Tag Archives: Tariffs

Canadians are staying north of the border

Posted on by
15

When people are made to feel unwelcome, they tend to vote with their feet and avoid the offender. An article out of Niagara Falls by Kalyeena Makortoff for The Guardian called “‘Canadians don’t want to come here any more’: anger over Trump squeezes US border businesses” provides tangible anecdotes,

The subheading has the punchline: “Shops and restaurants once bustling with tourists now struggle for survival as Canadians think twice about crossing the border.” Here are some sample paragraphs from the piece.

“Local demand for Loughran’s cake and pastries, however, has not made up for a dramatic slump in tourist spending, triggered by a now year-long boycott by Lewiston’s northern neighbours.

Angered by Donald Trump’s hefty tariffs and annexation threats – and compounded by fears of border detentions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) crackdowns – Canadians have stayed away, refusing to spend their hard-earned dollars in local border towns like Lewiston.

‘All of our sales on the strip have gone way down,’ Loughran said. That has personally led to a 30% drop in revenues at her bakery, forcing the 41-year-old to cut spending, both at work and at home. ‘Especially as a single mom, it’s very tough.’

‘I’m angry that the Canadians don’t want to come here any more. And I don’t blame them. I was thinking yesterday, I wish I didn’t live in this country, because I don’t like it anymore. I don’t like the news that I’m hearing. I don’t like the [Iran] war … It’s too much for me to handle.’

The Canadian backlash is a worry for businesses and politicians across the Niagara region, who have historically relied on visitors from provinces including Ontario and Quebec to shop, sightsee, gamble and watch Buffalo Bills football games. And Niagara’s pain is cascading throughout the country, with Canadians thinking twice about crossing the border and planning trips to the rest of the US.

And with no warming of relations between Washington and Ottawa in sight, and with Trump continuing to call the prime minister, Mark Carney, a future ‘governor’ of a future state of Canada, border town locals are trying to adapt.”

It is not a surprise that Canadians are coming less to the US.* Why would they? I read many years ago the best thing a leader of a country, state or city can do is invite businesses, investment, tourists, students, etc. to the area. Trump has done the exact opposite. You would think a business leader would know this. Yet, he apparently does not. Citizens of other countries are getting his unwelcome message as well. Businesses in the travel and hospitality industry will suffer the most.

***********

*Note: Per an AI Search Summary, “Canadian travel to the U.S. has experienced a sustained, sharp decline, with a 22% drop in 2025 and continued double-digit declines into early 2026, marking 13+ consecutive months of reduced, according to 
Forbes reports. Driven by political tensions and economic factors, this downturn resulted in an estimated $4.5 billion loss in visitor spending for the U.S. in 2025, heavily impacting border states.”


Europe signs deal with Brazil and other South American countries

Posted on by
8

Recent posts have highlighted “work arounds” where other countries are making trade deals not including the US. The following appeared comes from an AI search summary.

“In January 2026, the European Union and Mercosur (including Brazil) signed a landmark, long-awaited free trade agreement, creating one of the world’s largest free trade areas for 700 million people. The deal reduces tariffs, increases access to critical raw materials, and strengthens cooperation on climate, technology, and strategic investment, despite opposition from some European agricultural sectors.

Key Aspects of the Europe-Brazil Deal

Trade Agreement Details: After over 25 years of negotiations, the EU-Mercosur deal was signed, aiming to boost economic ties that were valued at over €111 billion in 2024.

Tariff Reductions: The agreement promises to phase out tariffs on over 90% of goods, with major benefits for EU exports (cars, machinery, pharmaceuticals, wine) and Brazilian products (beef, soybeans, cotton).

Strategic Minerals & Green Deal: The partnership is critical for the EU’s green transition, securing access to Brazilian critical raw materials like lithium and rare earths, which are essential for digital and clean energy technologies.

Economic Impact: The deal is expected to save EU firms over €4 billion annually in duties and enhance Brazilian competitiveness by reducing trade barriers.

Sustainability & Infrastructure: Cooperation focuses on environmental standards, with new investments in infrastructure, including port expansions in Brazil, to support increased trade.

Digital Cooperation: A separate, historic data adequacy agreement was finalized in January 2026, enhancing digital trade and data transfer security between the EU and Brazil.

Challenges and Implementation

Opposition: Some EU member states, including France, Austria, and Poland, have expressed concerns regarding agricultural competition and environmental protections.

Ratification: The agreement requires ratification by the European Parliament and the legislatures of all Mercosur nations.

Brazil’s Focus: Brazil seeks to lower its ‘internal costs’ and improve infrastructure to maximize the benefits of increased access to European markets.”

These trade deals have been occurring for some time now. With the US being so difficult to trade with under the Trump regime, other countries have to find other avenues to trade.

Small manufacturing in US is hurting from tariffs

Posted on by
5

An article by Stephen Starr in The Guardian tells a repeating story line about the negative impact of the tariffs. The title is : “Trump’s tariffs are choking small US manufacturers – even those making music magic.” The story focuses on one representative business, but let me use select paragraphs to tell the point of the general story.

“…almost a year into the Trump administration’s tariffs regime, business for small companies is not looking good.

‘The tariffs are adding up to 30% to our costs. I would have at least a couple of new positions open now if it weren’t for the tariffs,’”says the owner of one small business.

“So far, this small company has eaten 100% of that extra cost, but now that’s no longer financially feasible.

‘The tariffs are of no benefit to manufacturing in America. The stated goals of the tariffs were to reshore manufacturing, negotiate better trade terms and raise money for the US treasury. It’s just not possible to do all those things simultaneously,’ she says.

‘It feels like gaslighting.’” In essence, Trump told them a narrative to sell what he wanted to do. This is sadly his modus operandi.

Eat the costs, pass on some of the costs or pass on all of the costs. This lays out the range of options these companies as well as larger ones have to consider. The president said companies were not passing on the cost to consumers. Like many things Trump says, it is largely untrue. If companies ate costs, they could only do that short term. A businessperson like Trump should know that, especially given his six bankruptcies and other failed businesses.

Tariffs hit the consumer in the end. Retaliatory tariffs hit the suppliers, especially farmers. And, this may drive more farmers to go out of business.*

__________________________
* Per an AI Search Summary on the efficacy of tariffs:

”Studies on tariff efficacy 
generally show they raise prices for consumers, burden households (especially lower-income ones), reduce overall economic output (GDP), and often fail to significantly improve trade balances long-term, despite potentially boosting employment and profits in specific protected sectors, creating a net loss for the economy, with impacts worsening as tariffs rise and retaliation occurs. While offering some short-term relief to specific industries, they act like a regressive tax, stifling innovation and causing supply chain disruptions, making them a costly tool for broad economic benefit.” 

Hiring numbers

Posted on by
13

An article by Michael Sainato in The Guardian called “US lost 105,000 jobs in October and added 64,000 in November, according to delayed data” offers delayed bad news. The delay, of course, is due to the shutdown. The subheading id not an improvement: “Data shows the headline unemployment rate continued to climb and hit 4.6%, a four-year high, last month.”

A few paragraphs tell us more: “The US labor market grew by more than expected last month, recovering some of the damage inflicted by the federal government shutdown, according to official data.

An estimated 105,000 jobs were lost in October, and 64,000 were added in November, a highly-anticipated report showed on Tuesday.

Jobs growth was higher in November than anticipated by many economists, with a consensus forecast of some 40,000 jobs added.

But the headline unemployment rate continued to climb – and hit 4.6%, a four-year high, last month – amid apprehension around the strength of the US economy.

Previous estimates for overall jobs growth in August and September were also downgraded, from a drop of 4,000 to 26,000, and from growth of 119,000 to 108,000, respectively.”

These numbers were expected to be sour, with two months out of the last four with lost jobs (and three of the last seven months). Prior to this, the job growth has been down and since the added tariffs were announced earlier this year. Trump likes to blame Biden, but the carry over from Biden helped Trump’s look better before the predicted fall off from the tariffs and other dilutive changes.*

_______________________________
*Per an AI Search Summary, here is a summary on trends:

“Key Trends & Factors

Sector Strength: Health care continues to be a strong source of job growth. 

Slowing Pace: Hiring is slowing down, with November’s modest gain following a decline in October.

Economic Uncertainty: Factors like tariffs, inflation, and the potential impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) contribute to hiring caution.

Labor Shortage/Mismatch: Despite slower hiring, some sectors still face shortages, with many openings going unfilled due to skill gaps.”



Economic anxiety in Republican heartland

Posted on by
13

An article in The Guardian by Stephen Starr in Jeffersonville, Ohio called “Trump policies spur economic anxiety in US Republican heartland: ‘Tariffs are affecting everything’” is telling. The subtitle reads “Rural US towns reel as policies like tariffs cause global manufacturing companies to reconsider major investment projects.”

But, it is more than just tariffs. Here are a few paragraphs:

“For decades, a line of storefronts in Jeffersonville, Ohio, a town of 1,200 people 40 minutes south-west of Columbus, lay empty.

But now locals are hard at work renovating the downtown and paving streets in anticipation of a potential economic boom fueled by a huge new electric vehicle battery manufacturing plant.

Two miles south of Jeffersonville, Korean and Japanese companies LG Energy Solution and Honda are in the midst of sinking $3.5bn into a facility that is expected to begin production in the coming months.

A host of Trump administration policies –tariff measures and the end of clean vehicle tax credits worth thousands of dollars to car buyers – are causing multinational manufacturing companies to consider pausing hundreds of millions of dollars in future investments, a move that would hit small, majority-Republican towns like in Jeffersonville.

‘The construction process has been slowing down. My fear is that the whole thing is going to stop, and we’re left with just unfinished concrete out there,’ says Amy Wright, a Fayette county resident, of the under-construction battery plant.

… One poll suggests that his approval rating among rural Americans has slipped from 59% in August to 47% in October. Others chart his net approval rating in states he won in last year’s presidential election – Ohio, Michigan and Indiana – in negative territory by as much as 18.9 points.

Wright says her son, who works for a local company that supplies Honda with parts, recently received notice that a prior promise of overtime work was being rescinded. She says she believes Honda is reeling in spending due to US government policies.”

Tariffs are hurting people, especially consumers. But, as noted above, Trump’s ceasing funding of approved projects that are targeted as bad by the fossil fuel industry, is disrupting lives and jobs as investments are paused or curtailed. Regardless of political party, people are being harmed by this president’s policies. Sadly, they should have seen some of this coming, but it is actually worse now that he is elected with fossil fuel industry money funding his campaign.

To me, this should be a loud message to Americans. This president will impact your jobs, your purchasing power, your healthcare and God-forbid you need it, your food assistance.

Empty shelves and higher prices

Posted on by
14

An article by Shrai Popat in The Guardian called
“‘Empty shelves, higher prices’: Americans tell of cost of Trump’s tariffs,” caught my eye. This is not a surprise as it has been predicted by more than a few sources. This title will be one of the several unflattering legacies of Donald Trump.

The subtitle spells out the betrayal of expectations he promulgated. “US consumers say price rises caused by president’s tariffs contradicts his promise to make life more affordable.” Here are a few anecdotal paragraphs:

“As a mother of two, Paige Harris has noticed a change in the way she shops for her family.

‘Items that I have bought regularly have gone up in price steadily,’ she said. ‘From hair dye to baby formula, our grocery list has gotten smaller while our budget has had to increase. Meats like steak are a no-go for our household.’

Harris, 38, lives and works as a teacher’s assistant in Stella, North Carolina, and is one of almost 40 people who spoke to the Guardian about how they’ve been coping with the price of goods in the six months since Donald Trump announced his sweeping tariffs.

On Thursday, a study from S&P Global revealed that companies were expected to pay at least $1.2tn more in 2025 expenses than was previously anticipated. But the burden, according to the researchers, is now shifting to US consumers. They calculated that two-thirds of the ‘expense shock’, more than $900bn, will be absorbed by Americans. Last month, the Yale Budget Lab estimated tariffs would cost households almost $2,400 more a year.

Harris says the tariffs’ impact on her daily life contradicts promises from the Trump administration to “cut prices and make living affordable for everyone”. She said: ‘You see prices soaring. It has become very clear that this administration did not and does not care about the everyday lives of Americans.’

Several Americans told the Guardian their weekly budgets had been drastically altered with the introduction of Trump’s tariffs.”

This is real. Trump tells people this is not due to tariffs and that consumers don’t pay for the tariffs. That is simply not true. Some importers did get pressured to eat the tariff costs they paid, but that is only temporary. More and more are now being passed along to consumers as the importers suffer reduction in profits or even temporary losses. Trump is placing the burden of his tariff weapon on the backs of consumers.

“Empty shelves and higher prices.” It sounds like a song from Les Miserables, a book, play and movie where the impoverished get screwed. The title means “The Miserables.” It seems apropos to define the burden imposed by Trump.


Unsurprisingly China is winning trade war

Posted on by
12

An article in Quartz by Catherine Baab tells an unsurprising story about China’s reaction to Trump’s tariiffs. The article is called “Trump is threatening more tariffs. But it looks like China is winning the trade war.” The subtitle notes – “New data shows China’s dependence on American consumers is shrinking, offering an early verdict on Trump’s renewed trade wars.”

Here are select paragraphs; “Six months into President Donald Trump’s renewed trade wars, partial results are in — and they’re probably not the ones Washington hoped for.

Rather than consolidating U.S. economic power, Trump’s tariff policy appears to be accelerating a globe shift toward a trading system where America is just one market among many. Ironically or no, the fresh Chinese data suggesting this shift come as Trump once again threatensChina with higher tariffs….

China’s exports surged 8.3% in September, their fastest pace in months, even as shipments to the U.S. fell 27%. So, far from being crippled by tariffs, Beijing appears to be quietly rerouting its economy around them. Europe, Southeast Asia, and the countries across the global south have largely picked up the slack. Exports to the E.U. rose more than 14%, to ASEAN nations nearly 16%, and to Africa an impressive 56% (although Africa still represents a small fraction of China’s total exports).


That math is more or less simple: While direct shipments to the U.S. now make up barely 10% of China’s total exports, trade with the rest of the world is booming. Even just two or three years ago, the U.S. claimed at least a quarter of Chinese exports.”

This is not surprising. China has been establishing improved trade agreements from the outset. Actually some moves were done before Trump was sworn in anticipation of his threatened tariffs. Quite simply, China is outmaneuvering an overmatched US president.

Federal appeals court rules that most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal

Posted on by
5



An article in The Guardian co-written by Robert Mackey (now), Shrai Popat, Lucy Campbell and Tom Ambrose (earlier) is quite impactful. I put the entire, brief piece below.

“A US appeals court ruled on Friday that most of Donald Trump’s new tariffs are illegal, upholding a ruling from the federal court of international trade that the president’s declaration of an economic emergency to justify sweeping tariffs violates a 1977 law and the US constitution, which reserves taxation for the Congress.

As our colleague Dominic Rushe explains, the New York-based US court of international trade previously ruled against Trump’s tariff policies in May, saying the president had exceeded his authority when he imposed both sets of challenged tariffs. The three-judge panel included a judge who was appointed by Trump in his first term.

The split decision from the US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC addressed the legality of what Trump calls ‘reciprocal’ tariffs imposed as part of his trade war in April, as well as a separate set of tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.

The court ruled that the president does have the legal authority to impose narrow, sectoral tariffs, like those on steel and aluminum imports, but he far exceeded his power with the global tariffs on imports he first declared in April.

The case, which is expected to be appealed to the US supreme court, hinges of Trump’s broad interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

That law gives the president the power to address ‘unusual and extraordinary’ threats during national emergencies, which previous presidents haver used to sanction enemies or freeze their assets.

Trump, the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, has claimed the import taxes were justified given trade imbalances, declining US manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs.

The law does not mention tariffs, although it allows the president to take a wide range of actions in response to a crisis. Trump’s justice department has argued that the law allows tariffs under emergency provisions that authorize a president to “regulate” imports or block them completely.

In ruling against Trump’s interpretation of the law, the court’s majority writes: ‘we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs. Reading the phrase ‘regulate … importation’ to include imposing these tariffs is ‘a wafer-thin reed on which to rest such sweeping power.’

In one of the opinions upholding the lower court’s finding that Trump exceeded his authority, the judges write: ‘Under the Government’s view, the President could make such a factual finding by merely pointing to a lack of taxes paid on imports from outside the country. But if the President can declare an emergency to cut the deficit by raising taxes in whatever way he wishes, not much remains of Congressional authority over taxation.’

The appeals court ruled on two cases, one brought by five small businesses and the other by 12 Democratic-led US states, which argued that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs.

The US constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs, and any delegation of that authority must be both explicit and limited, according to the lawsuits.

Another court in Washington DC ruled that IEEPA does not authorize Trump’s tariffs, and the government has appealed that decision as well. At least eight lawsuits have challenged Trump’s tariff policies, including one filed by the state of California.”

Note, if this ruling is upheld it is good news for consumers and business leaders. It actually is good for Trump as it saves him from himself. Tariffs are going to be harmful to our economy per more than a few economists including a Nobel Laureate named Joseph Stiglitz who advised Republicans and Democrats. Let’s see what happens.

Survey is not flattering to incumbent president

Posted on by
7

Per an article by Michael Sainato in The Guardian called “Trump to blame for high cost of living, Americans say in new poll“ what we are seeing in the stores is being blamed on a tariff wielding president. Here are a few paragraphs:

“Sixty three per cent said Trump had had a negative impact on grocery prices, and 61% said he had had a negative impact on the cost of living. Nearly half, 49%, said the Trump administration had had a negative impact on their finances. Nearly eight out of 10 Americans, including 70% of Republicans, fear that Trump’s tariffs will increase the price of everyday goods.

‘Donald Trump has simultaneously raised prices on everyday goods through a reckless approach to tariffs, a decimation of programs that help Americans afford healthcare, education, food and childcare, and then kneecapping federal regulators who keep banks and other big businesses from swindling consumers,’ said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation.

‘This has created an alarming set of market conditions. Americans are left on their own to face high prices and low earnings, are building their own safety nets from a web of financial products, credit cards, buy now, pay later loans, payday loans and student debt, and companies have been given the green light to manipulate these products to boost their own profits without having to worry about following the law.’”

None of the above is surprising except with the high percentage of Republicans. It shows that even Trump cannot mask the rising cost at the checkout line. I have been concerned this will only get worse. With Trump so enamored with tariffs coupled with his apparent lack of understanding of how they work, he keeps going to that tariff holster and drawing his weapon that raises our prices. Mr. Trump, once again for emphasis – we shoppers pay for the tariffs.

US president agrees with EU to increase our prices by 15%

Posted on by
6

The news out of Scotland is the US and EU have reached a trade agreement. Here is an AI search summary of the agreement:

“Tariff Imposition: The agreement establishes a 15% tariff on most EU exports to the United States, according to NPR.

Impact on Prices: Tariffs are generally passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, so US consumers will likely see increased costs for goods affected by this tariff.

Negotiation Outcome: The 15% tariff is a reduction from the previously threatened 30% tariff, which was the higher rate that President Trump had indicated he would impose if a deal wasn’t reached by the August 1st deadline.

Bilateral Trade: This agreement addresses the significant trade relationship between the US and EU, with the EU being the United States’ single biggest source of imports.

Exceptions: The 15% tariff has some exceptions for key industries, according to NBC News.”

Steel will continue to have 50% tariffs, meaning any product made with EU imported steel will still cost more than it should. Getting back to the 15% tariff, should we consumers celebrate the president just made prices on EU imports 15% higher? Or, should we celebrate the fact he could have made it 30%. Either way, we have a president who is doing the opposite of his campaign promise to reduce prices.