Revealed: The true cost of Trump's tariffs on UK small businesses
Across April and May, the US President announced - and then called a pause for - levies being placed on all goods imported to the US from other nations, as part of a plan to readdress trade balances. While the UK has since arranged a trade deal with the nation, many other countries or blocs have not done so and there remains uncertainty within some industries.
A new report looking at more than 500 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) across the UK has now revealed three in ten (30 per cent) estimate the cost of tariff knock-on effects to be between £10,000 and £20,000 this year, while two per cent believe it will cost them over £1m.
Firms in the services sector are hardest hit, but across all sectors the average amount lost to tariff 'turbulence' is anticipated at £17,000 per business.
One critical factor affecting those who import and export has been this year's volatile exchange rates, with £1 now equal to $1.358 - more than eight per cent higher than it was at the start of this year.
Tariff business impact
When the US President announced his tariffs, a stock market sell-off ensued - but it wasn't until bonds also sold off, sending yields (and therefore borrowing costs) higher, that he relented to a point.
While those high-profile numbers were of course important, another key fluctuation came in the weakening of the dollar, which has lost ground all year.
The US Dollar index measures the value of the currency against a mix of other global currencies, showcasing its faltering power in 2025. At the start of the year it stood at 108.49 on this index; it now stands at barely above 97, a deterioration of more than 10 per cent.
If you are importing from the States, that is a positive - your pound buys more of US-based local goods, at least until sellers put prices up to account for the drop. For exporters, however, that is a big problem as it squeezes profit margins.
A critical issue, particularly for smaller businesses, has been the rate of change and the lack of certainty about what is next.
Responding to the survey undertaken by Critical Research, more than half (51 per cent) of businesses who export to the US said they expected a net decrease in volumes in future. Perhaps pointing to other geopolitical matters escalating, 47 per cent of all exporters - to the US or otherwise - said the same.
New challenges
Across all sectors, around 30 per cent of small and medium UK businesses export to the US. That figure is notably higher in retail and wholesale industries.
They point to tariffs and customs regulations as the biggest issues facing them - as do importers, notably - ahead of such factors as inflation, global conflicts, costs of trading overseas and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
'There's a lot of hidden activity - SME businesses are constantly dealing with change,' Jonathan Andrew, chief executive at Bibby Financial Services, told The Independent. 'Firms are making constant operational changes and even small businesses are having to assess how things impact on your own business.
'Doing nothing isn't an option - that's the reality of tariffs which is dawning now.'
Many firms are opting to find new trade partners, the survey revealed, but they are now looking beyond the US in many cases - China was instead the most popular choice for both importers and exporters.
Future
As well as location, such global uncertainty means currency management is set to become a bigger factor for businesses too.
'SMEs are starting to pay more attention to foreign exchange. People have to think about revenue streams and where their income is from in currency terms, especially medium sized businesses,' Mr Andrew added.
The UK's newly released industrial strategy said it is targeting 'long term stability' for businesses as a core focus.
That will mean it will need to try and shield businesses working within those key industries from wider uncertainty, with recent trade deals - signed with the likes of India as well as the US - being one approach which can smooth the path for importers and exporters.
But The Independent understands there are businesses now within the EU considering opening plants in the UK, as a potential easier route to exporting to the US.
While that could yield an overall boost to potential economic growth, it could also heighten competition for those smaller domestic businesses already grappling with ever-changing conditions they are not always equipped to deal with.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
19 minutes ago
- The Sun
After Two Tier Keir, we now have Two Tear Rachel… Reeves is finished but how long before her boss exits too?
IF there is one cast-iron rule in politics, it's this: If the Prime Minister is having to say he has full confidence you will stay in your job, your days are definitely numbered. So no wonder then that Rachel Reeves was moved to tears as she sat behind Sir Keir Starmer at PMQs on Wednesday when, after months of saying she would be his Chancellor until the next election and beyond, he chose to studiously dodge the question. 2 2 After Two-Tier Keir, we now have Two-Tear Rachel. As those tears rolled down her cheeks, the Chancellor prompted feverish speculation about the cause of her sobs — wiping £3billion off the markets, pushing up government borrowing costs and devaluing the Pound into the bargain. Wheeled out to face the cameras yesterday, Reeves plastered on the make-up and a beaming smile to insist she had been upset about a ' personal issue ' and had been 'having a tough day' which, unlike most people's bad days, was broadcast 'on the telly' for all to see. We may never know the true reason behind her blubbing, but what we do know is that her wobbly bottom lip didn't just wobble the markets, it also sent trembles through the entire Government. Facing a swift exit There is no doubt now that Rachel Reeves is facing a swift exit from the Treasury, even if she does survive until the autumn Budget. Yet the real question mark now is not over HER future but that of her boss, the Prime Minister. This, after all, was supposed to be a week of celebration for Labour's first year in office after winning a landslide victory in the General Election last July. Instead the PM has suffered a humiliating defeat in the Commons over his welfare reforms at the hands of his own backbenchers and been forced to deny he plans to sack his Chancellor while facing approval ratings so low that they've surfaced in New Zealand. Some of us knew this Labour government would be bad but not many realised just how bad they would turn out to be. It would have been inconceivable a year ago to imagine, after being elected to Downing Street with a whopping 411 MPs, that Starmer would be facing questions about not only his Chancellor's future but even his own so soon. Even Britney Spears has had longer honeymoons than this. Squirming Keir Starmer refuses to say Rachel Reeves will be Chancellor at next election after horror Budget And for all the PM's claims that Reeves will be Chancellor for years to come, after months of broken promises and U-turns no one actually believes a word he says any more. After all, Rachel From Accounts hardly had a great start in the job. From the disastrous decision to cut winter fuel payments to ten million pensioners to the inflation-busting pay rises for train drivers and doctors, to the revelations that her CV was full of exaggerations and her taste for freebie tickets to Taylor Swift concerts, the Chancellor's reputation has long been in tatters. The sight of Reeves blubbing in the Commons this week wasn't just embarrassing for her — it embarrassed the whole country. And the desperate cries of 'bullying!' and 'sexism!' by Labour MPs are shameless coming from a party that happily attacked both Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May for crying as they left office. If you can't stand the heat, Rachel, get out of the Number 11 kitchen. The Chancellor's claims to have had a 'tough day' will fall flat with many voters who are having tough days EVERY day thanks to this Government's policies. What about people struggling to pay their bills as the cost of living continues to rise and taxes go up? What about pensioners worried about putting the heating on last winter after Reeves took away their winter fuel allowance? What about the farmers who face losing their family farm thanks to the inheritance tax hike? What about the small business owners who have had to shut up shop after the Chancellor's employer National Insurance rises? Everyone in Westminster knows that the only thing keeping Reeves in her job right now is that she acts as the PM's human shield — someone he can blame for every mishap, every poor judgment, every U-turn and every tax rise to come in the next Budget. From being hailed as Labour's greatest asset, as 'the first woman Chancellor' (as if anyone cared), Reeves has quickly become the Government's punching bag. No wonder the tears have started rolling. It is obvious to everyone that Rachel From Accounts is way out of her depth. But she isn't alone. Starmer is also flailing around like a drowning man, desperate to blame anyone and anything else for his own failings. Nothing of substance Ultimately, though, everyone knows he is in charge and the buck stops with him. Reeves may have exposed a fatal weakness with her tears, but the past 12 months have revealed far greater failings in her boss. As he marks his first year in office, we now know that underneath Starmer's shiny helmet of Brylcreemed hair, there is absolutely nothing of substance. Sir Keir has proved himself to be a Prime Minister with no ideas and no philosophy, no policies and no plan; a man with no backbone and no moral compass. He is a leader who cannot lead, a manager who cannot manage, a politician with no political instinct. The Prime Minister is just an empty suit — and he likely didn't even pay for the suit himself. He probably got Labour donor Lord Ali to buy it for him. Starmer can keep telling us that his Chancellor is going nowhere but we all know her exit from the Treasury will come sooner rather than later. The question remains, after his damaging and chaotic first 12 months in office, can the country survive another year of this Prime Minister? VYLAN COUNT COST OF HATE WORDS have consequences, as the Left-wing cancel culture mob have cried for years as they happily ended the careers of anyone who dared to question them. Well, indeed they do for Bob Vylan, the punk-rap duo from the mean streets of Ipswich, who led chants of 'Death, death to the IDF' and ranted about 'f***ing Zionists' during their Glastonbury performance as it was live-streamed on the BBC iPlayer. Not only do they now face a criminal investigation over their antisemitic chants, they've been dropped by their management, seen visas for a US tour revoked, and UK gigs have been cancelled. Oops. There have been consequences too for the BBC, where institutional antisemitism is now so part and parcel of the corporation's culture that, no one – not even the Director General Tim Davie – could spot the obvious anti-Jew hatred in those chants and shut down the live feed from public view. Now the BBC has said it will no longer live-broadcast 'high risk' performances and staff may face disciplinary action for any failures. As Bob Vylan face the fallout from their 'music' hate-fest, they should learn a lesson from another Glasto performer. As Rod Stewart proved, there's a lot more longevity in showbiz for entertainers who show musical talent than there is for those spewing vile torrents of hate. Oh yes, and a bevy of beautiful leggy blonde backing singers helps too.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has made herself unsackable by crying at PMQs, claim Labour critics
Rachel Reeves has made herself unsackable by crying at Prime Minister's Questions, Labour critics have claimed. The Chancellor's display of emotion in the Commons on Wednesday was followed by Sir Keir Starmer giving her his unequivocal backing. The Prime Minister committed to keeping Ms Reeves in the Cabinet for the rest of his first term as colleagues publicly rallied around the Chancellor, who said she was dealing with an unexplained 'personal issue' when she burst into tears. However, a government source complained that Sir Keir 'seems to have tied himself to her' after her tears, which triggered a £3bn market sell-off and crash in the value of sterling. 'I thought at the beginning of Wednesday she would go, then thought it was confirmed when I saw her crying at PMQs, but then she didn't,' said the source. Another source said Ms Reeves had enjoyed an 'outpouring of sympathy' over an incident that was still 'inescapably linked to the political facts' of the welfare rebellion. A third added that being pictured distraught on television had 'shored up her position'. One insider said that, since Monday, the mood in Whitehall has transitioned from 'head in hands' over the welfare rebellion to the 'surreal horror' of watching Ms Reeves cry in the Commons. 'The dark clouds were descending,' said another source. 'Not in a terminal sense, but that everything was going wrong at once.' Some Labour MPs have privately suggested that the Chancellor should be sacked for her opposition to reducing the benefit cuts. Ms Reeves and Sir Keir put on a united front on Thursday, hugging in front of the cameras as they launched the Government's health strategy. The Chancellor said: 'People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. Today's a new day and I'm just cracking on with the job.' She later added that 'when I'm having a tough day it's on the telly, and most people don't have to deal with that'. Sir Keir said politicians are 'humans in the end' as he praised Ms Reeves, adding that she would serve in her role 'for many years to come'. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said: 'She is a tough character. She is resilient, and she will bounce back' The Telegraph understands that the Chancellor also spoke to Angela Rayner, with whom she has previously had a difficult relationship, about the emotional episode on either Wednesday night or Thursday morning. Rumours that her tears came after a row with either Sir Keir or Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, were denied on Wednesday. While Ms Reeves is now considered safe, there is still talk of a reshuffle of other Cabinet ministers, their aides or more junior colleagues. Some advisers think Sir Keir will launch a 'reset' just before the parliamentary summer break, which begins on July 22, to allow new ministers to familiarise themselves with their brief before the Labour Party conference at the end of September. Others think the Prime Minister is more likely to wait until early in the new year, noting that he 'seldom rushes things' and has a tendency to give members of his team plenty of time to improve before sacking them. The PMQs session followed a week of tense negotiation between the Government and Labour rebels, who forced almost £5 billion in concessions on Sir Keir's benefits reforms. Ms Reeves, who opposed a Government U-turn, will now be forced to find that money in her autumn Budget, on top of existing commitments and a black hole of around £20bn. She has promised to do that without breaching Labour's fiscal rules or raising any of the 'big three' taxes – VAT, National Insurance and income tax. Treasury sources insist that the fiscal situation could improve later this year if the cost of servicing government debt falls or Britain experiences significant economic growth. But there is a consensus in other departments that Ms Reeves is now boxed in by her previous commitments. 'I can't see how she can pull it off after all the promises she has made,' said one source. Another added: 'She's in an impossible position, but that wasn't a secret. Now it's even more impossible.' A new poll by YouGov, published on Thursday, showed almost three-quarters of voters now expect Labour to break its manifesto pledge to not raise the three largest taxes. 'My guess is that we will keep to those promises, but there are decisions to be taken,' a source said. 'We didn't want to come in and raise taxes last year, but circumstances meant we had to do something.' There is disagreement over how politically damaging it would be for Labour to break its manifesto pledges on tax, after a year of turmoil with the election of Donald Trump and war in the Middle East. It may not be mathematically possible to raise as much as Ms Reeves requires in the autumn without touching those taxes. Freezing income tax thresholds, which would not be a manifesto breach, would raise around £10 billion, while some form of wealth tax or higher rate of capital gains tax could make up some of the rest of the shortfall. But higher taxes of any kind are unlikely to be popular, regardless of whether they come as a surprise to the public. 'Is the Treasury orthodoxy running Britain without any political lens?' asked a source. 'They are just looking at a column on a spreadsheet that says they need £5bn and they go to another column in the Budget and get it from there, without thinking about the politics.'
NBC News
27 minutes ago
- NBC News
Bettors are worried Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' could cause professional gambling in the U.S. to fold
A relatively underappreciated constituency is raising the alarm about President Donald Trump's ' big, beautiful bill ' — gamblers. Tucked into the nearly 900-page legislation is a change to how gambling losses are taxed that some professional and amateur bettors say could crush the industry. The provision, only a few paragraphs, would limit what gamblers can deduct from their yearly taxes to 90% of their losses starting in 2026. Currently, bettors can deduct the entirety of their losses, up until their winnings. What a number of gambling aficionados pointed out on social media was that by limiting the tax deduction to 90% of losses, gamblers could actually owe taxes in years where they netted a loss on their bets. 'This new amendment to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would end professional gambling in the US and hurt casual gamblers, too,' Phil Galfond, a professional poker player, posted to X, including a video summarizing his argument. 'You could pay more in tax than you won. Contact your representative quickly.' Trump is set to sign the bill into law on Friday. The provision first generated buzz online after the Senate passed the legislation on Tuesday. One example given on X laid out that, under this new setup, if a gambler won $200,000 in a year but lost $210,000, they would actually be able to deduct only $189,000 worth of losses. Meaning they'd have $11,000 in taxable income even though they netted $10,000 in losses during the year. 'A pro who earns $200k/year might have $3m in winnings and $2.8m in losses,' Galfond said in a subsequent tweet. 'This means earning $200k and being taxed as if they earned $480k. This applies to both recreational and professional gamblers.' Gambling revenues have reached record highs in recent years as legalized gambling has proliferated across the U.S. Thirty-eight states, plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, now have some form of legalized sports betting, which has exploded following a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that broke up Nevada's monopoly on the practice. In 2024, commercial gaming revenue reached a record high of nearly $72 billion, according to the American Gaming Association, which represents the U.S. gambling industry. Rep. Dina Titus, a Democrat who represents Las Vegas, tweeted Wednesday that she was already seeking to amend the change. 'Buried within the BS Republican Budget bill is a provision that harms poker players and those who gamble by limiting loss deductions,' Titus wrote. 'I'm working on a legislative fix that fairly treats gaming losses in the tax code.' One gaming industry source who spoke with NBC News said the impact of the tax change is still to be determined, though this person said the change would mostly impact professional gamblers rather than recreational players. In a May 6 letter to the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways & Means Committee, William C. Miller, president and CEO of the American Gaming Industry, included maintaining the current deduction for wagering losses as one of three industry-specific tax priorities for the reconciliation package Republicans have advanced. Other priorities named in the letter, which was obtained by NBC News, included increasing the slot tax reporting threshold from $1,200 to $5,000 and repealing the sports betting excise tax on legal sports wagers. The AGA also named a number of broader tax priorities, including calling for no tax on tips and maintaining the current corporate tax rate and SALT deductions. In the letter, Miller described keeping the current gambling loss deduction as 'critical,' adding that it should be expanded to allow for taxpayers who do not itemize their returns to report their net wins and losses as part of their adjusted gross income. 'Maintaining this deduction at its existing levels was absolutely a priority for the legal, regulated gaming industry,' the gaming industry source said. 'So it's fair to say that with this specific provision, we're disappointed, and we'll be monitoring its impact and seeking to work with congressional leaders to fix this before the overall legislation takes effect at the end of this year.' A spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Republicans did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did the White House. FanDuel and DraftKings, two of the biggest players in the sports betting market, declined to comment. 'Tax code is already punitive to poker players (you get taxed on winning years but can't write off losing years unless you file as a pro; it's easy to have a down year even as a good player) and Senate-passed version of OBBBA would make it considerably worse,' Nate Silver, the prominent political data analyst, tweeted. As gambling, particularly legalized sports betting, has proliferated in recent years, though, researchers have found a negative impact on bettors' finances, including reduced savings and lower investments in generally safer assets like stocks. Meanwhile, internet searches for gambling addiction and calls to state gambling helplines have increased, particularly with younger men.
