
The US can have tariffs on baby safety products or a baby boom, but not both
The recently finalized trade framework sets a nominal 55 percent tariff on most Chinese imports, including baby and child safety products, down from the 126.5 percent peak earlier this spring. That's a welcome improvement, but it is still more than double the rate from before the trade war began.
For essential products such as cribs, car seats, strollers and safe sleep spaces, that's a huge added cost; one that shows no signs of going away.
These aren't luxury goods. Many are legally required. All are foundational to the health and safety of young children. Yet the White House has confirmed it will maintain the 55 percent rate, with no exemptions currently planned for baby products and no clear timetable for further relief.
This leaves families facing steep prices and mounting uncertainty, just as the administration is trying to encourage more Americans to have children.
The good news is, the White House can fix this without derailing its deal with China. All it needs to do is exempt from the tariffs all products essential to the care and protection of babies and children.
The first Trump administration exempted these products in 2018, and the current administration floated doing so again a few months ago. But now the pause seems to have put such an exemption on the backburner. That's a mistake.
Baby and childcare products are uniquely vulnerable to tariff pressure: More than 90 percent are imported from Asia, with the overwhelming majority manufactured in China. Even with the new framework in place, U.S. importers remain hesitant. They don't know if the deal will hold, and they don't want to ramp up orders only to see tariffs spike again.
A permanent exemption for baby products would eliminate that uncertainty, and protect families from sudden price shocks.
Otherwise, the severe price increases we have seen are likely to continue. Before the new deal, strollers had risen in price by anywhere from $150 to $450. A popular UPPABaby car seat has increased in price by more than 40 percent, despite efforts to absorb cost.
The vast majority of brands and products are facing similar increases. We anticipate an average overall price increase of around 30 percent across critical baby and child products.
Beyond the price crisis is a looming product shortage. Manufacturers who slowed production during the tariff surge are now in limbo. Retailers are stockpiling inventory where they can. As one told us, 'If I could fill a warehouse with car seats and strollers right now, I would.'
Without relief, families will be forced into painful — and risky — choices.
Picture a single mother whose car seat is damaged in a minor crash. She is legally required to replace it, but she either can't afford a new one or can't find one in stock. She considers buying a used or counterfeit seat of questionable safety or continuing to use the damaged one.
Parents should not be forced to gamble with their children's safety.
Although the administration's goal of reducing America's reliance on foreign manufacturing is understandable, the realities of this sector require a different approach. Baby and child safety products are highly regulated and built through decades-long partnerships with specialized factories abroad.
These supply chains can't be replicated domestically overnight, nor can most families afford the price increases that would come with reshoring.
A 2021 Pew survey found that cost was the most commonly cited reason non-parents were unlikely to have children, and those costs have increased steadily since. A 2022 report from the Brookings Institution found that inflation had added more than $26,000 to the cost of raising a child, hitting low-income families hardest and pushing many to delay or scale back their plans for children altogether.
Tariffs shouldn't make that burden worse. A broad exemption for all essential baby and child products would provide certainty regardless of how the broader China deal unfolds. It would support struggling families, stabilize the industry and bolster the administration's pro-family goals.
Without the exemption, the consequences won't be measured in dollars alone, but also in risks no parent should have to take.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
President Trump, I supported you. Release the Epstein list – or resign.
Trump has said we should stop talking about Epstein. What do you think? USA TODAY readers sound off in our Opinion Forum. President Donald Trump wants Americans to stop talking about Jeffrey Epstein. But judging from recent polling and responses from USA TODAY readers, many people aren't ready to do that. Trump and other top administration officials had played up the case of the disgraced financier who died in jail on charges of sex trafficking girls. They pumped up the idea that once Trump was elected he would let loose explosive revelations. Instead, the Justice Department and FBI closed the case. Now the president is facing blowback from many quarters, including once-loyal MAGA supporters who are expressing a sense of betrayal – and Democrats pointing to Trump's backtracking as a lack of transparency. As part of our Opinion Forum, we turned to USA TODAY readers, asking if they thought an Epstein "client list" existed – and if they thought the Trump administration had access to it, as well as what they thought of Trump's calls to move on from the Epstein affair. Read the responses below. I believe Trump administration has access to an Epstein client list I do believe a Jeffrey Epstein client list exists. And I believe the Trump administration had access to it. They can't release it because the billionaires, corporations and deep state that rule the country wouldn't allow it. I think Trump believed he couldn't be told what to do. The only thing I cared about was criminal "pedos" being brought to justice, but we know that will never happen. Epstein wasn't the only one out there doing what he was doing. Another view: I believe Trump has access to an Epstein client list. But it no longer helps him. | Opinion Forum While Trump has said repeatedly he wants people to stop talking about Epstein, he's one who used this for his campaign platform. If that's what he wants, he should've never brought it up. As for whether MAGA will split with Trump over this Epstein fallout – maybe some of MAGA will break with him but most will stay loyal. — Christine Luongo, Rockaway, New Jersey Mr. President, I supported you. Please release the list. Yes, I believe a Jeffrey Epstein client list exists. Court records indicate that massive amounts of information exists, documenting Epstein's (apparently shared) need and enjoyment in having predatory sex with perhaps hundreds of underage and emotionally vulnerable girls. I believe that he and others used the girls to feed their addiction to selfish, self-gratifying sex. And that he and others are on the "list." And that many, many highly visible people are on the list; it appears that the president is protecting them (and possibly himself). Because of this I think we will start to see a greater divide among his supporters. Musk proposes America Party: Do you think the US needs a third party? Tell us. | Opinion Forum I would say to the president: Despite your (more than several) less-than-likeable personality traits, we supported you because we love America and you also love America. However, we also stand for truth, justice and the American way. Please put our minds at ease and release the list. I supported you, attended many of your rallies and even greeted Kamala Harris at three of her rallies with a 6-foot Trump banner. Follow American ideals, Mr. President. Please release the list ... or resign. — Phil Parlock Sr., Huntington, West Virginia MAGA cult has been brainwashed I'm not sure if an Epstein client list exists. It's obvious they spent so much time talking about it because it fueled the conspiracy theorist-type thinking that Trump has been able to manipulate people's reality with so easily. That, and it supported a narrative that the Biden administration was withholding information that he, Trump, would release. When asked about releasing presumably hidden files such as those on President John F. Kennedy's assassination or the 9/11 attack, Trump always affirmed without hesitation that he would make them public. When asked about the Epstein files however, he seemed to always qualify their release with the condition that unnamed innocent people who he seemed to be aware were on the list could be protected. This caution can only be explained either by his knowledge that the files did in fact exist or by his awareness from personal experience that their existence was plausible. I do care about the Epstein case, and in a perfect world it should get more attention than it currently is. However, the MAGA cult has been brainwashed to automatically see the media reporting on Trump's bad behavior as evidence of Trump's righteousness. I fear more attention by the media would trigger their persecution complex and override the cognitive dissonance they feel by having their 'open book' president 'deep state' them. The Trump administration should focus on resigning and making way for competent people to lead the country. The most likely explanation for Trump saying we should stop talking about Epstein is that he did something illegal with Epstein that he knows all but his most loyal followers would condemn him for. The likelihood of this explanation is supported by Trump's resistance to releasing any such list and his attempts to explain away the files, saying things like, there are innocent people who would get hurt, they don't exist, the Clintons fabricated them, etc. In terms of whether MAGA will split with Trump over the Epstein issue, I think maybe some in the movement will break away, but most will stay loyal. — Samuel Barnes, Saint George, Utah I don't care if there's an Epstein list I don't believe any client list existed. But I also don't care. Epstein struck me as too wily to leave any kind of written record of his business, clients or victims. But MAGA folks love a conspiracy and this one has everything: salacious details, mysterious death, famous names and money. Lots of money. Epstein is dead. His empire crumbled. And Americans have far too much going on in the U.S. and in the world that requires our attention. I don't agree with Trump on much, but I certainly do when it comes to his recent repeated calls for us to stop talking about Epstein. He really needs to focus on urgent matters now – flooding in Texas and elsewhere, uncontrolled wildfires in Arizona, education and immigration battles. Then there are the international problems, many of which seem to have no easy answers. But I do think we will start to see a greater divide among his supporters. — Kathleen Bryson, Globe, Arizona


Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
How Trump's game-planning for the 2026 midterms
President Trump is already fixated behind the scenes on next year's midterm elections for the House and Senate — unleashing his billion-dollar political operation and personally burrowing into the minutiae of races. Why it matters: Now that his "big beautiful bill" has passed Congress, Trump's ability to accomplish more big things there — and avoid impeachment — hinges on keeping the GOP's razor-thin majorities in both chambers of Congress in his last two years in office. Zoom in: Even with all that's swirling around Trump — foreign conflicts, deportations, tariffs, the Jeffrey Epstein fallout — he's micro-level focused on 2026 races. One example: Trump's been particularly locked in on the already messy GOP Senate primary in Texas, where polls indicate Sen. John Cornyn is trailing scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton, a longtime Trump loyalist. After Paxton's wife announced she was filing for divorce, White House insiders say, Trump — who hasn't endorsed in the race — was aware of it within an hour. He's been asking others about its political impact. Here's how Trump's team is laying the groundwork for 2026: 1. Money muscle Trump's biggest asset could be his enormously well-heeled political operation, for which he continues to aggressively raise money. Trump has told congressional Republicans he plans to spend heavily on their races. He's also planning to headline a big Republican National Committee fundraiser in D.C. this fall. Trump political lieutenants James Blair and Tony Fabrizio are slated to appear at an upcoming donor retreat to be held by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). Trump's operation will soon set up fundraising vehicles for candidates in several high-profile races to allow the Trump team to quickly raise money for them. 2. Recruit aggressively The White House is seeking candidates to run in several key races. Trump himself is expected to get involved if an on-the-fence prospect needs a push. Trump aides currently are trying to land a recruit in the race for New Hampshire's vacant Senate seat, for example. White House political director Matt Brasseaux has been attending House candidate recruitment meetings being organized by Georgia Rep. Brian Jack, a former Trump aide. 3. Early redistricting Trump is pushing for Texas Republicans to redraw the state's House districts five years early to create more GOP-friendly seats. That could net as many as five new GOP-held seats and dilute Democrats' voting power — but it carries risks. It almost certainly would face court challenges, and some Republicans worry that some of the party's incumbents could be endangered by shifting GOP voters to districts now represented by Democrats. It also could lead blue states to try the same thing to favor Democrats. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened as much in that state. Democrats already outnumber Republicans in California's House delegation, 43-9. Trump urged members of Texas' congressional delegation to get on board with his plan during a call this week, and his team is eyeing other states for possible redistricting. 4. Keep selling Trump's big bill The White House is drawing up plans to spend the next year-plus selling Trump's domestic policy mega-bill to voters. That won't be easy: Polls indicate the measure — which includes tax cuts and a range of cuts to social programs — isn't popular. Trump and his cabinet members plan to travel to battleground areas to promote provisions of the bill Trump's team sees as politically palatable. Last week, Vice President Vance touted the bill in eastern Pennsylvania. Fabrizio spoke to a small group of House Republicans a few days ago to offer guidance on messaging, and Blair recently addressed a Senate GOP lunch with Trump pollster David Lee. The White House is planning an August retreat for congressional staffers to discuss how to promote the bill. 5. Stave off retirements Trump is trying to use his political sway to persuade battleground Republicans from vacating their seats. Trump this month helped get Iowa Rep. Zach Nunn to seek reelection to his competitive district, rather than run for governor. The White House also is trying to keep Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst from retiring. Ernst drew fire — and a Democratic opponent — recently when she told a group of constituents, "We all are going to die," in response to concerns about Medicaid cuts in Trump's megabill. But top Republicans worry her retirement would complicate their prospects of keeping the Republican-friendly seat. 6. Endorse — and attack — in primaries Trump plans to use his dominance over the GOP to shape primaries — either to ensure the party nominates who he sees as the most electable candidates for the general election, or to punish Republicans who've crossed him. He's endorsed more than a dozen House Republicans from swing seats to try to protect them from costly primary challenges, and is expected to endorse more. He recently met with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to discuss the state's Senate primary for the seat now held by Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff. The White House is eager to avoid a bloody primary and is determining how to engage, similar to its wait-and-see posture in the Texas Senate primary. Trump's political operation has run a pair of ads targeting Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who was one of two House Republicans to vote against the megabill. What they're saying: " The president understands that good politics makes even better policy and has embarked on ... a multidimensional effort aimed at expanding the House and Senate majorities," said Chris LaCivita, a senior Trump political adviser.


The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats target Republicans over Trump's legislative agenda in battleground states
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) launched a slate of new digital ads targeting Republicans in a number of key battleground states ahead of legislative races in 2025 and 2026. The digital ads, which were first obtained by The Hill, will target voters in Virginia, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The ads will be placed on Facebook and Instagram, featuring images of receipts with how much each state is projected to lose in health care and funding, along with how much prices could go up. 'Strong Democratic state leaders can hold MAGA Republicans accountable for selling us out,' the ads read. The ad is the latest effort from Democrats to hit Republicans over the budget legislation that President Trump signed into law earlier this month. The massive spending package, which Trump dubbed 'the big beautiful bill,' would bring new tax breaks for older adults and overtime workers. The legislation includes funding to help hire border patrol agents and officers. The package also reduces green energy tax credits while cutting Medicaid and food assistance programs. Democrats have sought to make the cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs an attack line going into the off-year elections in Virginia and New Jersey this November and next year's midterm elections. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released on Friday found that 64 percent of U.S. adults surveyed said the Republican-led tax and spending bill will do 'more to help' wealthy people. Another 7 percent said the package would do more to hurt wealthy people, while 27 percent said it would not make a difference. Twenty-six percent said the bill would benefit middle-class people, while 51 percent said it would hurt them. Twenty-two percent said it would not make a difference.