Maryland Gov. Wes Moore says tariffs on Canada, Mexico are deeply problematic for Port of Baltimore
The Port of Baltimore, one of the nation's busiest port facilities, supports thousands of local jobs and brings in billions of dollars worth of goods, especially car parts and produce, according to Maryland economists.
Moore said Maryland businesses and consumers are bracing for higher costs on imported goods.
"It's going to have a huge impact. In fact, it already has," Moore said. "Canada is our largest partner, it's our largest domestic producer, for the state of Maryland, and we are going to throw blanket tariffs, on Canada?"
According to the state of Maryland, in 2024, the Port of Baltimore handled 45.9 million tons of international cargo valued at $62.2 billion. Nationally, Baltimore ranks 10th for tonnage of international cargo and 11th for total dollar value, the state reports.
Now, the Trump administration has imposed new 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, adding to an existing 10% on Chinese imports.
"This is deeply problematic what we are seeing with this unnecessary and self-imposed trade war," Moore said.
According to CBS News, experts say the new tax on imports could drive up the costs of consumer goods, including groceries and automobiles.
A typical American family could face higher annual costs of between $1,600 to $2,000 due to the new tariffs, according to CBS News, citing a new analysis from the Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan public policy research center.
Moore says the supplies coming in will directly impact Marylanders' wallets.
"I think this is having this deep and disastrous impact on, not just the business community, but on the price and cost of goods that everyday Marylanders are feeling, whether you are going to the grocery store or whether you are getting your prescription drugs."
Rising costs with tariffs
According to CBS News, products imported directly from Canada, Mexico and China could see price hikes as businesses pass along the tariff costs, either in full or in part, to consumers.
There are some products made in the United States that use imported materials, including vehicles, which could cause a price hike.
According to CBS News, citing GasBuddy energy analyst Patrick De Haan, consumers could see higher prices for some products fairly quickly, such as gasoline, with some regions expected to see gas prices jump as much as 40 cents per gallon within days.
De Haan says drivers in the Northeast are likely to see the biggest immediate impact, with gas prices jumping by between 20 to 40 cents per gallon by mid-March.
Experts tell CBS News that other goods, including cars, might not reflect higher prices for several months.
CBS News, citing the Anderson Economic Group (AEG), a Michigan-based economic consultancy, reports the sweeping tariffs could drive up car costs by as much as $12,200 for some models.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that in 2023, the U.S. imported more than $45 billion worth of agricultural products from Mexico, and nearly three-quarters of those imports consisted of vegetables, fruit, beer, tequila and other drinks.
Key Bridge collapse
The Port of Baltimore and the nation's supply chain were impacted when Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed on March 26, 2024, killing five construction workers who fell into the Patapsco River.
The main channel to the Port of Baltimore was blocked for weeks, which prohibited major cargo ships from docking at the port. The main passageway for commercial ships was fully reopened on June 11, 2024, after about 50,000 tons of bridge wreckage was removed from the Patapsco River.
Portworkers strike
In October 2024, portworkers along the East Coast, including at the Port of Baltimore, went on strike.
At least 25,000 port workers, with more than 2,000 in Baltimore, at 14 ports along the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico, initiated a strike after a new labor agreement between the International Longshoremen's Association and the US Maritime Alliance wasn't reached.
Fortunately, the strike only lasted three days. The union stopped its strike after securing a pay raise of 61.5% over the next six years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Economists Flip To Trump's Side After Jobs Data–And Jerome Powell Is Now In Trouble
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Just two days after Fed Chair Jerome Powell refused to pre-commit to a September rate cut, the U.S. labor market did it for him. SPY ETF breaks past support. See real-time price here. A weak July jobs report and the biggest downward 2-month revisions since 2020 have economists—and markets—racing to President Donald Trump's side on calling for lower interest rates. Labor Data Breaks Down And Manufacturing Is Not Helping Either The U.S. economy added just 73,000 jobs in July, far below the 110,000 expected. But the real shock came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revising May and June non-farm payrolls down by a combined 258,000—erasing what were thought to be solid job gains. This is the largest two-month revision since the COVID-19 shock in 2020. Trending: Be part of the breakthrough that could replace plastic as we know it— Private-sector job growth was narrowly concentrated, driven largely by healthcare, while government payrolls fell by 10,000. The unemployment rate edged up to 4.2%, reversing June's drop. Wages, however, remained hot. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% month-over-month and 3.9% year-over-year, both beating forecasts. Still, signs of underlying weakness in the labor force—especially due to declining immigration—are mounting. Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturing continues to struggle, signaling ongoing headwinds from tariff-driven uncertainty. The ISM Manufacturing PMI decreased to 48 in July 2025, down from 49 in June and below the expected level of 49.5. It marked the fifth straight month of contraction and the lowest reading since October 2024. Wall Street Moves To The Dovish Side Markets are now fully pricing in two rate cuts by December, with the chance of a September 25-basis-point cut surging to 76% Friday, more than double Thursday's odds. Oxford Economics' Nancy Vanden Houten said the weak July report and historic revisions "raise the odds of a Fed rate cut in September." She warned that slower labor force growth, especially among foreign-born workers, may mask deeper structural issues."The foreign-born labor force has shrunk by 1.2 million in just six months," she said, linking the decline to the Trump administration's immigration policies. "Powell's take on September not being a live meeting might be under revision as we speak," said BOK Financial's analyst Steve Wyett, citing the sharp downward revisions. David Russell, analyst at TradeStation, indicated that "huge negative revisions undermine beliefs about the strength of the labor market," but warned that "there are still signs of stagflation, with hourly earnings up more than expected." Jamie Cox, managing partner for Harris Financial Group, weighed in. "Powell is going to regret holding rates steady this week. September is a lock for a rate cut—and it might even be 50 basis points." Bill Adams, chief economist at Comerica Bank, struck a more cautious tone. He said the weak July jobs report adds pressure on the Fed to cut rates later this year, but warned the decision "isn't a slam dunk." Adams said the Fed will closely watch the August jobs report and inflation data before making its next move. Yields on two-year Treasury bonds, which are highly sensitive to interest-rate expectations, tumbled 22 basis points to 3.75%, eyeing the largest intraday drop since August 2024. The U.S. dollar index – as closely tracked by the Invesco DB USD Index Bullish Fund ETF (NYSE:UUP) – fell 1.2% by 10:30 a.m. in New York, trimming weekly gains. Read Next: $100k+ in investable assets? Match with a fiduciary advisor for free to learn how you can maximize your retirement and save on taxes – no cost, no obligation. Arrived Home's Private Credit Fund's has historically paid an annualized dividend yield of 8.1%*, which provides access to a pool of short-term loans backed by residential real estate with just a $100 minimum. Photo: Shutterstock This article Economists Flip To Trump's Side After Jobs Data–And Jerome Powell Is Now In Trouble originally appeared on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
6 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'
24 minutes ago
Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor Julio Frenk called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty and staff," he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter the federal government "claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.
