US TikTok Creators Say Tariffs Adding Huge Costs to New Dresses
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
"The tariffs are coming for my fashion and I don't know what to do," TikTok creator Ayan Broomfield said in a recent viral video, when she received a "fees and taxes," bill of $1115.98 after purchasing two items from the Scandinavian brand, Arakii.
Newsweek has reached out to Arakii and Broomfield for comment.
Why It Matters
On April 2, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping tariff agenda on what he dubbed "Liberation Day." The White House has said that the wide-reaching tariffs have been introduced to tackle "large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits," and while varying rates have been imposed on the majority of U.S. trade partners, a baseline 10-percent tariff on all U.S. imports is active.
Person wears a grey dress during Paris Fashion Week on March 11, 2025 in Paris, France.
Person wears a grey dress during Paris Fashion Week on March 11, 2025 in Paris, France.Shortly after Trump was elected for his second term, Google searches for 'Who pays for tariffs,' spiked. Though they are being levied on foreign goods, tariffs are typically paid by U.S. businesses that import those goods, not by foreign governments or companies. Usually, importers will pass costs on to consumers via higher prices, which means that American shoppers will often bear the financial brunt.
What To Know
"I ordered this beautiful dress because I'm a 2026 bride," the creator Jessica Clark shared in a TikTok video which has been viewed 1.6 million times as of reporting. Clark had purchased a dress from the London based company Odd Muse.
Newsweek has reached out to Odd Muse and Clark for comment.
"I checked out, it was $225 dollars so it was already kind of a splurge," Clark said in the video. "This morning I woke up seeing that my package has arrived in the United States and that I owe a tariff bill of $325."
In a follow up video, Clark shared the bill she had received and said "I'm amazed by how many people think this is not even real, it is."
"I don't blame the company, I think they're trying to figure it out as we go," Clark added.
Odd Muse state on their website that they are not responsible for any "any import duties, taxes, customs fees, brokerage fees or any other charges issued by your local government."
The owner of Odd Muse, Aimee Small shared a video in April where she said she wouldn't be moving production out of China, and shared a heartfelt message to the team there, writing that it is "not just business."
Under the question 'Who pays for Customs, Duties and Taxes,' on the 'Frequently Asked Questions' section on their website, Odd Muse states that 'Odd Muse London is not responsible for any import duties, taxes, customs fees, brokerage fees or any other charges issued by your local government. These charges are the responsibility of the recipient and the funds are received exclusively by your local government.'
In a video which has been viewed 2.7 million times as of reporting, Broomfield said that she had ordered two pieces from the brand Arakii. "They were a little bit on the pricier side but I thought they were beautiful pieces so I wanted to get them," she said, adding that the total of the purchase had come to $685.
"Then about five days later I received an email and it was like, UPS is gonna come and deliver it, but you owe money...I click on the link and it had the audacity to say that I owed $1115.98 American."
As of reporting, there is a message at the top of the website on Arakii website which reads "U.S. customers, please check your new regulations regarding import taxes."
On the Arakii website's 'Shipping and Returns' section, it states that in the U.S., orders under $800 are "not subject to import duties or taxes," and that orders over $800 might be subject to Import duties or taxes."
However, it notes that products made in China which are shipped into the U.S. "may no longer qualify for duty-free entry under the $800 de minimis threshold. This means that even if your order total is under $800, you may still be charged import duties or taxes upon delivery."
What People Are Saying
Jessica Clark, speaking in her viral TikTok video: "If you are ordering from a company where you are not sure where they are manufactured, you need to check."
Ayan Broomfield, speaking in her viral TikTok video: "I literally owe them eleven hundred dollars... this is just a PSA, make sure you're looking at where your pieces are sourced from, else you're gonna get hit with a crazy tariff fine, or tax."
Odd Muse on the FAQ section on their website: "Odd Muse London is not responsible for any import duties, taxes, customs fees, brokerage fees or any other charges issued by your local government. These charges are the responsibility of the recipient and the funds are received exclusively by your local government.'
Arakii on the 'Shipping/Returns,' section on their website: "Charges are determined by U.S. Customs and are not controlled by us. It is the customer's responsibility to check the latest regulations before placing an order.
What's Next
On Monday May 12, it was announced that China and the U.S. have agreed to pause their reciprocal tariffs for 90 days, with both sides decreasing their rates by 115 percent, taking the tariffs imposed by Trump down to 30 percent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
a few seconds ago
- Boston Globe
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection. Advertisement In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20 percent tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).' Schumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible' power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' Advertisement But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the US Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on Advertisement The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 US states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average US tariff to more than 18 percent, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. The attorney general for one of the states suing Trump sounded confident after the hearing, arguing that the judges 'didn't buy' the Trump administration's arguments. 'You would definitely rather be in our shoes going forward,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. Rayfield said that Trump's tariffs — which are paid by importers in the United States who often try to pass along the higher costs to their customers — amount to one of the largest tax increases in American history. 'This was done all by one human being sitting in the Oval Office,' he said.
USA Today
a few seconds ago
- USA Today
Trump brings back dreaded Presidential Fitness Test. Let's see him run a mile.
Many of us look back on this once-mandatory fitness test with fond memories of the fear and anxiety it provoked and the feelings of inadequacy we healthily buried in the deepest recesses of our minds. President Donald Trump is following through on his bold commitment to traumatize all Americans, regardless of age, by reinstating the Presidential Fitness Test for school children. Many of us look back on this once-mandatory fitness test with fond memories of the fear and anxiety it provoked and the feelings of inadequacy we healthily buried in the deepest recesses of our minds. For me, a middle schooler who wore jeans cruelly labeled 'Husky,' running one mile in the Florida heat and finishing close to last while crying undoubtedly forged me into the man I am today: a chiseled physical specimen with fabulously low self-esteem and an abundance of insecurity. The fitness test – which included everything from push-ups to sit-ups to the aforementioned run – started in the 1960s, back when emotionally torturing children was legal. It invariably pitted the jocks against the non-jocks and made those who couldn't excel at the various exercises feel like week-old meatloaf. Obama rightly did away with the dreaded Presidential Fitness Test... President Barack Obama ended the program in 2012, replacing it with an approach to fitness that focused on the abilities of individual students and encouraged healthier lifelong behavior. Opinion: Insecure Trump knows he'll never measure up to Obama. And it kills him. Trump, naturally, wants to return America to its imagined glory days, back when bullying was encouraged and physical fitness centered around exercises we now know can lead to gym-aversion and a lifetime of lower back pain. ...so of course, Trump is bringing the traumatic test back On July 31, the president famous for his love of fast food and riding around a golf course slumped-over the steering wheel of a motorized cart proudly signed an executive order telling American schoolchildren to stop being such puny weaklings. 'This was a wonderful tradition," Trump said incorrectly, "and we're bringing it back." Opinion: Trump's mental decline is on vivid display as he rages about Epstein, windmills Because sanity died earlier this year, Trump is putting Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a sentient slab of beef jerky who eats road kill, in charge of the new test, which one can assume will involve challenges like: drinking a gallon of raw milk then waiting to see if you die from a listeria infection, running away from scientific evidence, and swimming a half-mile in a sewage pond. Trump and 'fitness' don't exactly seem to go together As a Presidential Fitness Test victim and survivor, I wholeheartedly endorse Trump's decision to bring back this dreadful idea, under one condition: Donald Trump must run one mile on live television. That's it. That's the deal. People around Trump are constantly bragging about how healthy and robust and amazing he is, even though he looks like he'd get winded walking to the chicken nuggets chafing dish at the Mar-a-Lago buffet. Fox News host Jesse Watters recently said: "Trump golfs. He has dad strength. You know dad strength? He doesn't look like he's in shape, but then he grabs you – one time my father grabbed me, and I was like, 'Oh, my God this guy is stronger than I am!'" We can delve more into the daddy issues behind that weird comment another time, but for now I say this: Let's see Trump crush a one-mile run. We can make it a global pay-per-view event and likely make enough to pay down the national debt Trump has swollen with his big, beautiful tax bill. If our "strong" president wants to bring back a dreaded and pointless fitness test, he needs to put his jogging loafers where his mouth is. On your mark, get set ... everybody laugh. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
Atlantic
2 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Warped Idealism of Trump's Trade Policy
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Tomorrow is Donald Trump's deadline to agree to trade deals before he imposes tariffs, and he means it this time. Why are you laughing? (In fact, since saying that yesterday, he's already chickened out with Mexico, putting the 'taco' in, well, TACO.) But the president has already written off hopes of reaching agreements with some allies. Yesterday, Trump announced that he was raising tariffs on many Brazilian goods to 50 percent across the board, as retribution for Brazil's prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. This morning, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Prime Minister Mark Carney's decision to recognize a Palestinian state 'will make it very hard' to strike a deal with Canada. The president's perpetual caving can make him seem craven and opportunistic, but you can detect a different impulse in his handling of trade policy too: a warped kind of idealism. When Trump began his political career, he said he would put ' America First,' rather than using American power to enforce values overseas. Wars to fight repressive autocrats were foolish ways to burn cash and squander American lives. The promotion of human rights and democracy were soft-headed, bleeding-heart causes. Trump, a man of business, was going to look out for the bottom line without getting tangled up in high-minded crusades. Now that's exactly what he's doing: using trade as a way to make grand statements about values—his own, if not America's. This is troubling on legal, moral, and diplomatic levels. The Constitution specifically delegates the power to levy tariffs to Congress, but legislators have delegated some of that capacity to the president. Trump has invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows him to impose tariffs in response to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat,' on the basis that Congress cannot act quickly enough. This use of the law is, as Conor Friedersdorf and Ilya Somin wrote in The Atlantic in May, absurd. The White House's months of vacillation on its tariff threats since make the idea of any emergency even less credible. Understanding why Trump would be sensitive about Bolsonaro's prosecution, which stems from Bolsonaro's attempt to cling to power after losing the 2022 election, is not difficult—the parallels between the two have been often noted—but that doesn't make it a threat to the United States, much less an 'unusual and extraordinary' one. Likewise, Canadian recognition of a Palestinian state is unwelcome news for Trump's close alliance with Israel, but it poses no obvious security or economic danger to the U.S. A Congress or Supreme Court interested in limiting presidential power could seize on these statements to arrest Trump's trade war, but these are not the legislators or justices we have. Setting aside the legal problems, Trump's statements about Brazil and Canada represent an abandonment of the realpolitik approach he once promised. Even if Carney were to back down on Palestinian statehood, or Brazil to call off Bolsonaro's prosecution, the United States wouldn't see any economic gain. Trump is purely using American economic might to achieve noneconomic goals. Previous presidents have frequently used U.S. economic hegemony to further national goals—or, less charitably, interfered in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations. But no one needs to accept any nihilistic false equivalences. Trump wrote in a July 9 letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva that the case against Bolsonaro was 'an international disgrace' and (naturally) a 'Witch Hunt.' Although the U.S. has taken steps to isolate repressive governments, Trump's attempts to bail out Bolsonaro are nothing of the sort. The U.S. can't with a straight face argue that charging Bolsonaro is improper, and it can't accuse Brazil of convicting him in a kangaroo court, because no trial has yet been held. The U.S. government has also long used its power to bully other countries into taking its side in international disputes, but the swipe at Canada is perplexing. The Trump administration remains the most stalwart ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (notwithstanding some recent tensions), and the U.S. government has long withheld recognition of any Palestinian state as leverage in negotiations. Even so, slapping tariffs on Canada for a symbolic decision such as this seems unlikely to dissuade Carney or do anything beyond further stoking nascent Canadian nationalism. This is not the only way in which Trump's blunt wielding of tariffs is likely to backfire on the United States. Consumers in the U.S. will pay higher prices, and overseas, Jerusalem Demsas warned in April, 'the credibility of the nation's promises, its treaties, its agreements, and even its basic rationality has evaporated in just weeks.' But it's not just trust with foreign countries that the president has betrayed. It's the pact he made with voters. Trump promised voters an 'America First' approach. Instead, they're getting a 'Bolsonaro and Netanyahu First' government. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Virginia Giuffre's family was shocked that Trump described her as 'stolen.' Every scientific empire comes to an end. Hamas wants Gaza to starve. Today's News President Donald Trump's tariffs are set to take effect tomorrow as his administration scrambles to finalize trade deals with key partners. Mexico received a 90-day extension, while other countries, including China and Canada, remain in negotiations. Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, and Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee will visit Gaza tomorrow to inspect aid distribution as the humanitarian crisis worsens in the region. Dispatches Evening Read By Katherine J. Wu For decades, evolutionary biologists pointed to such examples to cast hybridization as hapless—'rare, very unsuccessful, and not an important evolutionary force,' Sandra Knapp, a plant taxonomist at the Natural History Museum in London, told me. But recently, researchers have begun to revise that dour view. With the right blend of genetic material, hybrids can sometimes be fertile and spawn species of their own; they can acquire new abilities that help them succeed in ways their parents never could. Which, as Knapp and her colleagues have found in a new study, appears to be the case for the world's third-most important staple crop: The 8-to-9-million-year-old lineage that begat the modern potato may have arisen from a chance encounter between a flowering plant from a group called Etuberosum and … an ancient tomato. Tomatoes, in other words, can now justifiably be described as the mother of potatoes. More From The Atlantic Take a look. These photos capture moments from the 2025 World Aquatics Championships in Singapore, where more than 2,500 athletes from over 200 nations competed in events spanning six aquatic sports.
