logo
Trump's global tariffs take shape, but consumer impact remains unclear

Trump's global tariffs take shape, but consumer impact remains unclear

Qatar Tribune2 days ago
Agencies
American businesses and consumers woke up Friday to find the contours of President Donald Trump's foreign trade agenda taking shape but without much more clarity on how import taxes on goods from dozens of countries would affect them.
Late Thursday, Trump ordered new tariff rates for 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands. Among them: a 40% tariff on imports from Laos, a 39% tariff on goods from Switzerland and a 30% tariff on South African products.
Other trade partners, such as Cambodia, had the tax rates on their exports to the U.S. reduced from levels the president had threatened to impose. Trump postponed the start date for all of the tariffs from Friday until Aug. 7.
Wendong Zhang, an associate professor in the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University, said U.S. consumers may be feeling some relief with the tariff rates announced, since many were lower than Trump initially threatened. Indonesia's rate was 19%, for example, down from the 32% Trump announced last spring.
But tariffs are a tax, and U.S. consumers are likely to foot at least part of that bill.
'Prices are still going up, they just won't go up as much as in the worst-case scenario,' Zhang said.
Companies are dealing with tariffs in various ways. Many automakers appear to be swallowing tariff costs for now. But the world's largest eyewear maker, EssilorLuxottica, said it raised U.S. prices due to tariffs. The maker of Ray-Bans grinds lenses and sunglasses in Mexico, Thailand and China and exports premium frames from Italy.
Here's what we know about the tariffs and what their impact will be on U.S. consumers: President Donald Trump unveiled sweeping import taxes on goods coming into the U.S. from nearly every country in April. He said the tariffs were meant to boost domestic manufacturing and restore fairness to global trade.
A week later, Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs but did leave in place a 10% tax on most imports. In early July, Trump began sending letters to dozens of countries saying higher tariffs would go into effect Aug. 1 unless they reached trade deals.
The administration announced new rates for dozens of countries on Thursday but delayed their implementation until Aug. 7.
In the meantime, Trump announced a 35% tariff on imports from Canada would take effect Friday. But Trump delayed action on Mexico and China while negotiations continue.
Other duties not specific to countries also remained in place Friday, like a 50% tariff on imported aluminum and steel announced in June.
The Trump administration has reached deals with the European Union, Japan and South Korea that put 15% tariffs in place. A deal with the Philippines puts 19% tariffs in place while a deal with Vietnam imposes a 20% levy. On Wednesday, Trump announced a 25% tariff on goods from India and a 50% tariff on goods from Brazil.
The U.S. Commerce Department said Thursday that prices rose 2.6% in June, up from an annual pace of 2.4% in May and higher than the Federal Reserve's goal of 2%. Many goods that are heavily imported saw price increases, including furniture, appliances and computers.
Zhang, the Cornell economist, said U.S. consumers could see higher prices in the coming months for appliances and other products that contain a large amount of steel and aluminum. Toys, kitchenware, electronics and home goods could also see price spikes.
But Zhang said a 15% tariff doesn't mean prices will immediately rise by 15%. Companies were aware of the tariff deadlines and have been trying to stockpile goods and take other measures to mitigate the impacts.
Zhang noted that Trump's trade deals often contain specific provisions designed to boost U.S. exports.
The agreement with the European Union, for example, calls for European companies to purchase $750 billion worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel from the U.S. over three years.
Zhang said semiconductor firms and military contractors could also see bumps in trade.
Some U.S. farmers could also see a potential upside, Zhang said. As part of its trade deal, Vietnam agreed to purchase $2 billion in U.S. agricultural products over three years, including corn, wheat and soybeans, according to the International Trade Council.
But Zhang cautioned that agricultural agreements tend to be short-lived. Over the longer term, the uncertainty over tariffs could cause countries like China to back away from U.S. agricultural markets and look for other partners, Zhang said.
The tariffs will almost certainly result in higher food prices, according to an analysis released this week by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The U.S. simply doesn't make enough of some products, like bananas or coffee, to satisfy demand. Fish, beer and liquor are also likely to see price hikes, the foundation said.
Conagra Brands, the maker of Hunt's canned tomatoes, Reddi-wip and other brands, said in July that tariffs – particularly the 50% tax on imported aluminum and steel -- will add $200 million annually to its costs. The company said it's shifting some of its suppliers but also expects to raise prices.
Ben Aneff, managing partner at Tribeca Wine Merchants and president of the U.S. Wine Trade Alliance, said that beginning Friday shoppers will see prices rise 20% to 25% at his store and others because of tariffs and the declining value of the dollar.
'Nobody can afford to eat the tariff. It gets passed on,' Aneff said.
Aneff said shoppers haven't felt the impact from higher duties until now because distributors and retailers accelerated shipments from France and other European countries earlier in the year. But with the tariff rate bumping to 15%, Aneff expects European wine prices to jump 30% in September.
Ninety-seven percent of clothing and shoes sold in the U.S. are imported, primarily from Asia, according to the American Apparel & Footwear Association said. China leads the pack, but companies have been shifting more of their sourcing to Vietnam, Indonesia and India.
And prices are already on the rise. Steve Lamar, president and CEO of of the trade group, declined to estimate price increases because he said the situation continues to be in flux.
He also said shoppers will see higher costs from tariffs play out in other ways starting this fall. Companies may drop products because they're too expensive or reduce promotions, he said.
Matt Priest, president and CEO of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, estimates prices for shoes are starting to go up for the back-to-school shopping season. He estimates price increases in the 5% to 10% range.
Lululemon said in June that price increases will be modest and apply to a small portion of its assortment, while Ralph Lauren said it would be hiking prices for this fall and next spring to offset tariffs.
Bjorn Gulden, CEO of Germany-based Athletic wear giant Adidas, told investors Wednesday that the company is reviewing different price increases for products for the U.S. but no decision has been made.
'Tariffs (are) nothing else than a cost,' he said. 'And regardless of what people are saying, you can't just throw a cost away. It's there.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tourists from Malawi and Zambia are first to face $15,000 visa bonds in US
Tourists from Malawi and Zambia are first to face $15,000 visa bonds in US

Al Jazeera

timean hour ago

  • Al Jazeera

Tourists from Malawi and Zambia are first to face $15,000 visa bonds in US

The United States Department of State has announced the first foreign citizens to be subject to bonds of up to $15,000 should they visit the country on tourist visas. On Tuesday, Zambia and Malawi, both African countries, were the inaugural entries on a list of countries that the State Department will subject to visa bonds. The idea, announced earlier this week, is to impose bonds on countries whose citizens have high rates of overstaying their US visas. Tourists from those countries would have to pay an amount ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 at the time of their visa interview to enter the US. Then, if the tourist departs on or before their visa's expiration, that amount would be refunded to them. The money would also be returned if the visa were cancelled, if the travel does not occur, or if the tourist is denied entry into the US. Should a tourist overstay their visa — or apply for asylum or another immigration-related programme while in the US — the federal government would keep the money. More countries, in addition to Malawi and Zambia, are expected to be added to the list. The bond requirement is slated to take effect for those two countries starting on August 20. 'This targeted, common-sense measure reinforces the administration's commitment to US immigration law while deterring visa overstays,' State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said on Tuesday. President Donald Trump has taken a hardline approach to immigration since his return to office in January for a second term. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order called 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion', which was denounced the 'unprecedented flood of illegal immigration' into the US. It pledged to forcefully execute US immigration laws. That executive order was ultimately cited as the basis for the new visa bonds. The bonds are part of a pilot programme announced on Monday, slated to last 12 months. 'This [temporary final rule] addresses the Trump Administration's call to protect the American people by faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States,' a filing to the Federal Register reads. Every year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) releases a report about visa overstays in the US. The most recent report, released in 2024, found that there were 565,155 visa overstays for fiscal year 2023. That amounted to only 1.45 percent of the total non-immigrant admissions into the US. 'In other words, 98.55 percent of the in-scope nonimmigrant visitors departed the United States on-time and in accordance with the terms of their admission,' the report explains. In its breakdown of country-by-country overstay rates, the report indicated that both Malawi and Zambia had relatively high visa overstay rates, at 14.3 and 11.1 percent respectively. But Zambia and Malawi are both smaller countries with relatively few tourism- or business-related arrivals in the US. According to the report, only 1,655 people arrived from Malawi in fiscal year 2023 for business or pleasure. Of that total, 237 overstayed their visas. Meanwhile, 3,493 people arrived from Zambia for tourism or business during the same time frame. Of that total, 388 surpassed their visa limits. Those numbers are dwarfed by the sheer numbers from larger, more populous countries with larger consumer bases. An estimated 20,811 Brazilians stayed in the US longer than their tourism or business visas allowed, for instance, and 40,884 overstays were from Colombia. Critics have also pointed out that the newly imposed bonds put travel to the US — already a pricey prospect — further out of reach for residents of poorer countries. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an advocacy group, was among those that denounced the new bond scheme as discriminatory. It described the system as a form of exploitation — a 'legalised shakedown' — in a statement on Tuesday. 'This is not about national security,' said Robert McCaw, CAIR's government affairs director. 'It's about weaponizing immigration policy to extort vulnerable visitors, punish disfavored countries, and turn America's welcome mat into a paywall.' Citizens of countries that are part of the US's visa waiver programmes are not subject to the visa bonds unveiled this week.

Rwanda agrees to accept ‘third-country' deportations from the US
Rwanda agrees to accept ‘third-country' deportations from the US

Al Jazeera

time3 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Rwanda agrees to accept ‘third-country' deportations from the US

Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country. On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals. Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency. But the Trump administration's efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to 'third-party countries' they have no personal connections to. Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants. Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a 'dumping ground' for migrants with criminal records. In this week's statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,' she said. 'Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' Trump's mass deportation campaign In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country's population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million. But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort. In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his 'One Big Beautiful Bill', which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors. An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses. But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations. Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals. Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to 'third-party countries' where they may not even speak the language. Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp. Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump's allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices. El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented. The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge's order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place. Deportations to Africa In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start 'third-party' deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights. Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds. The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US. But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to. That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals. Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan. The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them 'sickos' and 'barbaric'. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4. The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent. They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan's custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal. 'The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,' the justices wrote, calling the government's actions 'flagrantly unlawful'. In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen. 'This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,' administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media. Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison. Cosying up to Trump? Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights. Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known. Rwanda also has set parameters for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete. But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration. In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda's support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC. The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development. In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government's recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that 'appeasing President Trump pays'. Muganwa explained that Tuesday's agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries' shared bond. 'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said. Rwanda previously struck a deal in 2022 with the United Kingdom to accept asylum seekers from that country. But the British Supreme Court nixed the agreement in 2023, ruling that Rwanda was not a safe third country to send asylum seekers to.

Trump accuses banks of discriminating against his supporters
Trump accuses banks of discriminating against his supporters

Al Jazeera

time5 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Trump accuses banks of discriminating against his supporters

United States President Donald Trump said he believes that banks discriminate against him and his supporters, adding that Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase had previously refused to accept his deposits. 'They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,' he told CNBC in an interview on Tuesday. 'I think the word might be Trump supporters more than conservatives.' Trump made the comments when asked about a report by the Wall Street Journal that said he planned to punish banks that discriminated against conservatives, but did not address the order specifically. The order instructs regulators to review banks for 'politicized or unlawful debanking' practices, according to a draft reviewed by the Reuters news agency. 'Well, they did discriminate,' Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan Chase after his first term in office. 'I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash … and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.'' Trump said, without providing evidence, that he believed that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former US President Joe Biden had encouraged banking regulators to 'destroy Trump'. Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with Bank of America and was also refused, and eventually split the cash among a number of smaller banks. 'The banks discriminated against me very badly,' he said. In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claim that it had discriminated against him. 'We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,' JPMorgan said. 'We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' Bank of America declined to comment. 'Reputational risk' During Biden's administration, regulators could have asked the banks why they were providing banking services to Trump because of the 'reputational risk' issue, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters news agency. Another source said that banks were under intense scrutiny and pressure with regards to what qualified as a reputational risk for banks and they needed to be careful due to Trump's legal entanglements. The source also added that at present JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back to years ago and that they also bank a number of campaign accounts related to Trump. After Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider 'reputational risk' when examining banks, scrapping a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. The Wall Street Journal reported late on Monday that the expected executive order would instruct regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions breach the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws by dropping customers for political reasons. It said the order could be signed as early as this week, authorising monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures against violators. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. Trump in January said the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America denied services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'This seems to be rhetoric that will likely be forgotten by lunchtime,' said David Wagner, head of equities at Aptus Capital Advisors. 'I don't see any material impact on banks, as there are many other drivers that will ultimately presage performance for banks, such as deregulation.' Both banks' stocks are taking a hit on Wall Street. As of 11am in New York (15:00 GMT), JP MorganChase is down 1.6 percent and Bank of America is down 1.4 percent. While Wells Fargo was not named in particular, the competing financial institution's stock is down 1.3 percent as well. Markets respond Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about 'debanking' should be aimed at regulators, as they argue that onerous rules and bank supervisors policing firms can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. 'The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,' the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. 'The banking agencies have already taken steps to address issues like reputational risk, and we're hopeful that any forthcoming executive order will reinforce this progress by directing regulators to confront the flawed regulatory framework that gave rise to these concerns in the first place.' In January, Trump claimed that Bank of America was debanking conservatives in a Q&A session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland with Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan. 'I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America,' Trump said at the time. Separately, in March, the Trump Organization, a holding company for the Trump family's business ventures, sued Capital One Financial for closing accounts for what the Trump Organization alleged were political reasons.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store