to contribute payroll tax to the program. During that period, they could seek more permanent permission to stay in the country. As of April 8, they lost those rights and obligations.
The White House hasn’t specified what evidence it has that the 6,300 immigrants declared “dead” were members of terrorist groups or FBI-designated criminals.
As it happens, the termination order was blocked Monday by federal Judge Indira Talwani of Boston. In a 41-page order, Talwani raised the question of whether Congress had given Trump the authority, “after parole has been granted and individuals have entered the country on a lawful basis,” to revoke the grants of parole “en masse.” She wrote: “The answer is no.” The revocation, she ruled, would have to be on a case-by-case basis, just as their paroles had been granted.
Meanwhile, Tuesday in Baltimore, federal Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander convened a hearing over whether the Social Security Administration has complied with her earlier order to keep DOGE employees’ hands off the agency’s records — an issue on which the unilateral “death” designations may well be relevant. Hollander had ordered acting Commissioner Leland Dudek to appear for testimony, but the government has refused to allow him to appear.
That brings us back to the Death Master File. (The administration has said it should be referred to now as the “Ineligible Master File,” but its authority to change its official designation isn’t clear, and in any case this looks merely like an attempt to obscure the nature of the file itself.)
The DMF is one of the most important and closely supervised databases in the Social Security Administration’s possession. Currently it contains more than 141 million names of deceased workers, along with their Social Security numbers and their dates of birth and death. The program uses the information, according to former Social Security official Tiffany Flick, for the purpose of “discontinuing benefits payments to deceased individuals, confirming an individual’s right to survivor benefits, and identifying fraud” carried out by users of dead persons’ Social Security numbers.
The information is carefully vetted unless it comes from family members, a state agency or a funeral home, Flick said in a court declaration. The agency takes pains to verify reports from anyone else. Of the 2.9 million death reports received each year, Flick said, fewer than one-third of 1% typically have to be corrected.
Federal law requires the agency to keep the full database confidential. A redacted version, however, is marketed via the Department of Commerce to banks, credit agencies and other financial institutions — but only if they can pass an annual certification in which they have to show they can protect the data from illicit use. The limited version contains only information that is more than three years old.
There can be no question that “intentionally marking people who are still living as dead” in the master file “is unheard of and improper,” Flick stated.
Beyond that, “when Social Security incorrectly declares someone dead, it ruins their lives,” observes Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy organization Social Security Works.
In 2023, Altman notes, “a Maryland woman was wrongly declared dead and found her health insurance and Social Security benefits terminated, her home listed for sale, her credit cards canceled, and her water shut off. Her health deteriorated as she spent endless hours trying to undo the mistake. Indeed, she did actually die seven months later.”
Because the DMF is viewed as authoritative by financial services companies, adds O’Connor, its misuse can cause “disruption in your bank account access, your credit cards canceled, your pension benefits being cut off, your insurance coverage canceled or an insurance claim denied. If you apply for a job your application could be rejected, or have a denial of credit.”
The very idea that government bureaucrats can designate living persons as dead for reasons other than their actual death should send shudders through all Social Security participants, citizens and otherwise — especially given the manipulation of the program from Trump acolytes already and the absence of official oversight over DOGE’s rampaging minions.
“Now, if you’re included in the Death Master File even by accident, how do you show not only that you’re not dead, but that you don’t belong on the file for some other unknown, mysterious reason?” O’Connor asks. “It’s creating the potential for some Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmares every time they make a mistake — and there will be mistakes.”
As for the administration’s contention that the 6,300 “dead” people are on a terrorism watch list or FBI list, the administration’s treatment of facts and statistics when it comes to immigrants or Social Security does not inspire confidence.
The administration, for instance, has consistently described Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom it admits to having transported to El Salvador illegally, as an “illegal alien” and a member of the criminal gang MS-13. But he was in the U.S. legally, and no valid evidence has been produced to show he’s a member of MS-13 — quite the contrary, he may be a victim of MS-13.
DOGE’s claims about Social Security data are almost risibly ignorant. Musk asserted that DOGE found millions of dead people as old as 150 receiving benefits, but he was misinterpreting a software artifact.
The manipulation of the Death Master File itself has obliterated its validity as a data source for financial and commercial institutions. If those institutions can no longer trust what was once the gold standard for information about their present or future customers, how can it be used at all?
What’s scariest about the cavalier manipulation of the Death Master File is that Trump’s refusal to observe bureaucratic norms, statutory limitations, and even to respond to court orders, points to the question of how far he’s willing to go. Designating living persons as dead could be only the beginning.
“If they can do this to somebody,” O’Connor says, “they can do it to anybody.”
Business
How Much Are Tariffs on Chinese Goods? It’s Trickier Than You Think.

The escalating trade war between the United States and China has created deep uncertainty for U.S. companies that rely on Chinese suppliers. Retaliations in recent days by the two countries have resulted in huge average tax rates on each other’s imports, with tariffs often costing more than the price of the goods themselves.
But because of an ever-changing patchwork of trade rules, not every product will be charged an astronomical tariff, trade lawyers, customs brokers and importers say. In some cases, tariffs will pile on other tariffs. In other instances, they can reduce costs, while other times they can cancel out new ones.
The new 125 percent rate that President Trump imposed will in many cases be added on top of long-existing duties. There are four main categories of tariffs that are imposed on goods from China.
A standard tax applied to imports from the world. The rate depends on the goods. Most rates are very low.
Taxes introduced during the first Trump administration and expanded by former President Joseph R. Biden as a way to protect U.S. industries.
Trump imposed a 25% tariff on these imports worldwide.
-
+25%
On steel and some products that contain steel.
-
+25%
On aluminum and some products that contain aluminum.
-
+25%
On cars and car parts.
Trump imposed and raised tariffs on Chinese goods multiple times this year.
-
+20%
On most goods as a punishment for the flow of fentanyl into the United States.
-
+125%
On most goods in an effort to reset the trade balance between the two countries.
Rates ultimately depend on what is imported, what materials are used (from where), which special rates are applied and what sorts of products are exempt.
New tariff rates on select goods from China
Understanding which tariffs will apply and which ones won’t will ultimately determine what businesses choose to buy, how they’ll factor in the new costs — if they can even afford them — and what they may ultimately pass on to their customers.
“Companies are scrambling to mitigate their tariff exposure, particularly those with supply chains involving China,” said Richard A. Mojica, a customs lawyer at Miller & Chevalier. “But there are only a few levers they can pull.”
Here is how the import duties on certain goods from China add up:
-
0%
Base tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
The United States imported nearly $52 billion worth of smartphones in 2024 — more than 80 percent of it from China. Smartphones from the country were originally subject to a duty of up to 145 percent, but customs guidance issued late Friday exempted laptops and smartphones from the 125 percent reciprocal tariff on most Chinese goods. The devices are still subject to new import taxes introduced earlier this year.
-
0%
Base tariff
-
100%
Pre-2025 extra tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
-
125%
Reciprocal” tariff
Syringes and needles are charged some of the highest tariff rates. These items are among the Chinese goods targeted initially by the first Trump administration and then subject to increases under Mr. Biden. His administration levied a 100 percent tariff on syringes and needles last September as a part of an effort to protect American factories and show a tough-on-China stance.
These types of tariffs on Chinese goods can range from 7.5 percent up to 100 percent and apply to clothing, solar panels, electric vehicles and other goods that China has been accused of selling at far lower prices than many American businesses do.
With this week’s tariffs included, American importers will now have to pay a 245 percent tariff — or roughly 2½ times the cost of the product itself.
-
0%
Base tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
-
125%
Reciprocal” tariff
Over three-quarters of toys imported into the United States come from China, making it America’s biggest supplier. Previously, things like tricycles, stuffed animals, dolls and puzzles could enter the country duty free. Now, all these items are charged a 145 percent import tax. Retail prices for these items are expected to rise significantly.
-
16%
Base tariff
-
7.5%
Pre-2025 extra tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
-
125%
Reciprocal” tariff
Many goods have a category-specific tariff that applies regardless of the country of origin. For wool sweaters, that is 16 percent. They are also on the list of goods subject to an additional tariff introduced during Mr. Trump’s first term. For the $170 million worth of wool sweaters that came into the United States from China last year, the tariff rate was roughly 24 percent — which at the time was considered relatively high.
Now, with tariffs from February intended to punish China over the flow of fentanyl into the United States and with this week’s “reciprocal” round, the import tax for sweaters has significantly jumped.
-
0%
Base tariff
-
25%
Pre-2025 extra tariff
-
25%
Aluminium, steel tariff
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
Before Mr. Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on all foreign steel and aluminum parts in March, there was already a levy on some Chinese metal imports — all part of a protectionist effort to bolster domestic manufacturing. But Mr. Trump’s new tariffs significantly expanded what will be taxed: Not just steel beams or aluminum rods, but a wide range of products that contain aluminum and steel components.
While most U.S. imports of these metals are from other countries, including Canada, China supplies many products that have metal components.
Aluminum and steel products are exempted from this week’s “reciprocal” tariffs, which reduces the effective tax rate of Chinese steel and aluminum products to lower than that of many other goods.
-
2%
Base tariff
-
7.5%
Pre-2025 extra tariff
-
12.5%
Aluminium, steel tariff
-
25%
Cars, car parts
-
20%
Fentanyl” tariff
New tariffs of 25 percent also apply to all imported cars, and starting in May, car parts. Some car parts, like door hinges, fall under both the car parts tariff and the aluminum tariff. In this case, an importer would not only have to pay a duty on the value of the aluminum in the part, but also an additional tariff on the value of the entire product.
Because this item is subject to the aluminum and car parts tariffs, it is exempted from the China-specific reciprocal tariff.
On the other end of the cost spectrum are books. Ninety-three percent of the nearly $600 million in children’s books that the United States imports each year comes from China. Children’s books typically enter the United States duty free.
“Informational materials” are one of the very few classes of goods that are exempt from new tariffs on China this year.
Do you have a business that relies on Chinese suppliers? Tell us how the tariffs are affecting you.
The New York Times wants to talk to business owners about President Trump’s imposition of additional tariffs on imports from China. We’ll read each questionnaire response. We will not publish any part of your response without talking with you further. We will not share your contact information outside The Times newsroom, and we will use it only to contact you.
-
News1 week ago
3 Are Killed in Shooting Near Fredericksburg, Va., Authorities Say
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Film Review: 'Warfare' is an Immersive and Intense Combat Experience – Awards Radar
-
Culture1 week ago
Men’s NCAA Championship 2025: What to know about Florida, Houston
-
Health1 week ago
As RFK Jr. Champions Chronic Disease Prevention, Key Research Is Cut
-
Politics1 week ago
H2Go: How experts, industry leaders say US hydrogen is fuel for the future of agriculture, energy, security
-
News1 week ago
Boris Johnson Has Run-In With Feisty Ostrich During Texas Trip
-
World1 week ago
EPP boss Weber fells 'privileged' to be targeted by billboard campaign
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta got caught gaming AI benchmarks