US supreme court rules key provision of Obamacare constitutional
The US supreme court has ruled that a key provision of 'Obamacare', formally known as the Affordable Care Act, is constitutional. The case challenged how members of an obscure but vital healthcare committee are appointed.
The committee, the US Preventive Services Task Force, is a panel of 16 volunteer health experts who determine which evidence-based preventive health services private insurance companies must cover without cost for patients.
The requirement is a provision of the ACA – and one of the few instances when privately insured American patients pay nothing for healthcare.
Critically, the court also held that members of the task force can be removed at will by the health secretary, and that the secretary may review their recommendations before they take effect.
The court issued the opinion in a 6-3 ruling. The opinion was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and joined by John Roberts, Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In 2020 alone, an estimated 150 million Americans benefitted from the preventive healthcare provision, according to the O'Neill Institute at the Georgetown University law center in Washington DC. Although the provision requires insurers to cover a wide range of services – from annual check-ups to cancer screenings and immunizations – the case centered on the provision of Prep, or pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV.
A small group of plaintiffs claimed provision of PrEP violated their religious beliefs. They were represented by Jonathan Mitchell, the former solicitor general of Texas who pioneered the state's 'bounty hunter' abortion law.
Their arguments were backed by Republican and conservative groups, although the specific ACA provision was defended by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Major public health groups, hospitals, disease advocacy groups and Democratic attorneys general opposed ending the provision.
More details soon …
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
Senate Republicans seek to end EV tax credit by September 30
June 28 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans late Friday released a revised a tax and budget bill that would end the $7,500 tax credit on new electric vehicle sales and leases on Sept. 30 as well as the $4,000 tax credit for used EVs. The prior proposal would have ended the credit for new and used sales 180 days after the bill was signed into law and immediately ended the credit for leased vehicles not assembled in North America and meeting other requirements. Republicans have taken aim at EVs on a number of fronts, a reversal from former President Joe Biden's policy that encouraged electric vehicles and renewable energy to fight climate change and reduce emissions.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Inside a plan to use AI to amplify doubts about the dangers of pollutants
An industry-backed researcher who has forged a career sowing doubt about the dangers of pollutants is attempting to use artificial intelligence (AI) to amplify his perspective. Louis Anthony 'Tony' Cox Jr, a Denver-based risk analyst and former Trump adviser who once reportedly claimed there is no proof that cleaning air saves lives, is developing an AI application to scan academic research for what he sees as the false conflation of correlation with causation. Cox has described the project as an attempt to weed 'propaganda' out of epidemiological research and perform 'critical thinking at scale' in emails to industry researchers, which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests by the Energy and Policy Institute, a non-profit advocacy group, and exclusively reviewed by the Guardian. He has long leveled accusations of flimsiness at research linking exposure to chemical compounds with health dangers, including on behalf of polluting interests such as cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA and the American Petroleum Institute – a fossil fuel lobbying group he has even allowed to 'copy edit' his findings. (Cox says the edit 'amounted to suggesting a small change' and noted that he has also obtained public research funding.) Both the tobacco and oil industries have a history of weaponizing scientific uncertainty, experts say, with some arguing that similar tactics drive the Trump administration's current deregulatory efforts. The president's May 'gold standard' science order, for instance, empowered his appointees to 'correct scientific information' and 'discipline' those who breach the administration's views, prompting outrage from some scientists. Cox has obtained funding to develop the new AI reviewer from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the nation's largest chemical industry advocacy group, which counts oil and chemical giants such as Exxon and DuPont as members. Experts say the ACC's sponsorship raises questions about whom the project will benefit. Asked about these concerns, Kelly Montes de Oca, spokesperson for the ACC, said: 'This research has the potential to support scientific understanding and analysis of chemical exposure and human health, enhance transparency and reproducibility, advance the safety of chemical products and processes, and inform science-based global regulatory approaches.' Cox said in an email to the Guardian that his assistant 'is specifically designed to be helpful to those who wish to understand the objective implications of data without any distortions from the kinds of well-known human heuristics and biases that make objective analysis difficult for humans'. 'My work aims to help anyone interested in using sound technical methods to pursue scientific truth,' he added. The questions sent to him by the Guardian contained 'many fundamental inaccuracies', he said. Cox said the tool is currently being tested on submissions to academic journals – including Risk Analysis, which he edits – to evaluate research submissions before they are submitted to the peer review process. Asked for a response to concerns about the project's funding, Cox said that he has publicly acknowledged the ACC's support in all relevant publications and said the tool 'has no axe to grind and no positions to push'. But the ACC is not a neutral force, said Chris Frey, the associate dean for research and infrastructure at the North Carolina State University's College of Engineering who chaired the Environmental Protection Agency's clean air scientific advisory committee from 2012 to 2015. 'They lack impartiality in that they want to minimize regulatory burden on their members,' said Frey. In mid-February of 2023, Cox struck up a conversation with the AI assistant ChatGPT. He later sent the chat to his University of Colorado email address, which is subject to public record request laws. After asking the chatbot to write a sonnet about Abraham Lincoln, he turned the conversation to a more serious topic: the tiny toxic particles known as PM2.5, also known as fine particulate matter. Scientists have long found links between PM2.5 exposure and a wide variety of health concerns, from asthma and lung disease to heart attacks. But for years, Cox has raised uncertainty about those connections, publishing work 're-assessing' the mortality risks associated with exposure to the pollutant in animal agriculture and challenging the link between PM2.5 from gas stoves and childhood asthma. On that February day, Cox asked ChatGPT a simple question: 'Does PM2.5 cause lung cancer?' The bot responded by noting the 'strong scientific evidence' demonstrating the link. A seemingly dissatisfied Cox went on to ask if it is 'known with certainty that PM2.5 causes lung cancer', calling on ChatGPT to identify potential confounding factors in the research on the air pollutant. He took brief tangents to pose riddles to the bot and to request additional sonnets – including one about PM2.5 itself, yielding the line 'no nose can catch you, for you are so fine'. Eventually, Cox asked ChatGPT whether the association between PM2.5 and lung cancer can be explained by a 'combination of residual confounding, measurement errors, and modeling biases'. The bot maintained that 'the observed association is likely to be real and not fully explained by these factors'. From a conversation Cox had with ChatGPT in February 2023 Write a sonnet about PM2.5 and lung cancer Oh, deadly PM2.5 in the air, So small and yet so full of poison's might, A silent killer that we cannot bear, You infiltrate our lungs both day and night At the time of the conversation, Cox had already been interested for years in making 'smarter and more trustworthy AI', he told the Guardian. He had published a paper on the topic in 2021, and the following year – months before ChatGPT's release – had begun developing his own AI tool. The ACC had partly funded that work, he said. Cox also had a meeting with the Long-Range Research Initiative, a lobbying group focused on 'innovations in chemical safety science' which includes Exxon, just hours before he had the February 2023 ChatGPT conversation, the emails show. In an email seeking funding to develop an AI tool, Cox seemingly referenced that 'long experimental chat'. Among the recipients were George Maldonado, the editor of the academic journal Global Epidemiology, and ACC toxicologist Rick Becker. Cox wrote in the email that his questions eventually led ChatGPT to 'concede that we don't actually know that PM2.5 at current ambient levels causes lung cancer in humans – but it was a struggle to get there!' The chatbot 'does an excellent job of reflecting the 'party line' that is most prevalent on the web, fallacies and all', Cox continued in the email. But new AI software could be used to do ''critical thinking at scale' (if I may be grandiose!)', he said. The following day, Cox emailed a larger group of researchers, including Becker and two ExxonMobil scientists. ChatGPT, he wrote, 'seems to me to display a very strong starting bias that can eventually be overcome by sufficiently patient questioning'. That bias involved conflating 'evidence of association with evidence of causation', he said. From an email Cox sent to industry researchers in February 2023 We can help bend applications of this technology toward scaled-up critical thinking instead of scaled-up groupthink and propaganda 'I am hoping to build a critical mass of interest and get some funding in this area so that we can help bend applications of this technology toward scaled-up critical thinking instead of scaled-up groupthink and propaganda,' he added. Cox's past work may shed light on the 'groupthink and propaganda' that his work questions. In one 2023 study he co-authored, he found that exposure to the 'forever chemical' known as PFOA can occur in safe doses. The research was conducted with the organization Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, headed by the contentious toxicologist Michael Dourson, who has also received funding from chemical makers. Another study the same year, which Cox co-authored with a Chevron toxicologist, said molybdenum – a petrochemical present in lubricants Chevron produces – was 'not a risk factor for changes in serum testosterone'. And in a third 2023 study, Cox said his research found no link between childhood asthma and gas stove exposure. At a 2018 conference, Cox also claimed there is no proven connection between air pollution and respiratory problems or heart attacks, while he said in a 2012 paper – funded in part by tobacco company Philip Morris USA – that he found smoking half a pack of cigarettes daily did 'not appear to be associated' with increased risk of coronary heart disease. In an email to the Guardian, Cox said the methods he applies are 'drawn from the scientific mainstream – not from ideology or partisanship'. 'Some critics have mischaracterized my work as an attempt to delay regulation or promote industry interests. That is not true,' he said. 'I do not advocate for or against any policy outcome. I advocate for grounding decisions in empirically supported causal understanding.' Cox served as an adviser to policymakers in his role on an EPA advisory committee. He has also argued against the proposed tightening of a regulation at an Occupational Safety and Health Administration hearing, in his capacity as an ACC consultant. Adam Finkel, a risk analyst and environmental health sciences professor at the University of Michigan, said though he believes Cox to be in some ways a 'genius' and skilled risk analyst, he also seems to be 'deceiving himself and everyone else' about the impacts of bias on his research. 'How you interpret any information is by imposing your preferences,' said Finkel, who is also a former director of health standards programs at the US Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 'There is no possible way to get around imposing some set of preferences.' Some degree of uncertainty is inherent to scientific analysis. But when assessing whether or not there is a causal effect between exposure to something potentially harmful, Finkel said, Cox looks for 'perfect certainty', which 'can lead to years and decades of doing nothing and harming people while you wait for the certainty to come'. While Finkel has 'fundamental belief that our system is under-protective' when it comes to public health, Cox seems to believe the opposite. Asked for comment, Cox said: 'I have never advocated that we should not act until we have certainty. Rather, I have advocated choosing to act on the best available information.' He said his work has acknowledged causal relationships between smoking and lung cancer, asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, and, in 2011, crystalline silica exposure and lung disease. But at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration hearing at which he spoke in 2014, Cox asserted on behalf of the ACC that the federal government had not demonstrated a link between certain levels of silica exposure and lung disease. 'He'll accept that at very high doses, this stuff is bad for you,' said Finkel. Policy is meant to ensure that level of exposure doesn't occur, he added. Maldonado, editor of Global Epidemiology, responded positively to Cox's AI assistant proposal, the emails from 2023 show. Within weeks, his journal published another one of Cox's conversations with ChatGPT in his journal. 'The purpose of this comment is to provide an example of a Socratic dialogue with ChatGPT about the causal interpretation of an important epidemiological association between exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5) and mortality risk,' says the paper, which states that it was partly funded by the ACC and counted climate denier Steve Milloy as one of its reviewers. When the bot said 'it is well-established that exposure to ambient levels of PM2.5 does increase mortality risk', Cox accused it of confusing evidence of association with evidence of causation. Eventually, ChatGPT said: 'It is not known with certainty that current ambient levels of PM2.5 increase mortality risk.' But the distinction between correlation and causation is 'epidemiology 101', said Gretchen Goldman, president of the scientific advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, who co-authored a 2019 paper critiquing Cox. 'From day one of a study, researchers consider, analyze and guard against possible confounding factors,' said Goldman. 'This uncertainty is always present, but that of course doesn't mean the research is wrong.' Demonstrating clear causal links between pollutants and health impacts can be complicated, especially because unlike in testing pharmaceuticals, it can be difficult and unethical to establish control groups for comparison. 'If you're looking at the effects on an actual population that's been exposed in real life to pollutants, you can't do those controlled types of studies,' said Frey of North Carolina State University's College of Engineering. 'That leads to thinking about ways to make inferences from real world data that might, for example, mimic a random, controlled trial.' But though demonstrating true causality can be complex, Cox has long overstated scientific uncertainty while downplaying evidence, said Frey. 'Science denialism often sounds convincing because it contains some truthiness to it or elements of truth or elements of valid points, but it's often based on either overemphasis or omission and doesn't portray a full picture,' he said. As chair of EPA's clean air scientific advisory committee during Trump's first presidential term, for instance, Cox proposed eliminating all research from the agency's consideration that did not demonstrate 'manipulative causation', wherein intervention on one variable would change the probability of an outcome. 'I see it as being about using widely accepted, non-controversial principles of causal analysis and inference,' Cox said of his push for this change. But in effect, the alteration would have dramatically and unnecessarily 'winnowed down' the body of evidence to which the EPA could have referred and removed research from consideration which 'in fact robustly' demonstrates that certain compounds cause harm, Frey said. 'That effort and his work generally have not been viewed as compelling by the mainstream scientific community,' he added. Industry interests have promoted uncertainty to defend their business models, Frey said. The oil sector, for instance, had strong evidence that fossil fuels warmed the planet as early as the 1950s yet publicly called the link 'weak' or even 'non-existent' for decades. Cigarette manufacturers also long promoted the idea that the connection between cigarettes and health harms was tenuous, with one tobacco executive even saying in 1969 that 'doubt is our product'. 'It's a well-worn tactic,' said Frey. Cox kept corresponding with industry scientists about his new tool, all the while holding similar conversations with ChatGPT about causation in research. In May 2023, for instance, Cox posed questions about the causal claims in a recent landmark study linking gas stove exposure to childhood asthma, the emails show. Later that month, Cox sent a slideshow to the ACC's Becker and several other industry-related scientists. His reviewer, it showed, had identified issues with the recent gas stoves study, and another major assessment which linked PM2.5 exposure to cardiovascular issues. This tool could 'benefit authors, reviewers, reporters, media (if we make the summary reports good enough), and decision-makers and policymakers trying to evaluate studies and decide how trustworthy their methods and conclusions are', Cox said. In a proposal sent days later, he added that it is 'probably good enough to be commercially useful'. In July 2023, Cox presented his new tool to members of the Long-Range Research Initiative – which also funded his earlier work – including to representatives from Exxon. Ahead of the meeting, Cox sent the group a conversation he had with the reviewer, which used a 2020 paper demonstrating a causal link between PM2.5 and mortality as an example of the kind of conflation his tool could spot. Maldonado, the editor of Global Epidemiology, offered to give the tool a 'friendly trial' at his journal. From an email Cox sent to the American Chemistry Council's Becker in July 2023 Such automated critical reasoning can help to thoroughly review, and potentially to improve, the scientific claims and scientific integrity of causal reasoning and presentation of evidence underlying many regulatory risk assessments After the meeting, Cox sent a two-part project proposal to the ACC. 'Such automated critical reasoning can help to thoroughly review, and potentially to improve, the scientific claims and scientific integrity of causal reasoning and presentation of evidence underlying many regulatory risk assessments,' Cox said. For part one, an academic paper on the project which would be published in Maldonado's Global Epidemiology, he asked for $75,000. For part two, a pilot testing the reviewer on submissions to the same journal, he asked for $80,000. In his response to questions from the Guardian, Cox confirmed the ACC's funding but not a dollar amount. Cox published the 'phase 1' paper about his new AI reviewer in the journal Global Epidemiology in June 2024. He also appears to have secured $40,000 for Global Epidemiology to participate in the second phase, but the partnership 'did not come to fruition' because too few authors were willing to participate, Cox told the Guardian. Maldonado did not respond to a request for comment. By April 2024, Cox told the ACC's Becker in an email that his reviewer tool was 'ready for a demo', claiming its reviews are 'already better than many human reviews, although not as on-point and insightful as the best human reviews'. But in an email last May to toxicologist Ted Simon, Cox said 'the real goal' of the tool was to enable it to do literature reviews, examining wide swaths of published information in a particular subject area. That month, ExxonMobil scientist Hua Qian ran a test of the tool. Now, Cox told the Guardian, the tool was being tested by researchers submitting work to the journal he edits, Risk Analysis, and other academic journals, including Decision Analysis. About 400 people have tested the tool so far. Itai Vardi, a manager at the Energy and Policy Institute, who shared the trove of emails with the Guardian, said the project could have disastrous consequences for academia, particularly epidemiology. 'AI language models are not programmed, but built and trained,' he said, 'and when in the hands and funding of this industry, can be dangerous as they will further erode public trust and understanding of this crucial science.' Asked about critics' concerns about the ACC's funding for the project, Cox said: 'People who are concerned about the use of sound science in areas where politics has dominated might understandably be concerned about the use of such tools.' But people should 'favor the development' of the AI tool if they want to 'apply sound science to improve our understanding of the world and how to act more effectively', he said. 'The fact that the ACC … are starting to step up to the challenge of designing AI to increase the objectivity, transparency, and trustworthiness of scientific research seems to me to be a great public benefit,' he said. But the ACC 'cannot be trusted as a source of 'objectivity, transparency, and trustworthiness of scientific research',' said Frey, when that research is 'aimed at understanding the human health harms caused by chemicals manufactured by their members'. And for him, Cox's use of the term 'sound science' also prompted concern. ''Sound science' is a term popularized by the tobacco industry as part of a campaign to create burdens of proof far beyond those required for policy decisions,' Frey said. Indeed, in the 1990s, Philip Morris USA – for whom Cox has done research – ran a 10-year 'sound science' public relations campaign to sow doubt about the harm cigarettes cause. In an email to the Guardian, Cox noted that 'reputable scientists' use the term to refer to reliable, verifiable research that follows accepted scientific methods. He dismissed the idea that causation can be difficult to prove in epidemiology. 'My response to people who are concerned that we should treat evidence of repeated associations as if it were evidence of interventional causality is that this outdated style of thinking is tremendously harmful and counterproductive in designing effective measures to successfully protect human health and safety,' he said. Asked for examples of harmful policies created by overreliance on association, Cox named several scientific studies, including a 1996 experiment which was stopped because interventions that were expected to slash participants' chances of getting lung cancer 'based on repeatedly observed associations' actually increased that risk. He did not name any policies. Other experts note that regulations and policies are not meant to require proof of causality – the Clean Air Act, for instance, says standards 'allowing an adequate margin of safety … are requisite to protect the public health'. Cox, however, has critiqued proposals to strengthen controls on pollution on the grounds of imperfectly demonstrated causality. It is the sort of logic that Cox's new AI tool could automate, which could benefit corporate interests, said Vardi of the Energy and Policy Institute. The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know. If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods. Secure Messaging in the Guardian app The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said. If you don't already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select 'Secure Messaging'. SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post See our guide at for alternative methods and the pros and cons of each. 'Instead of having scientists-for-hire do that denial work, which advances their economic interests, the industry is funding efforts to outsource it to a machine in order to give it an image of unbiased neutrality,' Vardi said. Cox, for his part, said: 'A scientist-for-hire could use such an AI system to check whether the conclusions affirmed or denied in a scientific paper follow from the data and analyses presented, but my AI systems don't concern themselves with affirming or denying any specific positions or conclusions. That is left for people to do.' Though Cox claims his AI tool is neutral, Finkel said his early ChatGPT conversations shed light on its potential dangers. 'He was torturing the machine only along one set of preferences, which is: 'Can I force you to admit that we are being too protective?'' Finkel said. 'That's not science.' Cox said his conversations with ChatGPT aimed to uncover hidden uncertainties. But a different chatbot could be trained to identify instances in which government is 'under-regulating', Finkel said. On an academic level, Cox's interest in certainty might seem reasonable, but in the real world, it is dangerous to apply his standard of causality, said Finkel. 'For almost anything that we now know is harmful, there was a period in time when we didn't know that,' he said. If Cox's standards are taken seriously, he added, we could see 'generations, decades of misery while we wait for him to be satisfied'. This article was amended on 27 June 2025. An earlier version referred to the tobacco company 'Philip Morris'; it was has been clarified that this is a reference to Philip Morris USA, rather than Philip Morris International; the latter became a separate company in 2008.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Fireworks will light up this Fourth of July. Next year could be different if tariff talks fizzle
Like clockwork, Carla Johnson sends out letters every spring asking for donations to help pay for the annual Fourth of July fireworks show that draws tens of thousands of people to New Mexico's largest lake. And she has no reservations about doling out verbal reminders when she sees her patrons around town. There's too much at stake to be shy about fundraising when donations collected by Friends of Elephant Butte Lake State Park are what make the tradition possible. But even Johnson's ardent efforts as the group's fundraiser might not cut it next year if the U.S. and China remain locked in a trade war. With nearly all of the aerial shells, paper rockets and sparkly fountains that fuel America's Fourth of July celebrations being imported from China, volunteer groups like Johnson's and cities big and small have been closely watching the negotiations. A 90-day pause on what had been massive tariffs brought some temporary relief, but industry experts acknowledge that the tiff has lit a fuse of uncertainty as the price tag for future fireworks displays could skyrocket if an agreement isn't reached. Not the first time There were similar concerns in 2019 as trade talks between the U.S. and China dragged on. Industry groups had called on officials then to exempt fireworks from escalating tariffs. The American Pyrotechnics Association and the National Fireworks Association reignited the lobbying effort this spring, noting in letters to President Donald Trump that fireworks play a crucial role in American celebrations. The groups say the industry is made up mostly of family-owned companies that are often locked into long-term contracts that leave them unable to raise prices to offset cost surges brought on by higher tariffs. And there are few options for sourcing the more than 300 million pounds (136 million kilograms) of fireworks needed to feed demands. China produces 99% of consumer fireworks and 90% of professional display fireworks used in the U.S., according to the APA. 'I think overall it's the uncertainty,' said Julie Heckman, the APA's executive director. 'Yeah, we have a 90-day pause, but are the negotiations with China going to go well? Or is it going to go sky-high again? You know, triple digits. It's very hard for a small business to plan." How it began Fireworks have their roots in China. To ward off evil spirits, people would throw bamboo stalks into a fire, causing them to pop as the air inside the hollow pockets heated up. These early firecrackers evolved into more sophisticated fireworks after the Chinese developed gunpowder in the 9th century. By the 15th century, Europe was using fireworks for religious festivals and entertainment. In 1777, they were used in Philadelphia and Boston for what were the first organized Independence Day celebrations. Now, fireworks are synonymous with the summer holiday and with ringing in the new year. Shows have become elaborately choreographed displays that are often synced to live music. In Nashville, the Music City's award-winning symphony orchestra puts its own spin on the festivities. In New York City, organizers of the Macy's show will fire off 80,000 shells, with some reaching heights of 1,000 feet (304 meters). The National Park Service promises a spectacular show on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. At Elephant Butte in southern New Mexico, they're going old school and will light the fireworks by hand. Charlie Warren, vice president of the Friends of Elephant Butte Lake State Park, said it's like spectators are getting two shows at once as the colors reflect on the water below and the loud booms reverberate off the lake. Johnson, who also serves as the group's treasurer, gets emotional describing the experience. 'Oh man, in my heart and sometimes out loud, I'm singing the Star-Spangled Banner. I'll sing it out loud to the top of my lungs when I watch that show," she said. 'It makes you proud to be in this country, and we're celebrating our freedom, and I'm going to start crying now. Don't get me started.' Stocking up before the tariffs Organizers in Nashville ordered fireworks for that show over a year ago so they weren't affected by the tariffs. It was the same in one of New Mexico's largest cities, where Rio Rancho officials planned to spend a little more to go bigger and higher this year. In Oklahoma, Big Blast Fireworks supplies nonprofit groups so they can fundraise by setting up fireworks stands. The company received its first container from China in January before the tariffs hit. The second container arrived in February and was subject to a 10% tariff. The third container was put on hold to avoid the highest tariffs, meaning inventory could be tight later this year if nothing changes. 'As a small business, we are passionate about watching our price points and intentional about passing along as much savings on to customers as possible," said Melissa Torkleson, a managing partner at Big Blast. With some orders on hold, industry experts say Chinese manufacturers throttled back production as warehouses filled up. The backup in the supply chain also has resulted in competition for shipping space aboard ocean vessels, and Heckman, the APA's director, said it will take much more than flipping a light switch to ease either situation. If the trade war drags on, she said, there are ways that show organizers can adjust and spectators might not notice. A minute or two could be shaved from a show or certain types of fireworks could be substituted with less expensive options. As for this year, Warren said the price tag for the Elephant Butte show was unchanged and he and Johnson can't wait to see spectators lining the shoreline, on the surrounding hillsides and on boats bobbing on the lake. The mission every year is to make sure 'that the T's are all crossed," Warren said. "Because this community would not be happy if this show didn't come off,' he said.
