Inflation holds steady as data shows how prices are faring after Trump's ‘Liberation Day' tariffs
Inflation held steady last month, according to data that gives the first glimpse of how prices are faring since President Donald Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs.
Consumer prices rose 0.1 percent on a monthly basis in May, while annual inflation stood at 2.4 percent, according to the Department of Labor's consumer price index.
The report captures the period after Trump unveiled his global reciprocal tariffs in April and provides some insight as to whether businesses are bearing the brunt of the duties themselves or passing them on to customers.
Analysts predicted to see a bigger increase, but some still warn the future is uncertain because tariffs keep changing.
'So far, inflation risks from higher tariffs are subdued,' Win Thin, global head of markets strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman, told Bloomberg. 'Nonetheless, US protectionist trade policy and uncertainty about the ultimate level of tariffs are downside risks to growth and upside risk to inflation. Bottom line: the fundamental USD downtrend is intact.'
Since Trump announced his global reciprocal tariffs and the stock market was spooked, many of the duties were paused. However, 10 percent tariffs for most countries remain.
Inflation has been slow to respond to the tariffs as most retailers are selling merchandise accumulated before the import duties took effect.
Economists said that the reduction in the scale of some trade tariffs may have 'helped to restrain cost increases thus far,' Wells Fargo's Sarah House and Nicole Cervi said. 'That said, as the higher tariff regime persists, shielding consumers from the costs is likely to become more challenging,' the economists added.
'Only a few goods prices likely rose as a result of the new tariffs in May,' Pantheon Macroeconomics economists Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen said in a note, Bloomberg reports. 'June will be a different story — while some providers of discretionary services probably cut prices or kept them low to sustain demand.'
Walmart warned customers last month that they could see price rises because of the trade tariffs. The retailer's chief financial officer John David Rainey said that the tariffs are 'still too high.'
'It's more than any supplier can absorb. And so I'm concerned that consumer is going to start seeing higher prices,' he said. 'You'll begin to see that, likely towards the tail end of this month, and then certainly much more in June.'
Reuters contributed reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liberals under fire for rushing bill through Parliament to speed up resource projects
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney's government is coming under fire for seeking to rush through a major piece of legislation that grants cabinet sweeping powers to quickly approve major projects. Government House leader Steven MacKinnon put a motion on notice Thursday that would push Bill C-5 through the House of Commons by the end of next week — leaving just one day to hear from civil society groups, stakeholders and experts. Critics charge the move is anti-democratic. In a fiery exchange in question period, Bloc Québécois House Leader Christine Normandin accused Prime Minister Mark Carney of trying to "steamroll" a bill through the House that would greatly expand his own powers. "The prime minister has no right to impose C-5 under closure when the bill gives him exceptional powers unlike anything that we've seen before," she said in French. "Is that the prime minister's intention, to bypass Parliament and govern by decree like Donald Trump?' MacKinnon pushed back by saying "Canadians and Quebecers spoke loud and clear" in the last election for action to shore up the economy, in part due to the illegal trade war initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump. "We are acting in a democratic way," he said, noting the bill delivers on election promises laid out clearly in the Liberal platform. The bill includes controversial provisions that could allow cabinet to skirt existing processes and laws to fast-track approvals for projects the government deems to be in the national interest. The government aims to streamline disparate processes to limit approval timelines for big projects to a maximum of two years, boosting investor confidence. When asked about the timeline at a press conference Thursday, Energy Minister Tim Hodgson said the legislation needs to pass quickly to shore up an economy being undermined by Trump's tariffs. "We have a trade war that is affecting sector after sector after sector. Canadians' jobs are at risk. Canadians' livelihoods are at risk. And quite frankly, the prosperity of the country is at risk," Hodgson said. But NDP MP Leah Gazan said in the House of Commons foyer Thursday that the bill isn't going to build the economy out because it will trigger a series of court challenges. She called on the government to extend the time frame of the public study and do more to consult with Indigenous Peoples — something she said got shortchanged in the bill. "I'm calling on the prime minister to slow it down, to not rush a bill that has this much consequence through in five days," she said. Hodgson pointed to support for the bill from the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, which represents more than 100 First Nations seeking to have their own projects advanced, and said he is consulting privately with stakeholders. "I can tell you I've got multiple conversations going on with different rights holders and business leaders as part of my department's efforts to ensure that consultation is robust," he said. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty said there will be a meeting between the Prime Minister's Office and First Nations leaders, citing the wildfires as one reason it has been delayed. "I also want to acknowledge that because there are many communities in a critical state of wildfire and evacuation, that time will be taken to have that dialog," she said. "I know that it is the intention of the Prime Minister's Office to sit down with First Nation's leadership directly and to have the economic discussion and hear from them." But Anna Johnston, staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, said the drive to push the bill through quickly is "incredibly concerning" because the government has done "very little engagement" so far on such a major piece of legislation. "The biggest concern is that it's going to give cabinet the power to approve projects before they have any information about them beyond what the proponent has decided to give the government," she said. "There's a reason why we have decisions at the end of environmental assessments and regulatory processes. It's so that governments can make informed decisions about projects that have the potential to harm Canadians and to harm the environment." Stuart Trew, a senior researcher with the left-leaning think tank Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said the bill is "destined to end up in court" and "really bump up against the government's commitments to reconciliation with First Nations." "It seems geared to let the government ram projects through, without adequate study, without all the usual considerations about the impacts on endangered species," he said. "We should raise our eyebrows any time a government claims a national emergency in order to rush through legislation with implications as significant as this does." The legislation also looks to break down internal trade barriers and make it easier for workers to take jobs in other provinces. MacKinnon rejected a call from the Bloc Québécois this week to split the landmark legislation in two. That would have allowed the House to speed through the less contentious internal trade provisions while putting the controversial major projects portion under the microscope. Carney has vowed repeatedly to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers by Canada Day, 19 days from now. The House has been sitting for just three weeks and is currently scheduled to rise next week on June 20. MacKinnon said in a scrum on Wednesday that he has not tried to get consensus from the other parties to have the House sit any later. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 12, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jobless claims data, broadening stock gains: Market Takeaways
US stocks (^DJI, ^IXIC, ^GSPC) closed Thursday's session in positive territory after the latest inflation data and President Trump announcing plans for unilateral tariffs against trade partners. Yahoo Finance senior markets reporter Josh Schafer examines several of the prominent market themes in the trading day, including this week's initial jobless claims and the broadening of the market's outperformance across sectors. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Asking for a Trend here.
Politico
33 minutes ago
- Politico
White House looks to freeze more agency funds — and expand executive power
The Trump administration is working on a new effort to both weaken Congress' grip on the federal budget and freeze billions of dollars in spending at several government agencies, people familiar with the strategy told POLITICO's E&E News. The strategy: order agencies to freeze the spending now — then ask Congress' approval, using a maneuver that allows the cuts to become permanent if lawmakers fail to act. The move would ax billions of dollars beyond the $9.4 billion in White House-requested cuts, known as 'rescissions,' that the House approved Thursday. The Office of Management and Budget late last week directed several agencies to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to agency emails and two people familiar with the plan. The architect of the freeze directive, OMB Director Russ Vought, has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — first reported by E&E News — appears designed to test those boundaries. The agencies targeted by the newest freeze include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services. E&E News granted anonymity to the two people familiar with the strategy so they could speak freely without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration. OMB's targets include NSF research and education programs that operate using funding leftover from 2024. Also on the list are tens of millions of dollars for national park operations as well as more than $100 million in science spending at NASA, which includes climate research. While the president has some measure of control over how federal agencies spend their money, the power of the purse lies primarily with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Put another way: Lawmakers set the budget. Vought is trying to turn that principle on its head. The order to freeze some funding at more than a dozen agencies comes in advance of a budget spending 'deferrals' package that the White House plans to send Congress. Spending deferrals allow the executive branch to temporarily prevent authorized dollars from going out the door — but only if lawmakers sign off on the move. Freezing the spending before making that request seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, said Joseph Carlile, former associate director at OMB in the Biden administration. 'There is a right, a legal way, for the administration to rescind things and I guess they're pursuing this because they don't have their stuff together or don't care about the law,' said Carlile, who also worked previously on budgetary oversight on the House Appropriations Committee for 13 years. 'This is consistent with an administration that believes that they have broader powers around budget and spending than any other administration has ever been able to find,' Carlile added. White House officials did not deny the new strategy when asked about it. Rather, they described it as a way to lock in spending cuts prescribed by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting outfit championed by Trump donor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Yet the White House has worked to keep the effort quiet, said one person in the administration with direct knowledge of the strategy. The person said the White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail. Vought has said repeatedly he disagrees with the impoundment act, a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Democrats and legal scholars have said Trump already has violated the law. 'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN in an interview on June 1. The separate $9.4 billion rescissions package that the House approved Thursday would permanently cut funding for NPR and PBS as well as foreign aid. Vought has said he expects to send more rescissions packages to Congress. Vought's multipronged strategy also is likely to include a 'pocket rescissions' strategy, by which the White House intentionally runs out the clock near the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. If the president introduces a recissions package then, Congress has a limited time to act — and if it does not do so, the funds slated for elimination are automatically canceled. The White House may use the pocket rescissions strategy if the $9.4 billion rescissions package does not pass both chambers of Congress, the administration person said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered on Labor Department spending. The deferrals package is a third strategy — and it comes ahead of an expected congressional fight on lifting the debt ceiling before the end of the summer. It would essentially pause or significantly slow funding intentionally, until it can be crafted into a separate pocket rescissions package that can run down the clock and be made permanent. Under the impoundment law, the White House can ask Congress to defer some of its budget spending authority 'to provide for contingencies' or 'to achieve savings' through efficiency gains. The White House is planning to argue that hitting the debt ceiling — a borrowing limit imposed and periodically raised by Congress — is such a contingency. The nation is expected to reach the debt ceiling by the end of August. The White House strategy is to delay or block funds now, then craft an additional rescissions package later in the year that would make such cuts permanent. 'OMB is hard at work making the DOGE cuts permanent using a wide range of tools we have at our disposal under the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] and within the President's authority— just like the first rescissions package that was sent up to the Hill this week,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a statement Monday. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.' The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the person with direct knowledge of the move. It could also be a 'trial balloon' to see whether the White House can unilaterally block future spending if Trump administration officials object, said another person at an agency that would be affected. The move appears to be a significant escalation of Vought's efforts to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought's strategy is to rely on Section 1013 of the act, which grants the president the authority to freeze spending if the administration explains its actions to lawmakers. The act originally allowed one chamber of Congress to reject presidential deferrals, a power that courts rejected. As a result, the law was amended in 1987 to limit how long presidents could delay spending and under what conditions. 'It does not appear that any measures to disapprove a deferral have been considered since these amendments were made,' the Congressional Research Service said in a February report on the impoundment law. Vought has long argued that impounding some congressionally appropriated funding is constitutional, and he has said he wants the Supreme Court to validate what would be a significant weakening of congressional oversight of the federal budget. The deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress would temporarily stop agencies from spending unobligated funds that remain at the end of the government's fiscal year on Sept. 30. The broad-based deferrals package is highly unusual and could be part of his strategy to take his fight for greater executive power to the Supreme Court, said Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and author of the book 'The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking.' 'It is a novel approach, but I think in the end, they really want this to go to the Supreme Court,' Joyce said. 'They think they know how the Supreme Court is going to rule and once the Supreme Court opens the door, you know, it's kind of high noon for the separation of powers, which is what they want.' Last week, OMB officials reached out to federal agencies to tell them to enact the spending freeze. Some agency officials were 'shocked' at the move, according to the administration official with direct knowledge of the plan. The head of the National Science Foundation's budget office didn't know what to make of the directive, according to an email obtained by E&E News. OMB is targeting the agency's research and education 'accounts for a deferral package,' NSF Budget Director Caitlyn Fife wrote last Friday in a note to top officials. 'I imagine you will all have questions, as do we,' she said. 'However we are immediately focused on pulling the funds back to ensure there are no further commitments or obligations.' An NSF official briefed on the spending freeze said offices relying on previous-year funding could see their 'programs gutted.' The official also predicted that if OMB's ploy succeeds, it will use deferrals to impound any congressionally directed spending the administration opposes. That means the deferrals package strategy is likely the start of a significant and questionable push to expand executive power, said Carlile, the former OMB associate director. He said the White House is essentially seeking to subvert the Constitution, which grants Congress spending authority, in such an extreme way that it threatens the nation's democratic structure. 'I think it upends a fundamental check and balance contemplated in our Constitution, and I don't understand how you subordinate Congress' power of the purse,' Carlile said. Federal spending decisions are 'a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions,' he added. 'And this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
