logo
Will Trump's tariffs raise prices? Here's how 'Liberation Day' affects imports.

Will Trump's tariffs raise prices? Here's how 'Liberation Day' affects imports.

USA Today31-03-2025

Will Trump's tariffs raise prices? Here's how 'Liberation Day' affects imports.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Mexico-US reach tentative tariff agreement
President Donald Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum have agreed to pause tariffs on Mexican imports for one month.
President Donald Trump's plans to impose reciprocal tariffs and a 25% auto tariff on imports to the United States are likely to slow production and drive up prices, even if he reaches deals to temporarily pause them, as he did in the case of Mexico and Canada.
Trump's decision to levy 20% tariffs on imports from China and 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada earlier this year created uncertainty that is likely to raise prices until a permanent solution is found, said Mike Skordeles, head of U.S. economics at Truist.
While prices are expected to increase across the board, some items will see a price bump more quickly than others. For instance, consumers are likely to pay more for perishable foods sooner than they will pay more for their cars.
The U.S. received 51% of its fresh fruit and 69% of its vegetables from Mexico in 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A one-month pause on 25% tariffs for those items doesn't mean their prices won't rise.
"If I was a producer, I'd say I need to get a little more for that stuff because there is a risk it might get shut down in a month," Skordeles said.
In theory, companies can stockpile some amount of car parts. They can't stockpile avocados, which spoil within a week.
But Dr. Michael Swanson, a Wells Fargo Agri-Food Institute chief agricultural economist, said those price increases might not reach your grocery store until after this weekend's Super Bowl. There may still be time to grab ingredients for guacamole.
"It's unlikely that changes in tariffs will impact prices headed into the Super Bowl, however, we'll see how it plays out in the coming weeks," Swanson told USA TODAY. "This is certainly the year for consumers to stay food fluent."
More: What items will cost more? What to know about Trump's tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China
Oil tariff will affect costs of most products
Trump's originally proposed 10% tariff on Canadian oil, which Skordeles said equates to a roughly 16 cent increase per gallon, would eventually raise the price of almost everything because companies need fuel to transport their products across the country. Retaliatory actions by the three U.S. trade partners are also likely to stir up trouble for American companies.
"This is a mess," Skordeles said. "There are so many unintended consequences."
Tariffs are a tax on the exchange of goods between countries, largely paid for by American companies in this instance. In a world where free trade in North America has been a given for decades, many supply chains, particularly those for cars, involve goods moving across borders before a product is ready to be sold to American consumers.
Trump's originally proposed tariffs were likely to hit those who work in the automotive industry or are looking to buy a car hardest, because passenger vehicles and vehicle parts are some of the top imports the U.S. receives from Canada.
Several car parts may need to travel across the border, sometimes on multiple occasions. Skordeles gave the example of a car company transporting transmissions.
With tariffs in effect, it has to pause each time so U.S. Customs can count how many there are and ensure the correct tariffs are being applied. This process increases costs − costs that are likely to be passed on to consumers − and slows production, which could lead to supply shortages that further drive up prices.
"You might see prices go up not just for new cars but for used ones, too, as any additional scarcity in the market often drives more would-be new shoppers to consider used cars," Cars.com's Stef Schrader told USA TODAY. "Cars that depend heavily on imported parts or are fully imported from the affected countries will likely see price hikes first."
China tariffs more likely to stick
Tariffs on China are more likely to stick than those on Canada and Mexico, Skordeles said. There is precedent for the U.S. imposing tariffs on China that stuck around during Trump's first term and during President Joe Biden's time in office.
American consumers feel less impact of import tariffs at the checkout line if there are domestic substitutions for them, which the U.S. has sometimes been able to find in the past.
At times when there was no substitution for imports, such as iPhones that are assembled abroad, Apple successfully lobbied to make their product exempt from Chinese tariffs.
Contributing: Bailey Schulz
Reach Rachel Barber at rbarber@usatoday.com and follow her on X @rachelbarber_

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

USA Today

time23 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno

Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board

How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president? It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump. The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.' At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages? 'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.' The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company. 'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?'' It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk. There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company. Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company. The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.' To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act. But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.' Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own. But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.'' There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do. 'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said. It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson. 'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Israel says it has retrieved the body of a Thai hostage kidnapped into Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023
Israel says it has retrieved the body of a Thai hostage kidnapped into Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023

The Hill

time38 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Israel says it has retrieved the body of a Thai hostage kidnapped into Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel says it has retrieved the body of a Thai hostage kidnapped into Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023. The Prime Minister's office said Saturday that the body of Thai citizen Nattapong Pinta was returned to Israel in a special military operation. Pinta was kidnapped from Kibbutz Nir Oz and killed in captivity near the start of the war, said the government. Thais were the largest group of foreigners held captive by Hamas militants. This comes a day after the bodies of two Israeli-American hostages were retrieved. Fifty-five hostages remain in Gaza, of whom Israel says more than half are dead.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store