Letters: How could anyone describe Donald Trump's presidency as successful?
Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk stated that a major split among MAGA could 'disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency.' I do not know what world he lives in. I don't know of anyone who would describe Donald Trump's presidency in those terms.
Rather, I see and hear all but the few who are still trying to rally around this divisive, corrupt, inept, lying, felonious, cruel, finger-pointing, bigoted, sloppy man, to name only a few characteristics. I am feeling truly frightened and agitated. He has embarrassed and disappointed us time and again. He has created a nation and, yes, a world, of people who seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid but don't realize it.
Some of us cling to the thought of righting things again in the future — truly making American values a source of pride and leadership that bring respect and calm to ourselves and each other. Albeit, hope is waning. Projection abounds as some people point fingers and assign blame to others when in reality the blame belongs to those projectors. And they know it. They just dig in their heels hoping our existing president will actually deliver on something, anything, of which to be proud.
Supplying Israel with more money and arms ain't it, and under our watch, we contribute to wars and even more division among us. When are the followers going to recognize and admit to having backed the wrong horse?China relishes an Iran with nuclear weapons so they both can intimidate and dominate the Gulf States and the West to allow oil to freely flow to energy-dependent China.
The U.S. with Israel's help must forcibly neutralize Iran's Fordo underground nuclear site, thereby removing Iranian intimidation goals and starving China's oil hunger while giving the Iranian opposition courage to accomplish a regime change from within.
The world must not be threatened by the duplicitous and diabolical tyrants with nuclear weapons and a ballistic missile enterprise.Many voters backed Donald Trump in 2024 because he pledged to put 'America First,' believing he would bring peace through strength to the Middle East. Thus, it's hardly surprising that the incipient conflict with Iran has caused a rift within President Trump's base. Already many of the leading lights of the MAGA movement, both in and out of government, have broken openly with the president. Never before has MAGA looked so close to fragmenting altogether.
Iran is not currently in active pursuit of a nuclear weapon, which Trump's own intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, reaffirmed barely three months ago. As such, the Iranian nuclear 'threat' should be seen for what it is: an almost comically flimsy pretext for military intervention.
In this perilous hour, our nation faces two vital questions: Will the perceived threat of a nuclear Iran really push Trump to war? If yes, will the American public go along with it?
There are many factors standing in the way of war at this time. For starters, the administration simply has not done the preliminary work needed to build support for it. When the George W. Bush administration decided to test conclusions with Iraq in 2003, it didn't simply announce plans to invade. It took months of convincing Congress and the public of the need for intervention, laying out the case and presenting intelligence and analysis (some of it, admittedly, inaccurate). No such effort is being made with Iran, despite the overwhelmingly negative public reaction.
The idea of sending thousands of soldiers into a country of 90 million people on the slim pretext of destroying a (mostly imagined) nuclear weapons program would be a tough sell even under favorable political and strategic conditions. In this particular case — with no clear war aims, no credible casus belli, and none of the preplanning and operational preparation required to mount an invasion — it's unlikely to fly with a war-weary (and war-wary) American public. The political will for such an undertaking simply is not there.
Should the Trump administration actually go through with a quixotic invasion effort, the cost in blood and treasure would doubtless drive a permanent wedge within the MAGA movement. The president must decide whether a war of choice is really worth the price of fragmenting both the movement he built and the support base on which he relies.Remember that time President Donald Trump shared highly sensitive intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office? You can bet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remembers.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Netanyahu hid their plans for their recent successful military strikes against their adversaries from the U.S. president. Smart cookies.
Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are 'smart cookies,' according to our kowtowing president. Now all the smart cookies will keep their plans of attack to themselves while our incompetent boobs share sensitive military strike details on Signal chat texts with their family members and a surprised Atlantic reporter.
Our president no longer wants the United States to be the world's leader in defending democracy. He's too busy dismantling ours (and golfing).I have worked for 50 years in rural Honduras, getting to know those whom President Donald Trump calls 'animals,' 'rapists' and 'murderers.' I fear that the president does not understand who these people are or why they come to our country. Most would rather stay home among family and friends. They cannot do so because American CEOs and politicians have together created trade policies that impoverished their country.
When I started working in Honduras in the 1970s, many rural people grew their own food, especially corn, selling surpluses to buy necessities. They were poor but relatively self-sufficient. There were few signs of malnutrition.
In 2004, Honduras signed on to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which promised expanded opportunities to sell Honduran exports in the U.S. Instead, the country was flooded with cheap U.S. government-subsidized agricultural products. Imported crops, including corn, were now cheaper than locally grown equivalents. Unable to compete, farmers lost their lands. The jobs available in multinational factories paid little and were too few to meet the needs of the growing number of displaced people. Currently, 63% of Hondurans live in poverty; 1 in 4 children younger than 5 are malnourished.
Unable to feed themselves or find work at home, Hondurans seek employment in the country whose trade policies impoverished them. Traveling north is dangerous. Since 1998, at least 8,000 migrants died on the U.S. southern border; more perished on the journey to that crossing. Those who made it live in the shadows, working low-paid jobs harvesting our crops, landscaping our yards and building our homes. Immigrants who are undocumented also commit crimes at much lower rates than citizens. One powerful reason is that they come here to earn money, most of which is sent home to support their families and keep their children in school. Committing crimes would only draw attention to them, speed their deportation and ruin their families.
Some immigrants do commit crimes. The great crime, however, is perpetrated by politicians and business leaders who created a system that greatly advantages corporations over people. That system drives immigrants northward not to cause us harm, but because they have no choice.
Blaming these new arrivals for risking all for the families is cruel and misguided.The media should be focusing on why Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforcers are being attacked. Could it be that the majority of Americans don't want inhumane treatment of those who are being apprehended?
ICE agents can mistreat those they arrest, but those who interfere with such type of treatment are subject to arrest?U.S. Rep. Jesús 'Chuy' García could not be more wrong in his stance on the remittance tax ('Trump's remittance tax is a cruel double-tax on immigrant's dignity,' June 19). If you earn the money in the United States, it should stay here and benefit our economy and our companies. Without this money, other countries would be forced to do better by their people.
We're not talking about a small sum. Remittances to just Mexico were more than $64 billion in 2024. Workers who come here need to come here because they yearn to be Americans, not just for using us as their piggybank. I believe it's one of the primary reasons we have so many immigrants who do not assimilate. They see the U.S. as a temporary fix for their financial troubles and never plan to stay in the first place.
The tax should be higher.This is in response to the letter from Dick DeForte ('Show soldiers respect,' June 20) in which he takes exception to the Tribune providing front-page coverage of the 'un-American' protesters on June 14 and Section 2 coverage of the Army parade of the same day. I was one of those 'un-American' protesters exercising their First Amendment rights in a peaceful manner.
I am an Army veteran, and I took great offense to President Donald Trump staging an Army parade that was nothing more than an ego trip for someone who avoided military service and who has nothing but contempt for the military.Today's political climate encourages extremism, both to the far right and to the far left, and neither functions well in our system of democracy.
Our nation was founded on compromise. It took until 1789 to adopt an acceptable compromise solution among the original states and then to build and adopt our Constitution. The only way it got done was through reasonable compromise between reasonable people.
Both our far right and our far left today regard their views as the only 'correct' ones for our nation, and they are so different that any compromise is unacceptable to them. This has developed into continuous swings and the attendant turmoil we have today. Neither side is doing any favors for our democracy.
What both parties need is moderate leaders and candidates who can work across the aisle and can compromise to come up with reasonable solutions to our issues. Ideally, both sides would experience equal discomfort with any resolution, but the majority of us would find it acceptable. Hopefully, we would also be more stable than today.
It's time for moderation. It's time to abandon the idea that your ideas are the only acceptable ones. It's time to recognize the foundation of an effective democracy and begin working together to find reasonable-compromise solutions.
Our democracy depends upon it.In my opinion, America was always . Our new directive should be 'Make America .' When you think about the majority of people in the United States as being middle class and lower class, our goal should be to make life for the ones who are part of the growth we've already experienced. This group is the reason why we can produce what we do already.
Part of this success has been global trade and immigrants who bring their own talents and personalities to the American table. America is like a mural in which each piece creates a mosaic that is unique in the world. Keeping that mural from disintegrating means affordable housing for all, sustainable wages, and global empathy and compassion, and keeping the world safe through research, communication and environmental security. Everything will fall into place, and all those pieces will become even more beautiful and .
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Donohoe: Pharma Tariffs Could Cost Ireland 75,000 Jobs
00:00 The pharma tariffs is one thing that, you know, President Trump has promised that those will come very soon. He said that last week. That's a sector where we know that Ireland has particular exposure as well. How are you quantifying those risks? How serious do you see that as being potential damage to the Irish economy? So it's very difficult to quantify what the risks could be while a decision has yet to be made regarding what America may do. From a general point of view, The macroeconomic modelling that we've done for the Irish economy would indicate that there could be approximately 75,000 jobs that could be affected by it across the medium term, with 20 to 25 of those affected across next year. And it's indicated that from a growth perspective, there could be 1 to 1 and a half points of growth that we could lose across the medium term. But again, to put that in the context of what our strengths are, with 2.7 million people at work, we have a growth outlook for our economy even now of 2 maybe even more than 2% per year. So those risks could materialise. They will become clearer in the time ahead. But the reason why these companies have part of their global supply chains here in Ireland is because we've the skill, the experience and the competitiveness built up to keep them in our country. And we will look down at how we can maintain that, even if the trade environment around it does begin to change. What sort of tools would you be looking at? I mean, if you're talking about there being a potential of 75,000 job losses? Well, in terms of the job losses, it's not really jobs that could be lost. That could happen. It could also be jobs that might otherwise not be created And again, looking at all of that, we still believe if that were to happen, it will happen at a time in which the number of people at work in Ireland would still be, by our standards, at a historic high. In terms of the decisions that are available to us to respond back. It is many of the matters we're working on at the moment how we can increase investment levels within our economy. If you look at Mike's article in the business post yesterday about Ireland, he talked about our strengths, but he also pointed to the need to invest. He also talked about the need to maintain openness within our economy. And Minister Chambers and I, who, as you know, it's the Minister who focuses a lot on our public expenditure. I looking at the investment decisions we can make in energy and infrastructure in the next few years, that could strengthen our economy at a moment of change so they are the big decisions that we're looking at at the moment.
Atlantic
28 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Five Ways Iran May Respond
'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' Donald Trump posted on Truth Social right after the United States launched a bombing campaign against three sites crucial to the Iranian nuclear program. But Iran gets a vote on whether that time has indeed come, and its leaders are instead vowing 'everlasting consequences.' What happens next in this rapidly expanding war largely depends on what exactly Iran means by that. That's not easy to predict, because the next stage of the conflict now hinges on an Iran facing unprecedented circumstances. The Iranian regime is arguably more enfeebled and imperiled than it has been since the 1979 revolution ushered the Islamic Republic into existence. Even before Israel launched its sweeping military campaign against Iranian nuclear and military targets just over a week ago, it had dramatically degraded two of the three pillars of Iran's defenses: Tehran's regional network of proxy groups (such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon) and its conventional military arsenal (assets like missiles, drones, and air defenses). Now Israel and the United States may have reduced the third pillar—the country's nuclear program and its position at the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons—to smoldering ruins as well. Given these conditions, past behavior by the Iranian regime may not be a reliable indicator of its future actions. Iran's leaders, for example, have developed a reputation for biding their time for months or even years before retaliating against foes, but the speed and scale at which their nuclear program and the regime itself are coming under threat may force their hand. For Iran experts, the north-star assumption tends to be that the regime's overriding priority is ensuring its survival. Viewed through that prism, the Iranian government currently lives in the land of bad options. If Iran responds forcefully to the United States, it could enter an escalatory cycle with the world's leading military power and an archenemy already pummeling it, which in turn could endanger the regime. If Tehran responds in a limited manner or not at all, it could look weak in ways that could also endanger the regime from within (enraged hard-liners) or without (emboldened enemies). 'There are no good options, but Iran still has options,' Sanam Vakil, an expert on Iran and the broader region at the think tank Chatham House, told me. She ticked off the goals of any Iranian retaliation: 'Inflict pain. Transfer the costs of the war outside of Iran. Showcase resilience, survivability.' In my conversations with experts, five potential Iranian moves kept surfacing. 1. Close the Strait of Hormuz Iran could take a big step and use its military to disrupt shipping or even seek to shut down commerce in the Strait of Hormuz, a crowded international waterway near southern Iran through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes. Indeed, in the hours after the U.S. strikes, the Iranian parliament reportedly granted its support for such a measure, though Iran's leadership hasn't yet followed through with action along these lines. Such a move would affect the global economy, driving down financial markets, driving up the price of oil, and inflicting steep costs on economies around the world. It would likely get the attention of the economic-minded American president. But in addition to the fact that the U.S. military might contest such a move, the dispersed pain of this measure could ultimately make it an unattractive option for Iran. The economic shock would boomerang back to Iran, in addition to harming Iran's patron, oil-importing China, as well as oil-exporting Gulf Arab states. In recent years, Iran has been improving its relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—the Saudis even restored diplomatic ties with the Iranians in 2023. The Iranian regime will likely be wary of alienating partners at a time when it is so isolated and diminished. 2. Attack U.S. personnel or interests in the Middle East Iran could also choose, either directly or through what remains of its regional proxy groups, to attack U.S. forces, bases, or other interests in the region. That could include attacks on U.S. personnel or energy-related infrastructure based in Gulf countries allied with the United States, with the latter option serving as another way to induce economic shock. But Tehran's assessment here may be similar to its calculations regarding the Strait of Hormuz. If the Iranians hit targets in the Gulf, that could 'bite the hand that feeds' Iran, Vakil told me. 'They need the Gulf to play a de-escalation role and perhaps a broader regional stabilization role. I think they will try to protect their relationship with the Gulf at all costs.' Vakil deemed it more probable that Iran would strike U.S. targets in nearby countries that don't have close relations with Tehran, such as Iraq, Syria, and Bahrain, which hosts the headquarters of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT). If Iran were to take this approach, much would depend on whether its strikes are relatively restrained—essentially designed to claim that it has avenged the U.S. attack without provoking a major response from Washington—or whether it decides to go bigger, perhaps galvanized by the devastation wrought by the U.S. attacks and the U.S. government's sharp public messaging. 'If the Iranians really strike all of the NAVCENT base in Bahrain,' Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy national-intelligence officer for the Near East who is now my colleague at the Atlantic Council, told me, they may 'open up a world of hurt.' Such an attack might embarrass Trump and spur him to make good on his threat in his address to the nation on Saturday evening to respond to Iran with even greater force. The United States could, for example, hit Iranian oil and gas facilities or other energy sites, army and navy targets, or even political and military leaders. The war in Iran could quickly metastasize into a regional conflict. Consider, as one case study, what transpired after the United States killed the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani during the first Trump administration in 2020. Analysts predicted all sorts of potential Iranian retaliatory measures of various sizes and scales, but Iran ultimately opted for an intense but circumscribed missile attack on the Al-Asad Airbase in Iraq, resulting in no fatalities but more than 100 U.S. personnel with traumatic brain injuries. The Trump administration downplayed the attack and limited its response to imposing more economic sanctions on Iran, and the two countries even swapped messages via the Swiss embassy in Tehran to defuse tensions. 3. Attack U.S. personnel or interests beyond the Middle East An even more escalatory approach would be for Iran to directly attack U.S. targets beyond the region, Panikoff noted, referencing countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Central Asian nations. But he thinks such a move is 'very unlikely' because the Iranians would be taking a 'hugely retaliatory' step and inviting conflict with those countries. 'Having an actual missile attack—say, into Pakistan against the U.S. embassy—would be devastating and shocking,' Panikoff told me, adding that he could envision Iranian leaders doing this only if they believed that the end of their regime was near and they had 'nothing to lose.' Alternatively, the Iranians could revert to more rudimentary, older-school practices of theirs such as directly executing terrorist attacks or sponsoring proxy-group terrorist attacks against U.S., Israeli, or Jewish targets around the world. That 'would be a lower bar' for the Iranians, Panikoff said, and 'is something to be worried about.' 4. Dash toward a nuclear weapon The Iranian regime could draw the lesson from its escalating war with Israel and the United States that only possession of a nuclear weapon can save it. Even before Israel's military operation, Iran seemed to be tentatively moving in the direction of trading its position on the brink of nuclear-weapons power for actual nuclear weapons, which appears to have contributed to the timing of Israel's campaign. But although prior to the war Iran may have been capable of enriching uranium to 90 percent, or weapons-grade, within days or weeks, it was further away—perhaps months or more—from the capability of turning that weapons-grade uranium into a usable nuclear weapon. And now its nuclear program has been seriously degraded, though the extent of the damage isn't yet entirely clear: Iran may have retained its stockpile of enriched uranium. Any push for the bomb could also invite further economic sanctions and military operations against Iran. That makes a race for a nuclear bomb in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, with whatever resources it has left, unlikely, although Iran could take steps short of that such as seeking to develop and possibly use a crude nuclear device, scrambling to rebuild its nuclear program, or withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran will emerge from this war with dead nuclear scientists and destroyed physical nuclear infrastructure, but what will persist in some form is the technical expertise that enabled it to enrich uranium to 60 percent, and that probably can be applied to further enriching the material to weapons-grade, because that isn't much of an additional leap. The longer-term threat of a nuclear Iran is unlikely to be wiped out as long as the current Iranian regime, or any like-minded or even harder-line one, remains in power. 5. St rike a nuclear deal with the United States It may seem like the most improbable scenario, given the bellicosity of Iranian rhetoric, but another potential outcome is that Iran concludes that the regime will be existentially threatened by an escalatory spiral with a militarily superior Israel and the United States and that, beyond a muted response, its next move should be striking a new nuclear deal with the United States that results in the end of the war and the regime in Tehran still in place. But this would require Iran to agree to U.S. conditions that it forswear any nuclear enrichment, to which Iran hasn't given any indication of being amenable. So for the moment, this outcome appears unlikely as well. Iran may want to carefully calibrate its response to the U.S. strikes, but calibration in volatile conflicts isn't always possible. The Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq after Soleimani's killing five years ago may have been smaller than some anticipated, but it has still been described as 'the largest ballistic-missile attack against Americans ever.' Troops later recounted that one soldier in a shelter behind the base's blast walls was nearly blown up by the barrage. Frank McKenzie, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, has estimated that had he not ordered a partial evacuation of the airbase, an additional 100 to 150 Americans might have been wounded or killed. If that had happened, the Trump administration might have responded much more forcefully, which in turn could have sparked further escalation from Iran. The effort to achieve a calibrated response might have produced a full-blown war. All actors in this current war now contemplating their next moves should keep that lesson in mind.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will Tech Tariffs Slow U.S. Growth?
The tariff roller coaster rumbles on, and for American manufacturers, there's no getting off the ride anytime soon. Even with a drastic reduction in duties on China-made goods and a respite from global 'reciprocal' tariffs, the looming threat of taxes on foreign wares will continue to sow confusion. For some footwear, apparel and textile manufacturers based in the United States, tariff turmoil has been a boon to business, and for others, it's resulted in orbiting by brands and retailers that are voicing interest but aren't quite ready to pull the trigger on onshoring. The uncertainty of President Donald Trump's tariff strategy hasn't just paralyzed retail decision-makers, but the supply chain. Without clarity about the future of trade policy, manufacturers are left wondering about when to scale up—and how. More from Sourcing Journal Amazon and FedEx Continue to Up Their Game on AI-Enabled Logistics Robots AGI Denim's Apparel Park: A LEED Platinum Pioneer in Sustainable Denim Manufacturing Tariffs Stall Long Beach Imports, Marking Slowest May Since Pre-Covid Era Much of the U.S. manufacturing landscape, across sectors and applications, relies on advanced, automated technologies that take the place of cobbler's benches and traditional sewing machines. Some next-generation processes, like 3D printing, are on the verge of breaking through as production drivers in the U.S. But all of these activities, new and traditional, rely on machinery, much of which is sourced overseas and, under the current tariff regime, subject to potentially onerous duties. 'There's a combination of issues happening right now. I think uncertainty in the marketplace has stymied some orders from coming to fruition, because people are wondering how the 90-day pause will conclude,' said Kim Glas, president and CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), regarding the opportunities coming to American producers. According to Glas, the rapid evolution of trade policy may be driving up interest in American manufacturing, but it's not providing any clarity for producers that are trying to understand their place in the puzzle. In the absence of a clear path forward, the textile sector is waiting until July 9—the date that the deferral of reciprocal duties concludes—to see 'what kind of market signals' will materialize. NCTO has long been supportive of holding 'trade predators' like China and Vietnam accountable for non-market activities. 'But we have also advocated, including in the first Trump administration, for a few exceptions that we think are critical,' Glas said. Access to state-of-the-art textile manufacturing equipment is necessary to help improve processes at the nation's plants, both in order to drive efficiency and cost-competitiveness. But those upsides come with a hefty price tag. 'It's very expensive,' Glas said. 'When you apply a 10-percent tariff, or another tariff differential, it can make a real difference about whether or not you can afford to reinvest in your operation,' she explained. 'When you do a big capital expenditure like that, you have to amortize those costs over a period of time.' But duty costs are paid upfront. And on a machine that costs tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, even a 10-percent duty could be make-or-break for a small operation. There are significant limitations to such equipment production in the U.S., Glas explained, and the advanced machinery is essential to most modern operations. Devices used for extruding, drawing, texturing or cutting man-made textile materials aren't made stateside. Many of these technologies hail from Europe, and of course, China. Glas stressed the tightness of margins in a price-competitive industry like textiles, where companies are likely to spring for the lowest-cost option. The risk in not having access to advantageous technologies is that foreign operators will gain those capabilities, underscoring their own attractiveness. 'We have to think about this in a holistic way. If the design is to unleash more U.S. investment, we're all for that. We want to see our U.S. textile industry grow and we need the administration's help,' Glas said. 'But there is a recognition across the industry that a lot of the textile machinery is no longer made here, and will not be made here overnight. So we need to have a special dispensation for that.' The NCTO lead said exemptions for production machinery could be written into potential forthcoming trade agreements or tariff regimes, or an exclusion process could be established after tariffs are reinstated (as was the case with Trump 1.0's Section 301 duties on China). Either way, she hopes decisions surrounding solution for American manufacturers are 'expeditious.' 'The tariffs are definitely making the machinery more expensive,' Mitch Cahn, owner of Newark, N.J.-based apparel and gear manufacturer Unionwear, told Sourcing Journal. The producer, which specializes in items like baseball caps and tote bags, imported machinery earlier this year from Canada, before Trump's tariff announcements. 'We didn't make the investment because we expected tariffs, we actually made the investment to ramp up for the U.S.A.'s 250th birthday' in 2026, he said. Cahn anticipates a surge of business surrounding the occasion, along with events like the World Cup and the Olympics. According to the business owner, doubling down on automated machinery (this time, on an apparatus that sews canvas totes) was a matter of necessity. 'We were having a lot of difficulty hiring more sewers; the pool was dry,' he said. 'We had to invest in machinery to make up the gap between what we were doing and what we want to be able to do next year.' The tote bag machinery, when it's operating at full speed, will do the work of 44 people with a single operator. 'We're still ramping up; the goal is to have it probably operating 18 to 20 hours a day by the end of the year,' he said. 'We didn't do it to speed up or save money. We just did it because there was really no way for us to grow linearly—not even exponentially,' he explained. 'There's no way for us to keep adding sewers to our operation, so we need it.' These planned investments in technology aren't a bid to replace human headcount with machines—in fact, Unionwear is holding on tight to the sewers that it employs. One prevailing issue inhibiting the growth of American manufacturing is the lack of a pipeline for skilled, affordable labor. The group has plans to automate other production processes, and is in talks with American manufacturers for those projects. Since the reciprocal duties on more than 60 countries were announced, Unionwear has seen a 'considerable' increase in interest and sales, Cahn said. 'If the tariffs are here to stay, the return is actually going to be much greater than it would have been without the tariffs,' he said of the investment in new technology. 'And the reason for that—and it's something we didn't expect—is the possibility that with automation, we actually can be competitive with import prices that have tariffs on them.' Cahn said that even if the Canadian-made machinery was tariffed at the 25-percent rate that Trump originally threatened, the company still would have made the buy. 'It really opens up a much bigger market for us,' he added. Kuba Graczyk, founder of Los Angeles-based 3D-printed footwear startup Koobz, agreed that investments in automation are key to expansion as a U.S. producer. The group, which prints mono-material, single-piece shoes, currently operates 60 3D printers and is building out a factory in Ventura, Calif. that Graczyk said will house 4,000 printers at the end of the next two years. This will give the startup the ability to churn out 'a couple million pairs of shoes a year,' he estimates. Since April 2—Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day'—business has picked up, he added. 'Customers who were actively working with us decided to substantially accelerate, customers who were just, like, looking at this as something interesting decided to launch projects with us to see where it could go instead of being hesitant,' Graczyk said. 'And those folks who ghosted me suddenly decided, 'Hey, let's get on that again.'' 'Of course, it tapered down' over the course of the ensuing weeks, which saw reductions in duties on China-made goods, deferrals on all reciprocal duties and a trade deal with the United Kingdom, among other trade developments. 'But out of all of this interest, we were able to create an amazing pipeline which is wired long-term, because one of our gauging questions was, 'If the tariffs get back to [what they were previously] would you still work with us?'' Koobz has decided only to take on business with partners that have a long-term plan for onshoring and budget allocated to the effort. But scaling up from 60 to 4,000 3D printers—which Graczyk said ring in at about $600 apiece—will require significant capital expenditure. While the price tag on the devices is modest, a tariff will add to it, and the group is looking to scale aggressively in a short period of time. Koobz looked into 3D printer options made outside of China, and found that the models made stateside as well as in Europe cost more and came equipped with fewer, less-advanced features. 'There are other sources than China. In Europe, there's still a handful companies that can manufacture equipment of that sophistication, at that scale—maybe not as good, maybe a little bit different architecture,' Graczyk said. But beyond price and performance, the factory owner is also looking to develop a smart and resilient supply chain, starting with machinery. One way to foster this could be to diversify sourcing for machines, but there would be differences between the units and the way they operate, as well as possible differences in quality and output. 'We are fortunate enough that we haven't pulled the trigger on any anybody yet, but we are at risk of slowing down because we would rather take more time to de-risk this as much as possible; to slow our progress instead of building while still thinking about where to source,' he said. 'We know we have to build a system which is very flexible.' Koobz is having discussions with 3D printer manufacturers about the potential of nearshoring printer production to free-trade-agreement countries like Mexico, and some are already considering doing so. 'Short-term, I'm not super worried about securing our next year's growth, because the printers that we're using for the current stage of products are already in the U.S., in distributor warehouses,' he said. 'We've already purchased some of them, so there's some frontloading of this equipment. But thinking forward, we need to add multiple colors, multiple materials—those machines are a little bit more sophisticated, and inventory of those doesn't exist.' The already-bought machines and those available onshore will float the company through to the last quarter of 2026, he believes. After that, Koobz will 'have to start solving the puzzle' of where to source the technology that powers its operations. 'Who are we going with for the next stage of building? Are we keeping the same equipment, the same manufacturer, buying higher-tier machines from them—or are we switching to something else because of the tariffs?' To Graczyk, there are bigger concerns than the added financial burden caused by the import taxes. It's the breakdown in the U.S.-China trade relationship—and the inkling that it could get worse, not better—that gives him pause about eating the cost of potential duties and sticking with Chinese suppliers. 'We already figured out how to work it out with the previous tariffs, the 145 percent, because [the printers] generate so much margin and profits that we can absorb [the tariff cost],' he said. But he worries about a 'complete decoupling' of the world's two biggest economies. 'We believe our business model supports the investment in this equipment, even with those outrageous tariffs, but the biggest threat is to business continuity; whether our business needs can be met long-term with companies based in China,' he added. But machines manufactured outside of China, too, will be subject to trade barriers—even those made in nations the U.S. considers allies. Desma, which crafts direct-injection molding machines used by the footwear industry in Germany, has also felt the impacts of tariff talk. While goods from the country face only a 10-percent duty rate (for now), the intense swings in the administration's tariff strategy are not doing anything to propel what was already a sustained and healthy trend toward onshoring, according to regional sales manager Marco Schafer. 'Many people consider options and discuss scenarios, but we have not experienced a rush into investing into manufacturing capabilities, and going at it full-steam,' he said. 'And I think people are right to be cautious, because you just saw what happened with China—you went from next to nothing to over 100 percent. Now they're back to 30 percent, and it's questionable if that has any effect whatsoever, or if the market will eventually just absorb those costs and not much will change.' Schafer said footwear firms have been eager to bring some portion of their manufacturing closer to home for at least three or four years, and those that understand the business case for doing so didn't need tariffs to push them over the finish line. 'It's not so much the Made in USA label; there are some hard economic figures' that underscore the appetite for reshoring. 'You are in the market you're selling in, so your logistics are shortened. The other thing is capital—if you order container loads of goods from Asia, your capital is tied up for quite a long time, whereas if you manufacture here and you have shorter lead times, your cash flow is actually improved.' But it's a decision every company has to make for itself, and much of it has to do with modeling costs versus output. 'A simplified view: you realistically have to make at least 500 pairs of the same or similar product in a day, in a one-shift operation, to even be able to consider an investment into automation,' he believes. Desma's 'bread and butter'—direct injection molding machines—allow footwear manufacturers to produce foam midsoles for performance shoes and sneakers. The largest, most advanced model can churn out 1,500 to 2,000 pairs per day. All told, it's a big investment, with machines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ergo, the footwear manufacturers who are intent on scaling operations using these machines aren't doing so on a whim. 'All the major projects we're working on—whether those are already projects we have on order, or projects we hope to have on order soon—they all originated in 2024,' Schafer said. 'Those projects don't happen overnight; the machines and calculations are complex, so you have to really be sure that you believe in your product and in your forecast.' In short, tariffs are generating interest, but they're not turning the tides for makers of advanced machinery. Even if an American footwear firm decided today that the unstable trade environment necessitated a sea change in sourcing strategy, they couldn't fast-track that shift. 'We're dealing with six-to-seven-month lead times after we after we get an order, but to get the right configuration of the equipment, whether it's a machine or automation line, you're easily involved with engineering six to 12 months before a company is ready to place a [purchase order]. These are often two-year projects,' he said. 'People know that if they get into this field, it's a big commitment.' There are myriad other factors in the equation, from availability of raw materials (many of which are still sourced from Asia or Europe), to staffing (workers must be trained on robotics and electronics), and facilities, which must be equipped to support the machinery and its output. 'All that needs to be put into consideration,' Schafer added. 'And therefore, the whole tariff thing—yes, it triggered some discussions, but no active projects as of yet.' That could change with more clarity about the future of America's trade relationships. Of the volatility of the past two months, Schafer said, 'We hope that the worst is behind us, and that after the loud time comes the time of more quiet negotiations behind closed doors.' This article ran in SJ's Tech Report. To download the full report, click here. 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
